ANWR vote as early as today

[Jim]

This is just lame-o.

 

What this country needs is an energy strategy worthy of the enormous energy-related problems it faces: global warming, soaring energy costs and dependency on Middle East oil among them. Opening up the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drill for oil and gas is not such a strategy. Yet that is the road the Bush administration is headed down once again.

 

At the administration's request, Senate Republicans have put a drilling provision into a budget resolution that could be voted on this week. Since budget resolutions can't be filibustered, Republicans need only a simple majority, 51 votes, to open up a wilderness that has been off limits to commercial exploitation since the Carter administration.

 

That tactic has not worked in the past. The Republicans came close in 1995, passing a budget with a drilling provision in it that President Bill Clinton vetoed, precipitating a government shutdown. They think they have the votes again this year, and this time they have a president only too eager to sign it.

 

In recent weeks, the administration has mounted a full-court press. Gale Norton, the interior secretary, and Samuel Bodman, the new energy secretary, recently toured the refuge with newer members of Congress, whose votes could be decisive.

 

In addition to the familiar economic arguments - that the refuge is America's last great untapped source of domestic oil and is crucial to its competitiveness - Ms. Norton emphasized one other line of thought, which she spelled out yesterday in an Op-Ed article in The Times. It is that drilling technology has advanced to the point where we are capable of extracting billions of barrels of oil without harming the refuge's fragile ecology or abundant wildlife.

 

Environmentalists beg to disagree. Where Ms. Norton sees undisturbed tundra, they see hundreds of miles of pipelines, roads and drilling platforms, which would fragment wildlife habitats and corrupt a wilderness that, according to recent polls, a majority of Americans wish to leave undisturbed. We have expressed such reservations ourselves. But what troubles us most about President Bush's fixation on drilling is what it says about the shallowness of his energy policy.

 

The numbers tell the story. The United States Geological Survey's best guess is that even at today's record-high prices - in excess of $50 a barrel - just under 7 billion barrels could profitably be brought to market. That's less than the 7.3 billion barrels this country now consumes in a year. At peak production - about 1 million barrels a day in 2020 or 2025 - the refuge would supply less than 4 percent of the country's projected daily needs.

 

Any number of modest efficiencies could achieve the same result without threatening the refuge. Simply closing the so-called S.U.V. loophole - making light trucks as efficient over all as ordinary cars - would save a million barrels a day. Increasing fuel-economy standards for cars by about 50 percent, to 40 miles per gallon, a perfectly reasonable expectation, would save 2.5 million barrels a day. And bipartisan commissions have offered even bigger ideas: tax credits to help automakers produce a whole new generation of fuel-efficient cars, for instance, or an aggressive biofuels program that would seek to replace one-quarter of the gasoline we use for cars with substitutes from agricultural products.

 

These programs would yield benefits - less dependency on foreign sources, a decrease in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - long after the last drop of oil had been extracted from the refuge.

 

Mr. Bush mentioned some of these ideas in a speech last week, but only in passing. His main emphasis was not on reducing demand, but on increasing supply by opening the refuge. That is where this administration has been ever since Dick Cheney's energy report of 2001. It was the wrong place to be then, and it is the wrong place now.

[JoshK]

Even though I oppose drilling in ANWR, i might at least be able to understand the opposition's support for it if there was more than a trivial amount of oil to be gained. I mean, if it provided 10 years of oil, I could see their point, but for less than a years worth of oil? How worthless...it just makes very little sense other than providing some profits for a few oil companies. Oh wait, now it does make sense...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Even though I oppose drilling in ANWR, i might at least be able to understand the opposition's support for it if there was more than a trivial amount of oil to be gained. I mean, if it provided 10 years of oil, I could see their point, but for less than a years worth of oil?

 

They don't know how much oil is actually there - it's all guestimated.

 

As for the fragile environment of ANWR - what about the fragile desert ecosystem of Arabia? NIMBY strikes again...

 

[AlpineK]

So what you're saying is that we should drill in ANWR and send a division or two of soldiers to Saudi Arabia to take their desert land as a wilderness area.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

So what you're saying is that we should drill in ANWR and send a division or two of soldiers to Saudi Arabia to take their desert land as a wilderness area.

 

What I'm saying is that I've never heard a loud-mouthed eco-nut ever say one damn word about the (supposedly huge) negative environmental impacts of oil drilling around the world. Only in relation to ANWR and off-shore drilling in California.

 

And regarding Iraq, let's not forget the environmental destruction caused by Saddam following the Gulf War when he lit up all the Kuwaiti wells. And let's not forget how he destroyed the marshes of the Tigris and Euphrates. Not a peep from those supposedly concerned with the environment - a strong indicator of their pretense of environmental concern, a thin veneer over purely partisan, knee-jerk, political predispostions.

 

The ANWR debate is just another thing for lefties to bandy around in their discontent.

[cj001f]

What I'm saying is that I've never heard a loud-mouthed eco-nut ever say one damn word about the (supposedly huge) negative environmental impacts of oil drilling around the world. Only in relation to ANWR and off-shore drilling in California.

ANWR and the California coast have a wealth of environmental life compared to the Sahara, Patagonian steppe, West Texas, among other wonderful places people toil for oil. Nice try KK.

 

Supposedly huge impacts? Go to a fucking oil field sometime and tell me if you see animals playing on the derricks and swimming in the spillage pools

[AlpineK]

I'm with you lets develope a strike force to make countries establish wilderness areas. It's our duty.

 

Either that or we could raise the fleet mpgs of vehicles in which case we could free up more oil than is in ANWR and thus save the Saudi desert.

 

Sorry, I'm sure it's better to subsidise big companies to drill in wilderness areas...clearly that's the best use of taxpayers dollars.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

ANWR and the California coast have a wealth of environmental life compared to the Sahara, Patagonian steppe, West Texas, among other wonderful places people toil for oil.

 

Gee, that's not the impression I got from watching PBS specials about the diverse life of the deserts around the world, and their fragile ecosystems.

 

Nice try KK.

 

Yeah, you really showed me. Your claims must be true, 'cos you said so...

 

Supposedly huge impacts? Go to a fucking oil field sometime and tell me if you see animals playing on the derricks and swimming in the spillage pools

 

And yet you are so dismissive of the impact on the fragile deserts of Arabia. Tsk tsk tsk.

 

And must it be so? I think not. Just because it's done that way in Tejas, doesn't mean it must be done that way, assuming your claims are true (a big ASSumption)...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

...we could raise the fleet mpgs of vehicles in which case we could free up more oil than is in ANWR and thus save the Saudi desert.

 

We don't know how much oil is in ANWR. There may be significantly more - or less - than is hypothesized.

 

I'm all for raising cafe standards, but that doesn't solve any problem long-term. The developing world will want more and more oil, and our population and energy consumption will only go up.

 

Sorry, I'm sure it's better to subsidise big companies to drill in wilderness areas...clearly that's the best use of taxpayers dollars.

 

Let's have an open bid for the work. Or just give it to the French - then you'd probably be all for it.

[Bill_Simpkins]

Supply and demand. Too many people.

Fact is, there are only two solutions, and that is for everone in the world to stop having babies, cold turkey, for the next 50 years, or for utilization to drop with slow population decrease. You can conserve all the land you want, but the business will just take itself somewhere else because the resources to support this many people doesn't come from Santas Claus under the tree every year. If we use oil, we should at least be willing to accept the consequences, which may involve sacrificing our own wilderness. I hate it, but it is a fact that resources have to come from somewhere, and if the trend continues, will eventually come from everywhere it is available on the Earth. There will be no such thing as conservation, just delaying. Complaining about drilling in AK is a huge waste of time. It does nothing to solve the problem.

Focusing on population and utilization could show long term results.

Let me repeat for all of you:

If we don't curve population or utilization, we will have to go EVERYWHERE on the Earth for resources just to survive.

It's the old Fox-Squirrel and Rabbit model some of us learned in Differential Equations. All the other stuff is ruled out by the bigger picture.

If we don't bring things back to the equilibrium point, the Earth will do it for us. What do you want? That is the choice we are faced with.

[willstrickland]

Actually KascadskyNutsack, there has been a long-standing and well documented outcry over the dike/leveee system Saddam installed that drained those wetlands among both Iraqi and international environmentalists/ecologists/conservationists.

 

The fact that you haven't heard "a peep from those supposedly concerned with the environment" has more to do with the media's choice of emphasis and your lack of an inclination to read arabic language scientific journals rather than environmentalists' lack of concern. Unless, of course you actually spend your days around professional wetland biologists, ecologists, etc, something I highly doubt. In fact, the area is currently being reflooded and resident "marsh arabs" are already returning to the area.

 

Your claim that it is "a strong indicator of their pretense of environmental concern, a thin veneer over purely partisan, knee-jerk, political predispostions" is naive, arrogant, and nothing more than a right-wing caricature of the far left enviro crowd.

 

Do you believe your own tripe or does Rove send you the talking points every month?

[Dru]

Actually there is a disconnect here

 

The world can support a much higher population - at a lower level of consumption.

 

On the other hand to maintain the current global population, using resources at the current North American level per capita, will only take 4 more Earths. Look out Mars here comes the drill.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Supply and demand. Too many people.

Fact is, there are only two solutions, and that is for everone in the world to stop having babies, cold turkey, for the next 50 years, or for utilization to drop with slow population decrease. You can conserve all the land you want, but the business will just take itself somewhere else because the resources to support this many people doesn't come from Santas Claus under the tree every year. If we use oil, we should at least be willing to accept the consequences, which may involve sacrificing our own wilderness. I hate it, but it is a fact that resources have to come from somewhere, and if the trend continues, will eventually come from everywhere it is available on the Earth. There will be no such thing as conservation, just delaying. Complaining about drilling in AK is a huge waste of time. It does nothing to solve the problem.

Focusing on population and utilization could show long term results.

Let me repeat for all of you:

If we don't curve population or utilization, we will have to go EVERYWHERE on the Earth for resources just to survive.

It's the old Fox-Squirrel and Rabbit model some of us learned in Differential Equations. All the other stuff is ruled out by the bigger picture.

 

Well said. We are in a fine mess.

[Dru]

Population is already curving. In 1995 the global population was supposedly going to hit 10 billion in 2010. The current forecast is for 10 billion MAYBE in 2050. Give it another 10 years and they'll probably be saying 9 billion max.

 

China is currently planning for a massive crunch, a 2025 family of two working adults supporting one child, four nonworking parents and up to eight nonworking grandparents. Ouch.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Population is already curving. In 1995 the global population was supposedly going to hit 10 billion in 2010. The current forecast is for 10 billion MAYBE in 2050. Give it another 10 years and they'll probably be saying 9 billion max.

 

China is currently planning for a massive crunch, a 2025 family of two working adults supporting one child, four nonworking parents and up to eight nonworking grandparents. Ouch.

 

yes, and in Europe population is actually decreasing, if I recall correctly (although the figures I read might be excluding immigration).

[Bill_Simpkins]

Even at current levels, the Earth can't support this population with the current utilization rates.

China' laws are marginally effective. Many families still have than one child there. The population is curving in the U.S. for the better, but is it fast enough to compensate for current utilization? We are using more and more resources per year per person.

Something has to give.

My evidence IS that we are looking more places for resources. If there wasn't a concern about current resources, we wouldn't be so concerned about it, dig?

In my opinion, the government isn't as stupid as we think it is. They obviously have had much thought about what they feel needs to be done. This issue has been dragging on for years, through different administrations. It is past politics. The brainiacs informing the decision makers obviously are concerned about resources.

i don't like our president, but I do think that the statement saying he will make scienced based policies is a good one. I say this because following the reccomendations based on science, not emotions, will lead to a solution, if there is one. We can't blamed GWB for the destruction of the Earth because WE DRIVE CARS AND EAT AND SHIT EVERYDAY!

 

We HAVE gotten ourselves into a FINE mess. Some problems in life can't be solved easily, sometimes it takes drastic measures, like cutting the rope. The longer we wait, the harder the fall.

[Dru]

In my opinion, the government isn't as stupid as we think it is.

 

Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy too?

[Jim]

i don't like our president, but I do think that the statement saying he will make scienced based policies is a good one.

 

Talk about tooth faries.

[Dechristo]

... following the reccomendations based on science, not emotions, will lead to a solution...

 

You forget a human characteristic fundamental to emotion: greed.

 

The oil-based governmantal & industrial engines of this planet will not choose to change to another energy source, however scientifically superior, until econonmic wealth, corporately and individually, is assured.

 

Saw an inventor on Carson's Tonight Show back in the early '80's display an engine that was powered, in a rotary manner, by the opposing poles of many magnets. His device was smaller than a four-cylinder automotive engine. When allowed to run, the "magnet motor" powered a 5KW generator which powered all the lights in the building without a grunt. A brake was required to keep this engine from running non-stop. The only oil this engine required was for its bearings. The inventor told Carson the U.S. patent office refused to give him a patent as they were not awarded for designs of "perpetual-motion" machines.

 

I've never heard of the inventor, nor his invention, again.

 

[JoshK]

Hey Khasikmoron, have you ever thought that maybe the reason has more to do with the fact that the ANWR is our land and the deserts of the middle east are not? It's not a matter of which is worth preserving (though I think 99% of the people would choose northern Alaska over Saudi Arabian desert) but more a matter of what we can preserve.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

have you ever thought that maybe the reason has more to do with the fact that the ANWR is our land and the deserts of the middle east are not?

 

Hey shit for brains - that's what I said in the first place: NIMBY

[Dru]

... following the reccomendations based on science, not emotions, will lead to a solution...

 

You forget a human characteristic fundamental to emotion: greed.

 

The oil-based governmantal & industrial engines of this planet will not choose to change to another energy source, however scientifically superior, until econonmic wealth, corporately and individually, is assured.

 

Saw an inventor on Carson's Tonight Show back in the early '80's display an engine that was powered, in a rotary manner, by the opposing poles of many magnets. His device was smaller than a four-cylinder automotive engine. When allowed to run, the "magnet motor" powered a 5KW generator which powered all the lights in the building without a grunt. A brake was required to keep this engine from running non-stop. The only oil this engine required was for its bearings. The inventor told Carson the U.S. patent office refused to give him a patent as they were not awarded for designs of "perpetual-motion" machines.

 

I've never heard of the inventor, nor his invention, again.

 

 

conspiracy theory. if there was a free energy source people would already be using it. its more effective to patent it and screw the public than to block it anyway

[Bronco]

Drill it!

[Bill_Simpkins]

... following the reccomendations based on science, not emotions, will lead to a solution...

 

You forget a human characteristic fundamental to emotion: greed.

 

The oil-based governmantal & industrial engines of this planet will not choose to change to another energy source, however scientifically superior, until econonmic wealth, corporately and individually, is assured.

 

Saw an inventor on Carson's Tonight Show back in the early '80's display an engine that was powered, in a rotary manner, by the opposing poles of many magnets. His device was smaller than a four-cylinder automotive engine. When allowed to run, the "magnet motor" powered a 5KW generator which powered all the lights in the building without a grunt. A brake was required to keep this engine from running non-stop. The only oil this engine required was for its bearings. The inventor told Carson the U.S. patent office refused to give him a patent as they were not awarded for designs of "perpetual-motion" machines.

 

I've never heard of the inventor, nor his invention, again.

 

 

There is NO such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

Conspiracy theorists talk about them etc...but they are all a fraud. If they exist, why can't we re-create them?

Science is about repeatable, reliable results. Not, The Johny Carson Show, although it ruled!

[Bill_Simpkins]

i don't like our president, but I do think that the statement saying he will make scienced based policies is a good one.

 

Talk about tooth faries.

 

You misinterpreted my statement.

I hate George Bush and his environmental policies. However, the statement which implied he would only make science based policies when concerning environmental acts is a good statement for a president to make, whether or not he makes good policies or not, whether or not you agree with his policies or not. The statement it self needs to be used more. People in government need to make more decisions based on science and stop appealling so much to the emotions of their voters.

Thinking that the world is going to fix itself is worse than believing in the Tooth Fairy.