Okay, I have to admit - I'm ambivalent about ANWR opposition

[liberalpragmatist]

Please don't flame me. I want to get some honest answers and some feedback on this. Don't try to group me with environmental apologists, b/c I consider myself an environmentalist especially on issues like clean air, clean water, endangered species, etc.

However, I have to admit that while I am in favor of environmental conservation, I do think that conservation needs to be balanced with the needs of local economies, which is different from selling out to major corporations.

Now, I realize that ANWR largely falls under the latter - it's major oil companies that are trying to drill. I don't want to see ANWR drilled, but at the same time I wonder about the economic needs of local residents.

Without a doubt, what has hurt Democrats in many Western states is the feeling that Democrats "sell out" the economic needs of the people in favor of "big government," bureaucratic regulation of what they see as their land. This is a larger issue that ANWR falls under. How do we balance a genuine concern for conservation with the economic needs of the people who live there?

When it comes to ANWR I know that Alaskans are overwhelmingly in favor of drilling in ANWR. I have a couple friends from Alaska - one's a hardcore Republican, the other a Democrat. Both, however, are strongly for drilling and take the suggestion that they don't care for the environment badly. They're both very outdoorsy-types and say they favor conservation but feel that ANWR needs to be drilled for the economic needs of the state.

How valid a concern is this? Will ANWR if drilled really provide measurable economic benefits to Alaska residents? I'll admit this is the main concern I have with blocking ANWR, not the need for more oil - if that's the concern we need to be pushing for renewable energy. I want to see the land protected and I certainly don't want to see the local flora and fauna killed off, but if it can be done with minimal damage to the environment and does boost the Alaska economy and provide jobs to families I *might* be able to support it.

On a somewhat different note, could ANWR be made into a national park? Why hasn't this been considered b/c it might also boost the local economy.

[Beaverhausen]

1. How do you feel about tougher rules for better mileage for cars?

How about someone standing up and asking americans to conserve energy?

Why is drilling for oil the only answer when we have to solve our energy problems?

[liberalpragmatist]

3. I'm for them

As I said, my concern is not with our energy problems, which drilling will not solve long-term. We need to make major efforts towards renewable energy.

My issue is with jobs. WILL ANWR drilling create jobs for the local economy and is their any way that drilling could be done without damaging the environment?

[pbartch]

49. why aren't we using Ethinoil (sp)

My hubby knows how to make it...........use all that CORN that is going to waste!!!

[liberal N proud]

2. ANWAR will only provide about 1 years supply of oil for the US

Is destruction of one of the most pristine areas of the world worth that?

[liberalpragmatist]

5. Not if that's the case - my question is: do we know for sure that's true?

I was under the impression there was some debate on that. Has it been proven that 1 year is the limit?

[JHBowden]

45. No, but here is what we do know.

It will take over a half a decade to get online, and when it does, it will only provide about 2.5% of America's energy needs.

I'm not willing to put the environment at risk over this. It only saves us a few cents a gallon, a goal which can be easily accomplished by the federal government using other methods. And this is assuming the oil is not sold on the global market to nations like Japan. While ANWR drilling only saves the consumer a tiny amount, the fossil fuel corps are going to make billions off of this, which is the Bush's administration's real motivation.

[Jesus Saves]

47. .

[MisterLiberal]

51. Here come the Fundies

I tell you, if it's not one issue, it's another.

Why is it that WE have to back down? All of these posts are always asking US to back down when we need to take a stand!

NO TO ANWAR DRILLING

[mattclearing]

56. Not to be contrarian, but

That 2.5% figure is equivalent to saying "more than enough to cover an average state's needs."

Regardless, I don't support drilling in ANWR...it's excessive and unnecessary.

We're better off having more efficient vehicles.

And the oil companies already got us into Iraq...personally, I say we send them over to retrieve their product.

Alaska will still be here if they get back alive.

[liberal N proud]

8. SAVE THE ARCTIC REFUGE TALKING POINTS

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's 19 million acres comprise one of the last places on earth where an intact expanse of arctic and sub arctic lands remains protected.
Drilling in the Arctic Refuge can't make even a small dent in meeting America's energy needs. U.S. Geological Survey scientists estimate that there is very likely only enough oil to supply America's needs for six months. And oil companies admit that, even that, won't be available for at least 10 years.
An irreplaceable natural treasure, the Arctic Refuge is home to caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, golden eagles, snow geese and more. Millions of other birds use the Arctic Refuge to nest and as a critical staging area on their migratory journeys.
Of course, the Arctic Refuge supports more than wildlife. For a thousand generations, the Gwich'in people of Northeast Alaska and Northwest Canada have depended on it and lived in harmony with it. To them, the Arctic Coastal Plain is sacred ground.

This is from an email sent by Senator Kerry's office

[sandnsea]

Energy Policy talking points

MORE, with links
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=540

1. NATIONAL SECURITY

"You've got companies that have facilities 30 or 50 miles from ANWR. It seems like a natural extension" of their current North Slope activities, said Norton, who called getting at the refuge's oil "a national security issue."

AMERICANS SUPPORT alternative energy development. Even in red state Montana, 62% of Montana seniors stated investing USB funds in renewable energy projects should be a priority.

OIL PRODUCTION could not begin until at least 2013.

THE OIL does not have to be sold in the US.

ANWR could produce 1 million barrels of oil per day, with a possible total of 8 billion barrels which the US consumes in less than a year.

The US USES 20 million barrels of oil per day, 44% for cars.

US CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS account for 25% of the world’s oil.

Raising CAFÉ standards to 40 MPG would save 3 million barrels of oil per day.

GLOBAL OIL demand is increasing as developing countries emerge.

ANWR would have little or no impact on gas prices.

Bad Environmental policy, bad Energy Security Policy.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bowens43]

4. Boosting of local economies is not a good enough reason

to rape and pillage one of the few pristine areas left on the planet. That's the excuse we always hear when corporations are getting ready to plunder.

Fuck the local economy.

[Coastie for Truth]

10. Take a look at Houma, Morgan City, etc.

You will see some oil field service businesses.

But I think we get more jobs by building some Fischer-Tropsch coal liquefaction plants in the I-79 Coal Corridor through Western Pennsylvania/Eastern Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and the Colorado coal fields.

There is a demo plant/pilot plant at the DOE lab in Morgantown WV. (Used to be one in Bruceton PA just outside Pittsburgh; and the USSteel Plant in Clairton PA had coal liquefaction "capability" - crude was too cheap so US Steel "mothballed" the prototype).

[MNAZ]

20. Unless this attitude changes...

Fuck the local economy.
Posted by bowens43
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We won't change a single red state to blue. You can't win a national election without winning the bubba's and this kind of attitude is the reason alot of bubba's have the wrong idea about the Democratic Party.

They think we are a bunch of tree huggers who care more about owls and whales than we do about people.

Like it or not...it about reaching a compromise.

[bowens43]

23. No, it's not about reaching a comprimise.

It's attitudes like YOURS that got us into this mess in the first place.
Compromise gave us the bush administration. Compromise lost congress for the Democratic party. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

I am sick and tired of hearing so called progressives say that we have to compromise. We don't. That's a cop out.

[MisterLiberal]

55. Nice post Bowens

Bowens why don't you run for Congress and kick some ass while you're there?

Our guys for being wimps and the Repukes for being Repukes.

[MNAZ]

65. If we draw the line where it presently is for the Dem's...

we won't gain a single House or Senate seat in 06.

Like it or not, politics is about compromise. We're not living in the real world if we don't think it is.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blue_Roses]

35. tree huggers

what's wrong with being a tree hugger?

[MNAZ]

63. Nothing....

it just won't turn a red state blue.

[MisterLiberal]

53. Here we go again

Why won't the Dems compromise to win Mr Red State beer drinker?

BECAUSE WE HAVE STANDARDS as in STANDING UP

We care about owls whales AND humans; if Joe Sixpack thinks humans are the only animals on the face of this planet, he's an idiot!

[MNAZ]

64. I think what you're saying is admirable...

but what are we willing to give up to get the White House, House of REP, and the Senate back. We'll have to give up something.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flpoljunkie]

6. Look at these slides that shows beauty of ANWR and realities of drilling

http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic/1.html

Some facts from John Kerry's email regarding drilling in the Arctic Refuge:

-The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's 19 million acres comprise one of the last places on earth where an intact expanse of arctic and sub arctic lands remains protected.

-Drilling in the Arctic Refuge can't make even a small dent in meeting America's energy needs. U.S. Geological Survey scientists estimate that there is very likely only enough oil to supply America's needs for six months. And oil companies admit that, even that, won't be available for at least 10 years.

-An irreplaceable natural treasure, the Arctic Refuge is home to caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, golden eagles, snow geese and more. Millions of other birds use the Arctic Refuge to nest and as a critical staging area on their migratory journeys.

-Of course, the Arctic Refuge supports more than wildlife. For a thousand generations, the Gwich'in people of Northeast Alaska and Northwest Canada have depended on it and lived in harmony with it. To them, the Arctic Coastal Plain is sacred ground.

[Cocoa]

7. that's too narrow an interest

sure, a few people would benefit from drilling. But a it's very very narrow interest, compared to the cost of ruining that land.

[cestpaspossible]

9. It's a National Wildlife Refuge.

Similarly, perhaps the local economy in Crescent City California would be helped if we logged all the giant redwoods, however, we as a nation decided that conserving the natural wonders that God gave us is more important that short-term gain.

[katinmn]

11. let's look at the root cause instead of capitalist expediency

Since we are now facing an energy shortage (that isn't even worth debating anymore, it's a done deal) we must face up to the fact that we are consuming more than the world can supply.

We simply must cut back on our energy consumption.

Make fuel efficient motor vehicles mandatory

Invest in public transportation

Raise gas prices

Recycle

[doodadem]

12. The oil companies aren't interested

in ANWAR anymore. They came out awhile back and said the oil would be such low quality per their research, they could only sell it to Asia. Couple that with it taking 10 years to see the first drop, and they decided they weren't interested anymore.
So WHO is pushing this now, and why?

[THUNDER HANDS]

13. fuck Alaska

it doesn't vote for us anyway. We should oppose it, if for no other reason, just to fuck with them.

Then, after we get done fucking with them, we list all the factual reasons why drilling would be bad. Starting with the environment.

But first things first, fuck em because of the way they vote.

[leyton]

14. I think your concerns are completely valid.

I am of the same mind as you. Since I personally haven't researched the issue, I don't know the economic and environmental impact. I am inclined to defer to the people of Alaska on this matter, and they seem to feel that the benefits outweigh the costs. We can't stop economic development at every turn just because land will be used up. However, someone made a good point about redwoods up there.

Also - people have been saying that it would only supply oil to the country for six months, as if that's not much. Isn't that actually a lot considering how long our world oil supply is supposed to last? I'm imagining something in the 0.5-2.0% range, which if you ask an economist is a lot.

[sandnsea]

16. "haven't researched the issue"

Then please do. In part,

ANWR could produce 1 million barrels of oil per day, with a possible total of 8 billion barrels which the US consumes in less than a year.

The US USES 20 million barrels of oil per day, 44% for cars.

US CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS account for 25% of the world’s oil.

Raising CAFÉ standards to 40 MPG would save 3 million barrels of oil per day.

GLOBAL OIL demand is increasing as developing countries emerge.

Drilling in the Refuge would have little or no impact on US gas prices.

More:

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=540

[flpoljunkie]

24. ANWR oil "drop in the bucket" for our gluttonous energy needs. Renewables

and more fuel efficient cars are the answer, so that we are not dependent on the whims of OPEC and the Saudia Arabian sheiks who control OPEC.

[KansDem]

67. It's called "ANWR," not "ASWR..."

I am inclined to defer to the people of Alaska on this matter, and they seem to feel that the benefits outweigh the costs...

Why? It's called the "Arctic NATIONAL Wildlife Refuge" not "Arctic STATE Wildlife Refuge" so why should the people of Alaska decide? It belongs to ALL OF US, not just the people of Alaska, or the 51 US Senators who voted for drilling, or the oil companies.

My 38-year old nephew just moved up to Alaska after being born and raised in California. Does he have more say in this than I do?

[sandnsea]

15. National Energy Security - it ain't oil

They want their checks. If you took the checks away from Alaskans, they might be able to think straight on the issue.

Oil is bad energy policy and it's more about that, to me, than the environment. Wars for oil. Unhealthy air and ground water that make people sick, for oil. Environmental destruction for oil. It's stupid. Renewable Energy. 40 MPG CAFE standards.

[XemaSab]

17. There IS no local economy

Beyond a few tribes of Gwichin Inuit, who are opposed to drilling. These people currently are basically hunter-gatherers. A few of them want to have "real" jobs, and want the money development would bring, but some of them fear that they'll be left with no animals to hunt, and that outside development would bring alcohol and chaos to their community.

ANWR's out in serious BFE. Have you seen this place on a map? They would basically have to develop an entire infrastucture in the area, including roads, housing, water, electricity, pipelines, and some means of getting the oil out of said remote location.

All the people of Alaska get big checks from oil drilling, so they're not exactly unbiased.

[lostinacause]

27. They are the people who face most of the costs and recieve most of the

benefits so they are the best to judge.

[XemaSab]

46. In some ways, yes

If they want it preserved, that should be sufficient, but we can't lose sight of the fact that it's also the public's land. If the Gwichin wanted to say, build a 2 million slot casino and pave over the rest of the refuge for parking, that's not an acceptable use of refuge land that belongs to all of us and is currently designated for wildlife habitat.

[lostinacause]

50. With ANWR there is no option of relocating.

With most other developmental issues you can choose to locate somewhere else.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. What makes you think that drilling ANWR would boost the

local economy?

Consider that the drilling would be conducted by multi-national corporations that will suck the money out of the state, and because of loopholes will pay no taxes to the Federal government.

There is already oil production in Alaska. Has it kept Alaska from being one of the highest per-capita recipients of Federal welfare dollars? Even after the drilling begins, which won't happen for years, according to my understanding the production would be seasonal, only. Those who work the oil fields will be unemployed 6 months out of the year.

In typical oil-production style, a very few people would make a lot of money, and a great many people will be used, abused, then thrown away, leaving nothing but a poisoned land behind.

[lostinacause]

28. The oil salaries for laborers in the oil industry is usially two to three

times as high as what they would make elsewhere.

[primavera]

19. How about slash and burn agriculture in the Amazon?

Depending upon your point of view, the land "belongs" to the people who live there and work it. At the same time, the majority of modern pharmacology derives from plant extracts which were found in the Amazon rain forest, the botanical life of which scientists have only begin to catalog. Do the people who live there have the right to destroy the cure to cancer which is probably residing in some yet undiscovered orchid down there?

I don't know, personally, I just don't believe that we as a species have a right to exterminate other species, pretty much all of whom were here before we were. As far as I'm concerned, if the land "belongs" to anyone, it belongs to the plants and animals who have lived there for millenia.

But even if I bought into the whole biblical nonsense about mankind's dominion over everything else on the planet, I think there's at the very least a self-serving argument to be made that it's not in our best interests to go around destroying complex eco-systems the riches of which we don't even understand.

[TheFarseer]

59. I thought it belonged to the government

which means it belongs to you and me and everyone else in the USA. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[slor]

21. liberal N proud says 1 year...

I have read from people in the industry, that it is closer to 6 months, and as demand rises, it goes lower from there. I have also read, that quite a bit would be sold to China, so in the end, how does this help anyone here, besides the oil monsters? In fact, the NY Times recently had an article that showed they currently are not interested. That may change when oil is higher, but for now, they are not that eager to drill themselves. We need to push conservation and renewable energy, just imagine the economic benefits of having jobs to rebuild/adapt the infrastructure and manufacture the materials, to meet these needs. Of course, we are wasting money in Iraq, that would have been better served to do these things, but nobody ever said that * was smart.

[wiggs]

22. 2% conservation = ANWR output over 50 years

If the administration were really interested in national security, they could propose conservation measures that would equal the ANWR reserves such as:

...buying a car that gets 30.6 mpg instead of 30 mpg

...workers carpooling to work 5 days out of the year instead of driving by themselves everyday

...driving 1,470 miles in a month instead of the normal 1500.

...That's turning down the thermostat by a small amount

And more....


I don't believe this has anything to do with national security or with the price of oil. Oil firms had remarkable, record profits this year . High oil prices make friends of this administration (corporate friends and Saudi friends) quite happy. Low oil prices is not their goal.

We will drill in ANWR. The habitat will suffer (don't trust any gov't study that says otherwise). Alaskans will not get rich. Oil companies, their boardmembers, and their shareholders will get rich. AND NOT A SMALL AMOUNT OF THAT MONEY WILL GO TO THE GOP PARTY THAT GAVE THEM THE WINDFALL!

Do not believe that this administration will be responsible in requiring environmental safeguards, either. When profits and public interest compete, this administration has no problem coming down on the side of profit. This will not be done right.

These lands are the public commons. Read JFK jr.s book Crimes Against Nature. Bush has made a living in Texas and as president giving away public treasures.

[consciousobjector]

25. This from Barbara Boxer (in email received today) on the real

reason the repugs want to open ANWAR:

snip> "Now we face the ultimate special interest issue: Drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. For six months of oil, not to be realized for ten years, my colleagues seem bent on handing over this most pristine land to the big oil companies. Never mind that we can save the equivalent of an infinite number of ANWR fields by simply raising fuel economy a modest amount -- that doesn't matter. The Republicans don't care about the native peoples whose lives will be ruined; they don't care that President Eisenhower set this land aside; they don't care about the more than one hundred species of wildlife that depend on this refuge.

snip> "What they do care about is the precedent. If they open up ANWR, they'll think they can do anything to the environment -- anything at all. Drilling in Yosemite? In the Grand Canyon? What's next?" - Barbara Boxer

All this administration wants is to set a precedent so that they can rape the entire country. If you think this is about jobs and the local economy, you are mistaken. From what I understand, the major oil companies don't believe it's even worth drilling in ANWAR...* just wants to win (and open the door to exploitation of all our protected lands)

[IDemo]

39. The precedent has already been set

with mountaintop coal removal in West Virginia and the destruction of groundwater caused by coalbed methane extraction in Wyoming and elsewhere. ANWR is nothing but a checkerboard piece to BushCo. It's only important as another political victory, not necessarily for the energy return.

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. The last Democrat elected state-wide is Alaska also favored drilling

The ironic thing is that those who are opposed to drilling there do not live in the state.

[marcologico]

29. Your Alaskan friends are being bought off and lied to.

1. They get an annual check from the oil companies ("dividend"), who are 2. telling them the gravy train ends if they don't get to drill in ANWAR.

It's a disgrace.

[BlueInRed]

30. Not ambivalent, but if we are only 1 vote away on ANWR

then why the hell were we 18 votes away on bankruptcy. I don't want to see ANWR drilled, but why the heck can the Democrats in the Senate get organized to the point of being only 1 short on ANWR, but couldn't get together to protect average Americans? What is wrong with this picture?

It just seems out of whack to me. I'm not saying ANWR's not important, but they damn sure better have as much support on SS as they seem to have on ANWR.

[roguevalley]

31. I live here and have for 30 years. I'm against it for these reasons:q

1. It won't help us and it won't be on line for 10 years.

2. Even Canada is against it.

3. The last time we did this the Mob came and grafted the hell out of us.

4. Crime and scimming would be epidemic and it would cost twice what they say.

5. Locals wouldn't get the jobs. They didn't last time. They won't this time.

6. Last time I read, Alaska was fourth most corrupt state in the nation. I don't want to shoot for number one, thank you.

7. Its wrong, dead wrong. I wish I could tell you how wrong it is. Pray they lose.

[liberalpragmatist]

32. Could ANWR be turned into a national park?

Or would that also destroy the environment? It seems to me that might be a good compromise. Once it's a national park, nobody can conceive of drilling there and it might help the local economy by boosting tourism.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sendero]

33. I agree with your general outlook....

.... but.....

The fact is I think we should hold off. There will be a day when that oil will come in real handy, and we aren't quite there yet.

Eventually, no matter what the environmental concerns, this oil will be tapped. That said, I'd rather wait until we really, really need it. Think of it as a strategic reserve, because that is what it is.

[EC]

34. Instead of spoiling more of our environment, for jobs

why not clean up the messes made that is causing the loss of jobs already up there. My Aunt lives up there and said most rely on fish (seafood industry) and that the ocean is so bad their dying off. And the commercial fish farms are making really hard for the independent and small fisheries. And the fur trade, I still don't know where I stand on that, because I really believe in wearing natural instead of synthetic and furs are the most natural, still I hate the killing and the way they kill, I especially don't like the baby seal hunts, so I really don't wear it. Since they are so close to the East, they would make a really good trade center, for shipping. Again, here the automation of the industry has cut so many of these jobs. They also have an Aerospace Development Center there. As in every state, they should start on bringing back industry, we can't import everything forever...finacing small industry ventures and better clean-up and prevention of oil-spills and other pollution would be better methods of employment. Instead, everything is being so consolidated that every Industry is getting to the point where the little guy is fighting their "Wal-mart" and until all of us decide that for a few bucks more, we'll support the little guy, it'll just get more and more consolidated. This includes financing of new alternative energy industries and tax rebates or cuts for installing alternative energy devices in homes, or buying hybrid cars(instead of giving $25,000 deduction for the heaviest vehicles ). He's just doing things ass-backwards...ANWR is a reserve, meaning it should be saved until absolutely needed.

[K8-EEE]

36. "Local Control" = Free Ride For Polluters

The oil companies have caused soooo much damage --- from Alaska to Spain to Africa and it's always "whooops! didn't see that coming!"

Bottom line: this will not solve the coming oil crises, not even close. We need to put our resources into alternative fuel NOW that is the way to safeguard the future, it's good for the environment, good for farmers, the technology exists NOW and only needs infrastructure. DO THAT FIRST. THEN we talk about more drilling. Simple pragmatism of risks and priorities and outcomes dictate that...

[MountainKeeper]

37. Anwar

I don't really think that drilling in Anwar will produce enough oil to justify destroying a pristine wilderness. From what I have read there is only enough there to supply us for about a year. With that in mind, I think that our efforts should go to investing in the technologies of alternative fuels.

[lostnfound]

38. Opening ANWR: bad; Opening ANWR under BUSH (?!?!!): catastrophic.

Do you expect that Cheney-bush would enforce ANY restrictions once Congress gives them an inch in ANWR?

How many gallons of gas are saved every day by the train systems in Europe and Japan? Isn't that a longer term solution?

Instead the Republicans give us tax credits to buy Hummers.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

43. And fake Democrats post at DU spouting Right Wing talking points...

People learn to pay no attention to liars.

[bunkerbuster1]

42. Drilling in ANWR = Accepting a "former" Klansman into society.

Work with me here.

Morally, for me, agreeing to drill for oil in ANWR is kinda like agreeing to accept that a "former" Klansman (like, say, a David Duke) has forsaken his past and wants to do good.

You want to be accepted as a decent member of society, former Klanboy? work in a soup kitchen for a couple years. Teach minority kids to read. Prove it.

You want to make us more "energy independent" by opening up heretofore untapped resources? Put some teeth into the CAFE standards. Parity for cars and "light trucks" would be a minimum start. Eliminate the >6000-pounder exemption from CAFE. Fund thousands of miles of new sidewalks and new bike lanes to make it possible for people to make short trips on their own power. Prove it.

Then, and only then, we can talk about allowing you to exploit that natural resource.

[achtung_circus]

44. Golly, with that attitude

I expected to see you were from Iowa.

SHOW ME

[Goldmund]

54. Isn't that Missouri?

[Darkhawk32]

60. Yes it is. n/t

[achtung_circus]

62. Okay, demonstrate my ignorance of American States. nt

[Jesus Saves]

48. The last true unspoiled American wilderness

Why not protect it? It's all we got left.

There is an economy up there that is already making money off it - ecotourism, fishing, and hunting, etc.... Why mess with that? In fact, as time goes on it will only become more valuable.

See I'm conservative on this issue. I'd prefer it if we conserved what we had left.

[Goldmund]

52. The "needs of a local economy" are only a function of...

...the economy in the wider sense.

We keep falling for these kinds of traps. They suck the blood out of every local economy, and then say "Oh gee! We need to <insert the next step of the neocon agenda> to keep this local economy solvent! What's the matter with you, do you want them all to starve?".

[maxsolomon]

57. dude, WHAT local economy?

are you talking about employing the inuit at oil drilling? their native economy is not "job-based"; its hunting-gathering.

if you're talking about keeping the north slope job base employed at new fields, well, that's an artificial "local".

are you talking about the state economy? i see your point; the state wouldn't be pretty without that oil didviden everyone gets for breathing alaskan air, nor all the federal subsidies the rest of us send their way.

but my god, can't there be ONE PLACE that doesn't have to be economically productive? i mean, the idea of wilderness is that it just IS. you don't have to go there to derive benefit from its existence.

[imenja]

58. do you realize a lot of oil companies have pulled out of the effort?

The NYT had an article saying that some have said they wouldn't take oil leases there if given to them. They don't see enough in it to be worth their exploration costs, even when partly subsidized by the government. Diane Rehm had a discussing about Anwar on her show this morning.

[Nye Bevan]

61. How about a Constitutional Amendment?

I would like to see a Constitutional Amendment that allowed for drilling in something like 0.5%-1% of the ANWR but imposed PERPETUAL, WATERTIGHT protection on the remaining 99-99.5%. Use permission for very limited drilling as leverage to get watertight protection for the remaining ANWR that could not be overturned in the future by congressional whim.

[Payback Time]

66. There must be a better way to help the Alaskan economy...

Considering the fact that this is only 6 mo. worth of oil that can't be tapped for 10 years. I saw the moveon.org film "Oil on Ice." They called the ANWR the "American Serengetti." Drilling will screw up the ecological balance in many ways, including scaring away the animals the Gwich'n people need for sustanence. They live off the land instead of going to Winn Dixie. Why not build a hybrid car plant or alternative energy research center that could employ people? The government owes it to this country to protect our national reserves and parks.

[Spinoza]

71. Who cares about

the Alaskan economy? (I mean, besides Alaskans?)

[TexasSissy]

72. About 50 million acres in that area was given for oil exploration. A mere

8.9 million acreas was set aside for wilderness, animals, and recreation.

Now the oil cos. want the remaining 8.9 million, and they've been after it for years. 50 million acres isn't enough, it seems. And the 8.9 will not be enough.

As Tom DeLay said, what the ANWR is really about is setting a precedent for opening ALL wilderness areas to drilling.

All wilderness areas amount to a tiny % of the country. We do not need every inch of our country covered in cement or oil rigs. The fact that people of the state in which is housed a federal wilderness area may profit from commercial use of the land is not a valid argument. If that were the case, there would be no point to having ANY wilderness areas, since someone, somewhere could ALWAYS find a profit to be made from it.

[mhr]

73. ANWR Holds Between 6 and 16 Billion Barrels Of Oil

The world uses 80 Million Barrels of Oil per day.

6 Billion barrels = 75 days of world supply

16 Billion barrels = 200 days of world supply

The US uses 20 Million Barrels of Oil per day.

6 Billion barrels = 300 days of US supply = .83 years

16 Billion Barrels = 800 days of US supply = 2.2 years

It will take 5-10 years before a drop of this oil hits a refinery.

Hardly seems worth the effort when raising the CAFE standards would save more than we get with drilling.

[lulu]

74. Have you ever seen an oil well site?

I'm from Oklahoma. Much of my relatives' farmland has been drilled on for oil and gas. How many wells are they talking about in ANWR - one per acre, one per 1/2 acre? Picture the beautiful sight of this pristine wilderness dotted with these dark oil wells. Of course the animals and plants will not survive. On the farmland in Oklahoma, the land owner must fight every day to make sure his/her land is not made poisonous by the oil companies. These people don't care what happens to farmland. Chemical-laden runoff pollutes groundwater that poisons crops and animals. The roads that are built to accommodate the oil companies ruin land. And what's to keep the mammoth trucks that carry equipment to these sites from going off road and killing vegetation? Perhaps Alaskans demand more protections, but I doubt it.

A friend of mine is a self-employed petroleum land man who is very against opening ANWR. He says that the only people who will make any money off of it will be George Bush's friends -- the giant corporations. The locals will only see destruction of wilderness. And what tourists will want to come to Alaska when the wilderness is gone?