ANWR vote as early as today

[Dru]

Arctic National Snaffle Refuge

[Bill_Simpkins]

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

 

Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy too?

 

ok Dru. Tell me everything YOU think the government knows? You think they havn't done long termssustainability effects on the world and such? They are probably all over that! They know where all the known resource reserves are blah blah blah. It's just bad politics to talk about it.

 

We just hear what the news tells us they know. People in government usually are people like you and me. Some are smart, some are dumb, some are really smart and some are really dumb. There are hics and intellects. To think that the think tanks don't think about this stuff (nice sentence huh?!) is silly.

The government has a record of contracting the top scientists for think tanks all the way back to WWI. Why would that be different now?

 

We criticize them for doing what they do with foreign policy and other things, but we have NO IDEA what information they hold. We really don't know crap.

 

Are you telling me that you know everything they do?

Are you that informed? You would make the same decisions you have in your head now possible knowing only1/10 of what they know about a situation?

 

I am making an assumption here, but I think it's pretty reasonable based on the track record of previous Wars, programs, etc...

[Dru]

Like any heirarchical organization, the government is composed of people raised to their level of incompetence, and chosen not for skill or ability, but for political allegiance.

 

Same government that "knew" the aspirin factory in Sudan was making bombs and that "knew" Saddam had WMDs. Oops You think these guys actually know where all the resources are? They can't even find competent yes-men for media scrums, they resort to using male prostitute bloggers.

[Fairweather]

If there were iron-clad guarantees that 100% of this oil would be used for domestic markets and not subject to British oil industry development and subsequent export to asia, I would likely support this proposal. If I have read truthful accounts, north slope oil is not currently being used exclusively for US consumption and there is, therefore, no reason to believe ANWR would be any different. Absent these controls, I think it is a mistake to go forward with ANWR drilling. We should not be exporting one drop of domestically produced oil.

 

I think the migration away from SUV's toward higher milage vehicles has already begun due to market forces. I know that many climbers and hikers could do a better job setting the example in this regard, but of course, they "need" these vehicles more than the soccer mom taking the team to practice.

[Dechristo]

There are many notions debated in this thread, but perhaps the original, if not salient, point of prominence is whether to develop ANWR for the production of oil. The meat of my statement(s) was meant to bring to the table the recognition of forces cogent to the determination of land use. Societal pressures and voter’s actions, in our part of the world are determinant of many laws, policies, and governments, but we all know that money bears a variable weight on all decisions made, be they by individual citizens or by any government on this Earth.

 

Many, if not most, of the instances where decisions are made involving money and its brother Power, in microcosm or macro, greed is there to fulcrum its sway. The phrase “power corrupts” is an axiom because it is widely true and narrowly escaped; this is the reason people are dubious that George Bush will

…only make science based policies when concerning environmental acts.

 

Scientific research is a funded endeavor; it is steered by money. I do not believe that altruism triumphs often in those that wield power and wealth, historically or at present; profit, a return on investment, is expected by most all, magnate, politician, or pauper. If a concern for others rendered monetary wealth and greed begat ruin economically (instead of poverty of the soul), I believe society and its science would produce viable, clean, and renewable power; it is there, we just don’t have it and use it yet.

 

Twenty-some years ago, when I saw the “magnet motor” on Carson, I thought,”wow, that should work”; that’s the reason I wrote of the incident. I never thought the “magnet motor” concept to be perpetual motion. Neither shaft bearings nor strength of magnetism are perpetual.

its more effective to patent it and screw the public than to block it anyway

 

…and that may be what happened.

 

I believe I could build one, but I can't afford the time... maybe I will receive funding from some altruistic soul.

Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy too?

 

 

Another thought on the ANWR oil development debate:

 

It is widely reported that a majority of the voting public of Alaska favors oil development in ANWR. How would you like it if pressures from outside your State, with sentiments antithetical to the majority of your State’s voters, forced their will upon your State?

 

Oh, never mind; the PNW are “blue States”.

 

If there were iron-clad guarantees that 100% of this oil would be used for domestic markets and not subject to British oil industry development and subsequent export to asia, I would likely support this proposal. If I have read truthful accounts, north slope oil is not currently being used exclusively for US consumption and there is, therefore, no reason to believe ANWR would be any different. Absent these controls, I think it is a mistake to go forward with ANWR drilling. We should not be exporting one drop of domestically produced oil.

 

Considering a limited supply of oil and a global market economy, do you think this matters in the big picture?

 

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the particular personality of DeChristo who wrote this statement are not necessarily those of DeChristo’s other personalities, his bartender, dealer(s), escort service companions, climbing partners, or associated musical band members.

[cj001f]

Another thought on the ANWR oil development debate:

 

It is widely reported that a majority of the voting public of Alaska favors oil development in ANWR. How would you like it if pressures from outside your State, with sentiments antithetical to the majority of your State’s voters, forced their will upon your State?

When the state with the greatest federal spending per capita and federal jobs per capita stops taking my money I´ll stop telling them what to do. Alaska the libertarian welfare state

[Dechristo]

When the state with the greatest federal spending per capita and federal jobs per capita stops taking my money I´ll stop telling them what to do. Alaska the libertarian welfare state

An individual paying taxes to the U.S. government can ascribe to himself the Right you have opined. Thanks, you illustrate well how "money bears a variable weight on all decisions made, be they by individual citizens or by any government on this Earth."

 

Perhaps it is well to remember a definition of a pertinent practice: ethics is not the choice of what you have a Right to do, but the choice of what is the right thing to do.

 

 

 

[Bill_Simpkins]

I hate the "not in my backyard" ideology. If we drive, we should be willing to drill on our own land. To think that our land is more important than other peoples is just pride talking.

[cj001f]

I hate the "not in my backyard" ideology. If we drive, we should be willing to drill on our own land. To think that our land is more important than other peoples is just pride talking.

ANWR oil would be expensive to produce. Middle East Oil isn´t. There´s no point mucking up a nice place merely to satisfy ethics if the longterm economic case isn´t good.

[Bill_Simpkins]

Like any heirarchical organization, the government is composed of people raised to their level of incompetence, and chosen not for skill or ability, but for political allegiance.

 

Same government that "knew" the aspirin factory in Sudan was making bombs and that "knew" Saddam had WMDs. Oops You think these guys actually know where all the resources are? They can't even find competent yes-men for media scrums, they resort to using male prostitute bloggers.

 

Governments for the last five-thousand years have made bad choices either for personal gain or just stupidity. I don't think that many of the choices we've made are good ones. That does not have anything to do whether or not they are well informed and that some of the choices they have to make are based on information we don't understand yet. All I know is this descision for AK drilling is partly based on right vs left, but it has been an issue for many administrations. That ought to tell you that something is important here.

Companies wanting a profit and our need for rescources are the same thing.

 

Instability in the countries where we get a lot of oil is a big deal for a nation where liberals and right-wingers BOTH drive cars and BOTH use oil. They BOTH complain about high gases prices, yet one of them has no right to complain because they don't want to get oil from a stable source, which is in our own country.

 

If you don't want to drill in our own back yard, stop driving, stop complaining and go to war or kiss ass with countries with large oil reserves(which is what we are doing). In a country that so heavily relies on fossil fuels, there are not many choices if you want to keep it up.

Every time you drive your car, democrat or republican, YOU are voting for us to war in the middle east. YOU are voting for oil companies to ruin enthic villages in Central America.

 

To complain about GWB going to war for oil and then getting in your car and basically VOTING for this war by stepping on the gas pedal is hypochracy at it's worse.

people complain about the government not working for the people, but they are! They work everyday for what 99% of us do everyday, and that is drive these cars.

If we everyday 99% spent most of our time helping others and doing environmental causes, I'm sure the Government would be right there with us. But our everyday actions is a much BIGGER vote than the ballot you punch every four years.

[Jim]

If you don't want to drill in our own back yard, stop driving, stop complaining and go to war or kiss ass with countries with large oil reserves(which is what we are doing). Every time you drive your car, democrat or republican, YOU are voting for us to war in the middle east. YOU are voting for oil companies to ruin enthic villages in Central America.

 

As if these are the only choices? Those opposed to ANWR drilling, including myself, point to the lack of any overall stradegy. Mandating higher fuel standards and funding alternative fuels technology and research will, in a relatively short time-frame, provide benefits well beyond mucking around in ANWR. And yes, you can blame this on Bush and his oil croanies. Their secret energy plan from the start was to provide more drilling opportunities for their oil buddies, stripping or ignoring environmental regulations for energy extraction. Check out what has been happening in the front range of the Rockies and in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.

 

Just as the Bushies' myoptic focus on drilling lacks logic, so does the argument that there are only two avenues regarding energy policy, more extraction and war.

[markinore]

The facts are that it IS possible to dramatically reduce our use of petroleum WITHOUT major dislocations of our economy. Actually, it might even improve our country's competitiveness. Let me explain:

 

If the average car's mileage increased by only ONE mile per gallon (something that could be achieved if we all drove with the correct pressure in our tires), over a 25 year period we would save more petroleum than could ever be produced by ANWR.

 

If the average car's mileage increased by THREE miles per gallon (something that could be achieved if we all kept our cars properly tuned up), we would NEVER have to import any oil from Iraq or Kuwait. Gee, think THAT might alter the political imperatives?

 

If the average car's mileage increased by EIGHT miles per gallon, we would need ZERO petroleum from the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and everybody else over there could sell it Europe or to Japan or to China, but the reduced demand would result in markedly reduced prices, right? Now, to get an additional eight miles per gallon, it would take either forcing people to drive smaller cars (coercive, likely to be opposed) or we could increase CAFE standards and work with Detroit to improve fuel efficiency. The U.S. could be the leader in this effort. This would result in making rapidly developing countries like China (which doesn't want to be over the oil barrel) one of our main customers, rather than the other way around.

 

In summary, the environment is preserved, our dependence on despotic Middle Eastern governments is eliminated, and our economic competitiveness is enhanced. Everybody wins, right?

 

Well, unless your name is Cheney, Bush, or Haliburton.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Companies wanting a profit and our need for rescources are the same thing.

 

Excellent point. And people's desire for a better life and our need for resources are also inseparably linked.

 

If you had the following choice - take a 25% pay cut in your salary to cut oil use by 25%, would you do it?

 

Every time you drive your car, democrat or republican, YOU are voting for us to war in the middle east. YOU are voting for oil companies to ruin enthic villages in Central America.

 

Exactly. And note that nobody wants to answer your points here. They just repeat the mantra about the "Bushies", "big government", "greed", and "secret oil plans".

 

To complain about GWB going to war for oil and then getting in your car and basically VOTING for this war by stepping on the gas pedal is hypochracy at it's worse. people complain about the government not working for the people, but they are! They work everyday for what 99% of us do everyday, and that is drive these cars.

If we everyday 99% spent most of our time helping others and doing environmental causes, I'm sure the Government would be right there with us. But our everyday actions is a much BIGGER vote than the ballot you punch every four years.

 

How many of the self-proclaimed environmentalists on this forum have calculated how much gasoline they consume every year and then actively cut back by 10, 20, or 30% each year following 9/11? I'll bet the answer is close to none.

 

A few years ago a coworker told me he was a "rabid environmentalist". He drove a Ford Explorer to work 40 miles round-trip everyday, where it sat in the parking lot. He had no kids, and never took the thing off of paved streets. f***ing hypocrite POS.

[cj001f]

And people's desire for a better life and our need for resources are also inseparably linked.

 

If you had the following choice - take a 25% pay cut in your salary to cut oil use by 25%, would you do it?

 

Oil consumption and economic growth don´t have to be linked KK. Read the prize. Cheap oil has encouraged profligate consumption, and government has reinforced this.

 

Anytime you do or buy anything you are directly or indirectly supporting oil consumption. Buy that new toy for junior at Walmart? Plastic toy (oil products) trucked(major diesel consumers truck fleets are) to store (brightly lit thanks to the Natural Gas power plant). So to reduce your oil consumption you can either live on your farm eating only what you produce, or shoot yourself. I´ll take the former, the righties should choose the latter

[cj001f]

He drove a Ford Explorer to work 40 miles round-trip everyday, where it sat in the parking lot. He had no kids, and never took the thing off of paved streets. f***ing hypocrite POS.

 

Because the US has such excellent public transportation a wide variety of quality affordable housing near the average suburban office park?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Cheap oil has encouraged profligate consumption...

 

Liking making unnecessary climbing trips to Turkey, South America, etc.

 

[catbirdseat]

Whatever happened to talk of developing Canadian tar sands in Alberta? Anyone got an idea of how high oil prices would have to get before that huge reservoir could be tapped economically?

[Jim]

It's done, passed by the Senate. This administration is leaving us quite the short-sited legacy on a number of fronts.

[K_Y_L_E]

Yeah that is a long thread...and I have no attention span. Sorry if I repeat or just sound stupid but..... I am kinda getting the idea that we have enough oil just no where to refine it. It makes me wonder whats up when the prez can convince over half the country war is good, but he can not convince our oil companies to build more refineries.

 

But why would he do that.....that would just mean oil companies would have to spend millions/billions on refineries which would only serve to lower damand and thereby decrease price. GW would not want to piss off his big money buddies in the oil industry.

 

So seems to me this will not solve anything.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

But why would he do that.....that would just mean oil companies would have to spend millions/billions on refineries which would only serve to lower damand and thereby decrease price. GW would not want to piss off his big money buddies in the oil industry.

 

How so? He's not up for reelection. He can piss off anybody he wants, and still make a good living publishing memoirs and making speaking tours after his term ends.

[catbirdseat]

I think that the point is being reached where demand and prices are such that oil companies are thinking of adding refining capacity. They may be waiting for Bush to order EPA to roll back hydrocarbon standards before they do. That would allow them to build at lower cost.

[TBay]

bill simpkins stated...

If you don't want to drill in our own back yard, stop driving, stop complaining and go to war or kiss ass with countries with large oil reserves(which is what we are doing). Every time you drive your car, democrat or republican, YOU are voting for us to war in the middle east. YOU are voting for oil companies to ruin enthic villages in Central America.

 

then jim responded with greeaaat intellect...

As if these are the only choices? Those opposed to ANWR drilling, including myself, point to the lack of any overall stradegy... And yes, you can blame this on Bush and his oil croanies... Their secret energy plan from the start was to provide more drilling opportunities for their oil buddies, stripping or ignoring environmental regulations for energy extraction... Just as the Bushies' myoptic focus on drilling lacks logic, so does the argument that there are only two avenues regarding energy policy, more extraction and war.

 

jim (and ilk) heads up...

 

lets have a look at one of your icons...

 

It should have been a slam-dunk for AL GORE when a group of U'Wa people from Colombia showed up at his Manchester, NH campaign headquarters in 2000. What they wanted was his support to pressure Occidental Petroleum (Oxy) into stopping their project to drill for oil on land belonging to the U'Wa people. The project, which reportedly would supply only enough oil to fuel the US for three months, would move 5,000 U'Wa people and, according to U'Wa spokespersons, would forever destroy their traditional homeland, the Colombian cloudforest.

 

Environmental Champion???

 

Only, Gore didn't sympathize with them. He had them arrested instead.

 

NOW WHY THE FUCK DID GORE NOT SYMPATHIZE WITH THE U'WA AND THE EVER SO SENSITIVE AND GREATLY BIODIVERSIFIED CLOUDFORESTS ABOVE THE AMAZON BASIN?

 

Would it not have been another reason to hate "Bush-and-his-oil-cronies (ie Occidental Petroleum)" even more during the narrowly contested pres election 2000 if GORE, NYTIMES, and LATIMES took this public?

 

oh wait! whats that? holy shit! really? no that cant be true! but, but he loves the environment, is deeply concerned about global warming, pushes for alternative energies, would rather fund research than war...

 

yep, its okay, we took it hard too when we found out...

 

OXY has been a steady supplier of campaign funds to Gore/Clinton and to the Democratic Party...

 

(big deal you say) hold on, it gets better, and far deeper...

 

Armand Hammer ring a bell....

 

he built Occidental Petroleum into the behemoth it is today and who's been described as "the Godfather of American corporate corruption."

 

In late 1970's after his retirement from the US senate, Armands best friend, the great honorable Al Gore Sr. became first a Board of Director for Island Coal Creek Co. (OXY Subsidary) and eventually a BOARD OF DIRECTOR OF OXY...

 

...and guess who held a position (after "inventing the world-wide-web" of course) on the OXY BOARD OF DIRECTORS prior to his two terms as VP...

 

Yours truly AL GORE!

 

Which sole company built and continues to build the Gore Empire?

 

Occidental Petroleum

 

lets reiterate what jim said...

Just as the Bushies' myoptic focus on drilling lacks logic, so does the argument that there are only two avenues regarding energy policy, more extraction and war.

Gore's Solution regarding US Energy Policy (in progress)

 

Gore's answer to more extraction...

 

"...Oil wells are a magnet for violence in Colombia. Occidental's Caño Limón pipeline, just north of U'wa territory, has been attacked by leftist guerillas more than 600 times in its 13 years of existence, spilling some 1.7 million barrels of crude oil into the soil and rivers, more than 8 times the Exxon Valdez! The Colombian government has militarized oil production and pipeline zones, often persecuting local populations the government assumes are helping the guerrillas. Last year alone, in the neighboring Arauca region, there were 38 assassinations, 31 incidents of torture and 44 kidnappings. No wonder the traditional authority of the U'wa are opposed to oil exploration on their land. They've said they prefer extermination to this possible future."

 

Gore's answer to investing in alternative fuels research while 8 years as clinton's bitch...

 

"...For activists in the U.S, the U'wa struggle is touchstone. With a $289 million aid package in 1999, Colombia is the third largest recipient of U.S. military aid in the world after Israel and Egypt. The U.S has stationed hundreds of military "advisors" in Colombia. In spite of record human rights abuses by the Colombian government (ten times more disappearances and murders than in Kosovo), the Clinton administration has proposed to give Colombia an additional $1.5 billion dollars."

hmmmm, sounds like someone watched out for their own vested interests.

 

further accounts of Gore's energy policy can be found at...

hardly a 'right-winged' out-fit

 

i'm done...

[Squid]

That's horrible, TBay! Do you think this will hurt Gore's chances to be president?

[Bill_Simpkins]

I never said once I agree with GWB. I hate the bastard. I don't think he gives a crap about the environment. But neither we, if we drive. It's easy to talk, easy to feel, but harder to change.

Read closer please.

[willstrickland]

When the state with the greatest federal spending per capita and federal jobs per capita stops taking my money I´ll stop telling them what to do. Alaska the libertarian welfare state

 

You're on the mark, almost. Yeah, we are the biggest posers in the country because Alaskans have this aura of fierce independece suitable to the last frontier. But, everyone is on the govt tit, either directly or indirectly. It's all a facade. Hearty folks, yes, but not reliant on govt and govt spending? Hardly.

 

BUT, we are NOT the recepient of the most fed spending per capita (net of tax revenues), that prize belongs....New Mexico.