»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
goodbye to Arctic wildlife
| The Alley |
|
goodbye to Arctic wildlife |
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia 
|
goodbye to the Arctic wildlife you're about to get a royal drilling so someone can make another schilling, in case anyone wondered why gas prices are high perhaps it was to justify this? perhaps to keep your mind on your pocket book instead of the environment? goodby to the caribou and maybe in the long run goodbye to me and you? Drilling on Alaska tracts wins approval Reuters News Service WASHINGTON - The Interior Department on Friday gave final approval to a plan by Conoco Phillips and partner Anadarko Petroleum, both based in the Houston area, to develop five tracts around the oil-rich Alpine field on Alaska's North Slope. The department's Bureau of Land Management authorized the first commercial development of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, allowing the companies to go forward with developing the tracts, which are in the northeastern corner of the reserve. Production from these fields, which together hold more than 330 million barrels of oil, will start by 2006, the bureau said. Environmentalists have criticized the plan to develop these Alpine satellite fields as a rollback of environmental protections promised during the Clinton administration. The bureau said it modified the original development proposal to offer greater protection to wildlife and sensitive habitats in the reserve. The Bush administration believes Congress next year will approve oil drilling in the separate Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. |
||
| © Copyright 2004 Kathleen Kacy Stafford - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Krawdad Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597 |
Another chapter in The Empire of Oil Chronicles. From Alaska to Africa to Iraq, it is all about oil. We will have it any cost. And for the sake of all life on this planet, the sooner we run out the better. e |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
The world’s human population going from six to nine billion in less than fifty years is apt have a far greater impact on the survival of other species. Perhaps efforts should be made or not made as will drastically curb that number and its consequences. |
||
|
Krawdad Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597 |
Huan Yi, What's your point, with respect to oil? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Krawdad, I’m sorry, I thought wildlife endangerment was the concern. |
||
|
Krawdad Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597 |
Huan Yi, Perhaps I was reading between the lines. Human population, unchecked in its growth, does indeed doom us all, wildlife and humans alike, oil or not, but oil is playing a large part in accelerating the global impact we have, and faster than the population growth itself, it would seem. I thought you might have a point about that connection. e |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Simple solution, guys. Stop using your cars. When you've done that, then perhaps you can convince everyone else to follow suit. Problem solved. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Krawdad, Without human demand there would be little if any oil coming out of the ground except by accident. The more humans the more demand. Oil production is just trying to catch up with the increases that have already occurred and things aren’t going to be improved by those expected to happen by 2050. |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
"Drilling on Alaska tracts wins approval" I assume, with strong confidence, that private environmental groups were not asked for input on this matter, much less approval.. I guess approval by Norton and Leavitt is all that matters...Certainly there was no objection from the EPA, as it's head (Leavitt) is a known environmental criminal, nor from his coconspirator, and former appointee to a state position(Utah), Kathleen Clark (present head of the BLM) "The bureau said it modified the original development proposal to offer greater protection to wildlife and sensitive habitats in the reserve." I would like to see those modifications, does anyone have a link, so I can see the original documents and the accepted modifications? Off hand I assume that the modifications are hogwash, like all that are proposed by anti environmentalist that classify everything's worth by its dollar value. "The Bush administration believes Congress next year will approve oil drilling in the separate Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." Of course they do, they believe only in the God of profit, The priests of that religion have a Pope who approves, and the senator-bishops have won more seats in the last election. The cold facts are that there is no way that the present thought that we can drill our way to energy independence is possible...considering we can extract only a 180 day supply from sucking all the oil out of this proposed drill site, and further knowing that the US holds only 3 percent of the worlds oil under its land mass. 95% of the Arctic coastline is already opened by law for drilling and exploration...and considering that there is , on average, one oil spill or accident each day at Prudhoe bay (under very strict environmental rules) I would consider a mandate to control what is already in effect before even considering further drilling in that area. "We had a very interesting discussion about capacity. For example, had ANWR been passed -- had it not been vetoed in the past, we anticipate an additional million barrels of oil would have been coming out of that part of the world, which would obviously have a positive impact for today's consumers." (George W. Bush-Source: Presidential Cabinet Meeting, May 19, 2004) Yes an impact that lowers the price of gas at the pump by 1 or 2 % and for a very short term... What is the value of an Arctic fox, a pregnant Caribou? Oh, I forgot..it is only humans that count, and their rights to ride roughshod over the environment in their Hummers takes precedent over protecting the lives of endangered creatures.. Peace-------ice ><> |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“Oh, I forgot..it is only humans that count, and their rights to ride roughshod over the environment in their Hummers takes precedent over protecting the lives of endangered creatures..” What is needed is a Camp Hitchcock where coordinated tactics and strategy can be learned. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I assume you ride a horse to work, then?  When you use a product, be it illicit drug or petroleum-based energy, don't you implicitly condone its production? The profiteers aren't just trying to make money. They're trying to make money off YOU. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
all the more reason to fight for alternative fuels, and to demand vehicles that get great mileage AND make them be affordable to people like me, who are currently unemployed but living in an area with an inadequate public transportation network bit transportation is only part of the problem, we need to be less dependent upon nonrenewable sources for heating and manufacturing |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
John I don't know what a "Camp Hitchcock" is, please explain.. Ron "I assume you ride a horse to work, then? When you use a product, be it illicit drug or petroleum-based energy, don't you implicitly condone its production? The profiteers aren't just trying to make money. They're trying to make money off YOU." I don't ride a horse to work, but I do make sure that someone else rides with me to our jobs, we take as few vehicles as possible and use the smallest amount of gas we can... I condone its production under the condition that it be used wisely, not foolishly in gas guzzlers such as the (private)"Hummer" I was born into a society that is shortsighted, and still is when it comes to non renewable recourses such as oil, whose members never count the total costs of its production because it doesn't come off their bottom line.. We are not bombarded by suggestions of how to save energy in all aspects of our lives..conservation is a profane word in the books of large corporations and the government...We have been urged to be exploiters, and when that urging doesn't work we are forced to comply by economic pressure....If I am to make what little I keep I have to join the exploiters club in some way...But I can nurture in other ways....Live a simple lifestyle, grow a garden, eat the fish I catch, make venison stew, heat my house with wood from my own small plot of earth etc..which I do. Peace-------ice ><> |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Kacey, are you saying then that all of the arctic wildlife is going to disappear because of these decisions? |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
ARE you suggesting we take the chance, just to get a few barrels of oil? This country has had multiple opportunities in the past twenty five or so years to disengage ourselves from oil dependency, but the oil industry has pumped billions into making sure no one spends sufficient time or money into alternative fuels, which would hurt the oil barons bottom line. The porcupine herd caribou graze near Beaufort Lagoon. Oldsquaw ducks and other migratory fowl breed and feed there annually, in a relatively pristine habitat in ANWR. Oil drilling damages the sensitive fragile ecosysytem, tears up the tundra. In Prudhoe Bay, approximately 43000 tons of nitrogen oxide gets spewed out daily, polluting the air and land. The estimates for the proposed new drilling include putting in over 280 more miles of roads, hundreds of miles of new pipes, and over 50 million cubic feet of gravel...which will be 'taken' from nearby streams and lakes. And worldwide climate changes are already putting a dent in Alaska's landscape. The permafrost is melting so fast, most of the highways have to be re-done yearly. When I lived there (for 6 years) one major highway was rebuilt with the expectations it would last at least 10 years HAHA, after a full year of rebuilding, it still sank in several spots, and is being 'redone' in multiple places almost monthly. And that's just one example of the problems with roads in Alaska. I know people in Prudhoe Bay, and in Barrow. They aren't convinced the drilling and pipeline work can be done without major damage to the entire ecosystem. One is a wildlife biologist, and I think he is a more reliable source than any oil baron or government spokesman as to what the dangers are to the wildlife there. And no, Mike, I sure don't mean to say ALL wildlife would become extinct, and hope you aren't suggesting that would be acceptable? or that even if many could die, that would be OK? Not to mention the lifestyle of the G'wchen natives, who rely on traveling and substance fishing and hunting for survival, Not one of the G'wchens I know want to see the drilling happen. They are the closest to the land. And yet, hundreds of thousands have been spent by oil company front men attempting to buy these people off. I'm sure some may have accepted the $, since they figured the US govt would go ahead in spite of all protests and environmental concerns. It's not just a bout a handful of caribou, the arctic tern, the ducks, the polar bears, the people who live there. Its also one of the last places on this earth where we have a chance to say NO, we will not rape the land and the environment this way. To drill in the sensitive ecosystem of the arctic is absolute insanity. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
" I sure don't mean to say ALL wildlife would become extinct, and hope you aren't suggesting that would be acceptable?" I must confess I have no idea in the world where that came from. Where did I say ANYTHING that would suggest that - or was that just a smoke screen you threw up? A good part of your reply to my question deals with world wide climate conditions damaging Alaska? Does that have something to do with the oil drilling I'm not aware of? You make it sound like it's an "either-or" situation where we either drill for oil or the wildlife lives. I don't see why both are not possible. I believe in the ecology and I also believe in protection of wildlife. You will have to go a long way to find someone who does not love animals as much as I. I also believe that some of the ecologists are nutcases who present their views with tactics that border on sordid. As an example, a few years ago the topic of drilling in Alaska was a subject receiving quite a bit of publicity from the environmentalists. They ran tv ads showing the pristine beauty of several Alaskan areas, wildlife cavorting in abundance, and then footage of (somewhere) oil drilling, their point being that oil drilling in these areas would destroy all of that natural beauty. Afterwards, the Discovery channel showed a documentary on where actual oil drilling was going on in Alaska. It was in a very desolate area, far removed from all of the postcard setting the environmentalists displayed. There was minimal wildlife in these barren areas and, even then, the managers of the oil exploration went into great detail of all the steps being taken to preserve all of the wildlife in the area...and there were many. That's why I asked you the question - not to back you in a corner but to ask if you really believed that the presence of one would eliminate the presence of the other. Personally, I don't believe so.... |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
'are you saying then that all of the arctic wildlife is going to disappear ' well, maybe it was the way you wrote this? questionning the validity maybe? Anyway, I did make one error, the G'wichens actually are just south of ANWR, not IN ANWR. But they do not support the drilling, though the Eskimos of Kaktovik do, and no wonder, they make beaucoup revenues off the Prudoe Bay money because it was Eskimo land. I'm not the least bit impressed with the testimony of people who support this drilling who also stand to make a profit. In the background, there are even some Eskimos who are keeping their fingers crossed that the drilling doesn't go too far. Climate change affects the way the roads are developed and consequently their stability. Drilling and road development affects the tundra, the permafrost further south, and the entire region. I know there have been improvements in oil field management, in drilling techniques. I know many people in that industry (including one of my family) try to do their best to minimize the impact on the land. But the fact is, the tundra is extremely sensitive, and even the constant pressure from walking on it disrupts the fragile living organisms. I think as a nation, we are being so short sighted, that we are sacrificing far too much for the oil that is within the refuge, and not being honest about the potential permanent damage that will be done. And all because we want to have a steady flow of oil at a low price, even if it means there'll be no oil at ANY price 50 years from now. Oh yeah, I heard that by then, we'll have it all figured out and not need the oil anyway. I also heard that same spiel about 30 years ago, and have seen little change in our total consumption patterns. And in addition, what else is scary? NOW in China they are selling more cars than 30 years ago, and in many developing countries, everyone wants to have a car, and suck up more oil. There are so many other side issues to this topic, not all of which I can address in this thread. The bottom line is, we have to find other energy sources. Sucking up ANWR is not the answer. But since it looks like its going to happen, I hope they at least have some plan as to how to deal with the up and down heave/hoe movement the pipelines go through at least twice a year as the freeze/thaw cycles happen. Not to mention how to protect it from terrorists or drunks with shotguns (another true story of an incident about three or four years ago) And that someone has ways to let all the migratory animals not to land nearby, but give them some directional arrows to go east, young bird, go east . LOL, have to make at least one joke to survive this environmental insanity. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"I'm not the least bit impressed with the testimony of people who support this drilling " Isn't that the crux of it, Kacey, not being impressed with anyone whose views are different from what we want to believe? That's why these threads seldom go anywhere. I still didn't see a response as to whether you consider this an "either/or" situation or whether you think that just possibly both are possible. |
||
|
bbent Senior Member
since 2001-01-07
Posts 521Alaska |
money talks,reason walks...seems to be sadly true.funny no one mentioned the canada/alaska natural pipeline thats going in also.even sader the little press givin to the recent anouncment by scientist that there will be no polar ice caps or the creatures that depend on them for life by the end of this century at todays rate of global warming...dang might as well cast my barb at the feds and there harp project too,blasting holes in the ozone with microwaves from deep inside pristine alaska. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Scientists also predict with certainty that the earth will be covered with another ice age in the future and that thousands of forms of life, from plants to animals will continue to pass into extinction. Why? Because that is the cycle of the history of earth. You are giving way too much importance to the contributions of man with regards to microwaves, global warming and the like. Mother Nature has her own cycles which have been carried on since the beginning of time, even long before man made his unwelcome arrival...and She will continue to do so. |
||
|
bbent Senior Member
since 2001-01-07
Posts 521Alaska |
cycles have and will continue,however global warming is happening at a much more accellerated pace than nature itself has ever done because of mans polution induced greenhouse gasses.i'm not opposed to mans use of the earths resources in a resonable manner but our abuse of them can also have a devastating effect on this planet and it's inhabitants.i really got to dissagree with your statement that i'm placing too much importance on mans contribution.not so much for my benifit but for my childrens and theirs.honestly i don't know that ecologically sound drilling here will do that much irrepairable damage but the increasing demand and use of oil by all the world is. i also got to stand behind my feelings that money talks,reason walks. man's not a resonable creature,a few minutes of the evening news should prove that. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
So, I see you didn't quote the whole sentence. "I'm not the least bit impressed with the testimony of people who support this drilling who also stand to make a profit" Shouldn't you be questionning the ones who are making all the money, or doesn't that matter? There are many many issues connected with this, the environment, your personal pocketbook, the oil conglomerates...it's not as simple as asking will the wild animals survive or not? That was the STARTING point of the thread, but obviously, only a starting point. I hope others will continue with this and other themes. But realistically, I never expect to change anyone's mindset, though it would be nice to be able to discuss the pros and cons of drilling in the Arctic. I think the cons far outweigh the pros. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Destruction of forests, wildlife habitats, etc. are happening in large parts of the world and being done by those within the six billion, (and will be nine billion by 2050), over whom the United States has little or no control. I have to think the increasing industrialization of an increasing China and India, for example, will have far greater impact. “we need to be less dependent upon nonrenewable sources for heating and manufacturing” Some countries, not having the luxury of their own ample sources for oil, etc. have turned to the nuclear option, (including earthquake ridden Japan which once went to war for oil). Our reluctance assures our dependence and vulnerability. |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Balladeer quote: "There was minimal wildlife in these barren areas and, even then, the managers of the oil exploration went into great detail of all the steps being taken to preserve all of the wildlife in the area...and there were many." "minimal wildlife in these barren areas" is not true, their are minimal numbers of species, yes, as is such in all boreal climates...species number per square mile is very low when compared to temperate or tropical climates...All the more reason to protect them from the vulnerability of intruders, because minimal species means it is easy to wipe them out by disease, habitat destruction or stress... What has not been spoken of is that noise from drilling activities alters marine mammal navigation, social interactions, prey capture and predator avoidance. The land is not the only thing in jeopardy here.. Despite claims by the big oil companies that they can drill and have drilled responsibly on Alaska’s North Slope, spills are commonplace. At the Prudhoe Bay oilfield, reportable spills of oil products and hazardous substances happen every day and are compounded by the noise and air pollution industrialization brings. Shortly after drilling started in this area, the central arctic caribou herd shifted its calving grounds away from development, resulting in the use of lower quality habitats. That herd is one of the species that is hugely abundant, but have very intricate and has unique patterns of reproduction...making their survival precarious at best. The "managers of oil exploration" follow only government regulations , almost entirely, and in many cases do not. With the weakening of regulations proposed by Bush they will now have a much easier go of it..millions of dollars in fines have been levied against the "managers " for violations in the arctic regions, particularly in the Prudhoe Bay area...just west of ANWR-1002.. One regulation that is followed, is the legality of dumping byproducts into lagoons at the drill sites, it is absorbed directly into the permafrost, and being dark in color, absorbs the suns rays ..thus melting the permafrost...bad news for the soil and general health of the area... Kacy quote: ..realistically, I never expect to change anyone's mindset, though it would be nice to be able to discuss the pros and cons of drilling in the Arctic. I think the cons far outweigh the pros... Ok, to keep on topic is crucial, everything that is connected to the issue is a pro or a con...opinions based on facts are most important.. ******************************************** Opinions based on facts gathered by different sources that have to do with the topic.... *A leading expert on natural resources at the conservative Cato Institute said that Mr. Bush’s claim that we can effectively combat international oil forces by increasing our domestic production "is beyond nonsense.... It’s nonsense on stilts.... ‘Energy independence’ thus makes for good political rhetoric but inane economic policy.... they’re going to dominate the world market whether we allow drilling in environmentally sensitive areas or not." (I think he was speaking directly at the ANWR issue) *Vice President Dick Cheney says drilling for oil and gas would disturb just 2,000 acres of the 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. "The notion that, somehow, developing the resources in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Reserve requires some sort of vast despoiling of the environment up there is just garbage," (NBC- "Meet the Press") He took these figures from a 2001 proposal to legislate hr-4 which included this erroneous statement> "Under the bill as passed, oil and gas exploration in the refuge is limited to 2000 acres." This is the drilling base area only and does not include pipelines and roadways, landing strips and other construction/destruction. * 1987 LEIS report: Information gathered from the biological, seismic and geological studies was used to complete a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) that described the potential impacts of oil and gas development. This LEIS included the Secretary's final report and recommendation, as it was submitted to Congress. The report concluded that oil development and production in the 1002 Area would have major effects on the Porcupine Caribou herd and muskoxen. Major effects were defined as "widespread, long-term change in habitat availability or quality which would likely modify natural abundance or distribution of species." Moderate effects were expected for wolves, wolverine, polar bears, snow geese, seabirds and shorebirds, arctic grayling and coastal fish. Major restrictions on subsistence activities by Kaktovik residents would also be expected. *Congress and Clinton: In 1995, Congress passed budget legislation that included a provision to allow drilling in the Refuge. Citing a desire to protect biological and wilderness values, President Clinton vetoed the bill, stating "I want to protect this biologically rich wilderness permanently." This is getting long, I better quit now...Peace all.... ----------ice ><> |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
ICE quote: The biologist I referred to in an earlier post is a marine biologist. His specialty area is studying whale migrations, feeding, calving, and the unexplained beachings that have occured internationally. I'm hoping to get in touch with him next week, to learn of his findings of the past three years since the last time I spoke with him (Barrow, AK) I remember vividly some incidents in California, where a research vessel assisted the Navy with sonar studies, depth soundings in the Channel Islands. I was invited aboard by friends working on the project, when it was anchored in the harbor. The biologists and other scientists were concerned about the negative impact on marine mammals, and rightly so. One of my friends was told not to fuss over a few whales or dolphins or other 'fish.' Anyone wanting more info can research through groups like Concerned Scientists, Earth Island Institute, Cousteau Society, even Sierra Club and Audobon members. The number of sources for hands-on actual data is overwhelming. Over 20 years ago, I had the great pleasure of meeting Cousteau and crew, and his comments about the degradation of the oceans by humans left an impact on me, as did my chance meeting with some of the crew of a Greenpeace flagship. Those are the people I listen to when it comes to the environment, not the politicians and highly paid oil lobbyists, or the people who are so desperate they sell their souls and their children's futures just to put fuel in their cars today. Thank you, very much, Ford, for the input you've added to this thread. |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Kacy My input is my pleasure, but I do like to be thanked for it---  makes me feel like my passion for the cause is not disregarded..I do try to stay with provable facts, try not to let my emotions get overwhelming, which is easy to do, because of my great love for this earth and all its creatures including human beings.. "Those are the people I listen to when it comes to the environment, not the politicians and highly paid oil lobbyists, or the people who are so desperate they sell their souls and their children's futures just to put fuel in their cars today." "their children's future" and also the unborn, the seven generations I spoke of in the poem I posted in open. First nation peoples of the plains, told me in a book, about them...They are the smiling faces that embroider the clouds... They are the generations that need the wild places to exist for them when they are born.. I charge the nearsighted politicians and oil companies with child abuse for their part in destroying what does not belong to them. For selling the earth for short term gain, disregarding the mess they leave for future generations to look at and be one with. Another instance of child abuse is to hand over a bill for trillions of dollars in deficits to babies born today and those to be unborn, but that is another topic... Peace to you my friend, and all who read this... ___________ice/ford ><> |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I never expect to change anyone's mindset, though it would be nice to be able to discuss the pros and cons of drilling in the Arctic. I must respectfully disagree with that statement, Kacey. It is evident you have no desire to discuss any pros at all when, in fact, you dismiss them. Any statements that come from those working on drilling you label as unworthy of thought since they are from people who profit from the drilling. In this thread and in others I have seen the recurring notion from you that anyone who does something for profit is evil, as if working for profit is some dastardly scheme which turns decent people into animals incapable of working for the common good or having decent thoughts about the economy, the environment or humanity in general. goodbye to the Arctic wildlife you're about to get a royal drilling so someone can make another schilling, the oil industry has pumped billions into making sure no one spends sufficient time or money into alternative fuels, which would hurt the oil barons bottom line. I'm not the least bit impressed with the testimony of people who support this drilling who also stand to make a profit. or the people who are so desperate they sell their souls and their children's futures just to put fuel in their cars today. Good grief! I don't know what in your life has impressed you so much to have this feeling but I can assure you that a good deal of the progress humanity has made and the inventions/discoveries that have helped humanity came from those doing it for profit. America itself was a creation of a country where people could be free and have the right to be as successful as their drive and abilities allowed. Yet, somehow, the fact that these people make a profit turn them into some kind of monsters in your eyes, pillaging the countryside, destroying everything in sight just so they can run home and count their ill-gotten wealth made from the destruction of everything good. Are you prepared to give them even the tiniest shred of thought that just perhaps they would act responsibly in their efforts and do everything possible to protect the environment and still be able to extract oil we need? No, I don't think you can. When John made the comment about the strong population growth of the world, an actual reason why more energy is needed, it was called immaterial. It's NOT immaterial. Poeple close their eyes to the why something is necessary - they just scream they don't want it done. Nobody is interested in being part of the solution. Ice gives examples of all kinds of things he does to conserve energy and protect the environment and I commend him for it - but how many people are there like that? 1%? Clinton is quoted as a friend of the environment...you think he and Hillary drive Toyotas? Gore was a great spokesman for the environment and energy issues - then he was caught having his jet continue running for an hour while he got his $200 haircuts, burning who knows how many gallons of fuel? Last month he was stopped for speeding. You think he was stopped in a Yugo? He was stopped driving one of the biggest gas guzzlers on the planet! Everybody talks a good game about energy conservation but few are willing to take part in its conservation if it interferes with their comfort level. It's like a woman with 5 kids and pregnant complaining about too many people in the world. Well, since the majority of mankind will not cut back on its energy usage and since the world's population continues to expand on a blitzkreig level, more energy must be produced. We can't follow the logic of Kerry, who proclaimed that we must save the environment and must use our own resources to not have to depend on foreign oil...however that is supposed to be interpreted. We have an abundance of oil and energy in our own country we can tap into...why in the world shouldn't we? The question becomes can we do it in a way that is environmentally friendly or are those rich oil barons just out to raze the country in order to fill their pockets? Unfortunately, I believe from your many comments you believe the latter even before seeing it while I believe in the decency of men, even rich ones, to do the right thing in the best way possible. I guess only time will tell..... |
||
|
Krawdad Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597 |
"The question becomes can we do it in a way that is environmentally friendly or are those rich oil barons just out to raze the country in order to fill their pockets?" That's a trick question so it deserves the appropriate answer. Yes and Yes. It's a bit like "Did you stop kicking your dog?" |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
LOL, Mike, you know darn well I'm not referring to all the workers who do the drilling and grunt work building the structures. I'm talking about the ones who make mega bucks and have their pockets double-lined through all the oilfield inter-related businesses. And I support many businesses, ones that I feel make sound business decisions which take the long term health of this planet into consideration. I've worked for more than one such business, though it didn't make a huge profit. There are hundreds of companies that do business without destroying the environment. I am not opposed to people making a profit. When you pull all those statements out of context and run them together it does seem strange, but you took them out of context and twisted them into some distorted picture of what I've said. And you suggested I refuse listen to anyone who puts forth a pro argument. What makes you think you know who I've been talking to or how many discussion groups I've attended, or what kinds of research I've done? I don't dismiss research or arguments when they are backed up by facts and my own real-world observations. I've been actively involved for many years with different groups, including oil field companies, engineers, government entities, volunteer groups, city councils. I've read countless EIR 's and legislative mumbo jumbo, and the smoke screens are so thick it sometimes takes a microscope to find an element of truth. And that is true of ALL sides, for there are almost always more than two or three interpretations of the facts and figures, believe it or not. If I didn't want to open this topic up to discussion, I wouldn't have put it in this forum at all, but just stuck it on some other public board where everyone is already leaning in one direction. I was hoping someone with new FACTS or perhaps a novel interpretation of the Arctic ecosystems might come in and prove to me that I'm incorrect in my assesssment. So far, I've not read anything that comes close to that. And I DO get a bit heated and passionate about this, and that's another reason i am very glad to have people such as Ford jump in and offer additional facts. It's not that I don't know more facts, but rather, I sometimes let my buttons get pushed and then the facts go out the window. LOL, of that much, I will agree, if you accuse me of an emotional reaction....'tis true, I've been known to react with my emotions leading the way. But it isn't true that I don't listen or don't do my homework, or that I don't believe anyone should make a profit. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
Mike? I used to work with a group called Zero Population, encouraging people to have smaller families than what was the norm 50 years ago. Some listened some didn't, to the arguments in favor of LESS is better. I also worked to help set up a free clinic, to provide birth control counseling to teens who were already sexually active, partly for general health care reasons, partly to encourage birth control in order to slow down the exponentially increasing population numbers. So I'm not sure why you thought I was dismissive of what John said about over population being part of the problem. Or did someone else suggest population has nothing to do with the environmental problems we all face in this new century? I haven't gone back through and re-read every reply I guess. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I'm not sure I would call it a novel interpretation, Kacey, but you sort of dismissed mine out of hand. You seem overly concerned, I think, about people who "make mega bucks and have their pockets double-lined through all the oilfield inter-related businesses." Those people, at least technically, don't exist. There are only people who take the money that YOU keep giving them. So, uh, stop giving it to them? You are essentially complaining about people doing what you've paid them to do. As long as you continue to make your own life more comfortable by using petroleum products, someone else is going to continue digging it out of the ground. And before you cite people using hummers and SUV's, please consider that argument is simply one of degree, not one of kind. You're just saying someone else shouldn't get to be more comfortable than you, without really contending that the environment is more important than human comfort. I have quite a number of Amish neighbors who would put you and I in the same category as you want to put the hummer aficionados. Degree, not kind. Unless our dependence on oil is eliminated -- not reduced, not conserved, but eliminated -- it doesn't matter whether we drill in Alaska tomorrow or twenty years from tomorrow. We WILL drill in Alaska. It's a foregone conclusion. What you fear, Kacey, is so predictable a social phenomenon that we've even given it a name. A very fancy, high-sounding name. What we haven't given it, I'm afraid, is an effective solution. The Tragedy of the Commons Me? I put forty bucks into a 5,000 pound, gas-guzzling V8 Chevy van today, knowing full well Michigan could be knee-deep in snow any day now and I'll need some way to plow through roads that may or may not see a scraper for a week. I guess that means I'm not quite ready to hitch a ride with my Amish neighbors? Until I am ready, I'm afraid I don't have an answer for anyone, because as long as I'm part of the problem I can't be part of the solution. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL! Sorry, Kacey, I really wasn't trying to just pick on you. I had a valid reason for the remarks. As far as taking your words out of context, how does one do that by repeating your exact words?? I'm not referring to all the workers who do the drilling and grunt work building the structures. I'm talking about the ones who make mega bucks and have their pockets double-lined through all the oilfield inter-related businesses. And you suggested I refuse listen to anyone who puts forth a pro argument My "suggestions" came from the fact that I said this... the managers of the oil exploration went into great detail of all the steps being taken to preserve all of the wildlife in the area ....and you responded with this.. I'm not the least bit impressed with the testimony of people who support this drilling who also stand to make a profit. I was simply speaking of a man in a managerial position, not an oil baron, who takes a paycheck home each week just like you and I but you chose to ignore any input of his. Those were the reasons for my comments, not to just make up stuff to throw at you. I applaud you passion for this subject, believe me. Anyone can clearly see how seriously you take it and how involved you are, not just a person waving a sign or shouting slogans. I just happen to think that passion prevents you from even considering that people, even oil barons, would be responsible or consciencious enough to work with the environment instead of brusquely mistreating it, while using its resources. So that makes your decision to discuss it, professing to have an open mind, a little strange to me. You know what? You may be right, who knows? I may be the one all wet and, when drilling starts, it may be an environmental armageddon due to the callous treatment of the earth. Who can say? I simply believe that for something we are going to have to do in any case, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until I see otherwise. As Ron said, it's not a question of whether it's going to be done or not so why not at least consider that perhaps there will be people responsible enough to do it the right way? Also, along with the wizard, I admit also that I am part of the problem with my energy use so I don't have a lot of creditiblilty, either. |
||
|
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
Is it me or is getting hot in the arctic, I mean here?  If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
LOL at Larry's reply. As for what you've written, Ron and Mike, you do have some good feedback for me and I appreciate that. Guess no one knows I spent the last two years walking 2 to 5 miles daily and using primarily public transportation (as well as my feet) just to do my share. And I ride share whenever possible. I keep my thermostat so low everyone thinks I still live in Fairbanks. LOL. I do put my money where my mouth is, for the most part. But I admit to being addicted to this online stuff so maybe that's a real issue for me to look at, a way to conserve. Less energy used if this thing sits idle more often.  I'm probably sensitive in part because of the job/economic scene here in Oregon being very very poor, the public transportation is inadequate at best, and the price of fuel is outrageous. But even when I had sufficient cash, I walked many places...yes, even in Alaska in the winter. I walked two miles to save fuel, wear and tear on the car, and to help keep exhaust pollutin down to a minimum. We are all apparently guilty of making assumptions as to who is or is not doing something to curtail oil consumption. Well, I'm probably going to end my internet connection this week anyway, as the DSL service is now prohibitively expensive. I'll be working a min wage job walking distance from home starting the end of the month. In other words, approx half of what I made 15 years ago. It's been nice, but maybe this place is part of the problem, it gives me a false sense of well being that doesn't match reality. I apologize if I got a little out of control, but I sure don't apologize for the basics of what I wrote, only the emotional overlay. Ron, you have a wonderful home here, I have appreciated being a part of it, and hope to stop by from time to time and read. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That's not a false sense of good feelings, Kacey...it's real and one of the main things that keeps us all here or always coming back. We can discuss, we can argue, we can mix it up in so many ways but still the feeling of being part of something worthwhile and personal remains. Most of the people here really care....and that's what you feel and what counts. Jeez, if I didn't respect you I wouldn't waste my time with you...and there are those in which I don't. It's a special place and we are all special parts - never forget that. Also, as I said, I admire your fervor in your cause. I can imagine you chaining yourself to a tree to save it. Sometimes I can imagine ME chaining you to a tree!!  |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
LOL, thanks Mike, but I don't look good in dangling chain jewelry. LOL. Till next time, take care. |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
 ...we've lost, to our regret! The Senate has just rejected the Cantwell Amendment 49-51, which would have exempted the drilling and exploration of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Mark one more to the continuing degradation of our environment under the Bush Administration. By the way, here's the three faux Democratics who were fully capable of tilting the vote the other way but betrayed the interests of their party, as well as the American public (73% believe it is either extremely or significantly important to preserve our environment.) Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA) Daniel Akaka (D-HI) Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI) If you are just angered by this, you can reach them by these numbers: Landrieu: 202-224-5824 Akaka: 202-224-6361 Inouye: 202-224-3934 Four Republican Senators showed some class today, though it wasn't enough to save the day: Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) Norm Coleman (R-MN) John McCain (R-AZ) Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME) President Eisenhower left us in 1960 with 8.9 million acres of preserved wilderness, one of the last untouched wildlife places on earth. It was doubled in size to 19.3 million acres in 1980 by the Carter Administration. And now, its legacy is about to be scarred forever by the Bush Administration. * And so, today, we say farwell to the great ANWR.   Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (1960-2005) Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Not really, Noah. All they want to do is to use a few acres of ANWR, less than a 1/3 of 1% of the total acreage. Granted, the land used will most likely not be continuous, but a piece here, a piece there and another over there. They're not talking about building oil refinerery facilities, which are massive, but derricks to reach the oil, then small pumps to pipe it out. Those small pumps dot the west Texan landscape, taking up about a 10'x10' piece of land, and that includes the fencing and clear zone around the base plate. What they ain't gonna do is turn the ENTIRE park into a massive strip mining operation, and that's kinda what the progressives have been painting it as, not very small pieces of land, but the entire place denuded and ruined, mountians leveled, pits hundreds of feet deep and miles across. Keep in mind that petroleum isn't just for gasoline. Plastics, rubber, -ahols, pharmecuiticals, ashpalt, explosives, roofing material and textiles. Hundreds of thousands of applications, all used. We use petroleum like the Plains Indians used the buffalo. Every part is used, every compound, every molecule. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Alicat, it seems to me you are more understanding of environmental issues than about 95% or more of other Republicans. I do believe you are more acknowledging of some environmental issues than most of them are. I typically am not a person that expresses extremes, but I truly feel after all this, I am just about completely convinced that the Bush Administration knows nothing about our environment. Nothing! There's that Biscuit Timber sale that happened recently down in southern Oregon in the Siskiyou National Forest and Fiddler Mountain, which was victim to the greatest national wildfire of 2002, which began July 13th that year and burned over 499,965 acres before being declared controlled on November 8, 2002. The Bush Administration has this mentality that once a forest has been burned, it's no longer of use thus should be cut down. Thus the whole Orwellian strategy again with the "Healthy Forest Restoration Act" The truth is that forests have repeatedly burned and regrown for millennia, and the burned trees perform significant roles in any healthy forest. The true life cycle of a tree is more correctly measured in terms of its years as a standing tree, as a snag, and as a fallen tree. So, a Douglass Fir, which might have a lifespan in the neighborhood of 600 years as a living tree, actually functions as an important part of the ecosystem for as much as 600 years more, because it stores and releases nutriens to the recovering forest, they retain moisture, they provide shade for germination and early growth of seedlings, and by stabilizing the soil and storing the sediments. The fact is, fire is one of the natural processes that maintain healthy forests. Fires have performed their role for millennia, and most experts agree that we can’t do better than the natural processes at maintaining the health and wellbeing of wilderness areas. Besides that, if one were to just give attention to this issue more, it is obvious that the older trees resist fires quite well, and it is the undergrowth and smaller trees, including densely planted single-species tree farms, that are most prone to fire. I'm convinced by this primary example that this administration does not take our environment seriously whatsoever and has no ecological wisdom. * With that said, I want to make some points clear here. You have to understand the big picture here, beyond the rhetoric of "This oil will move Maryland for 100 years", etc. None of us know exactly how much oil is there, but by the most accepted estimations, are you aware that the oil in the ANWR is such a small amount, that it's only approximately more than 2% of the U.S oil supply? Are you aware, in terms of the nation at large, that this oil in ANWR is not enough to last us any more than 6 to 11 months? Add to that the understanding that the oil will take 10-15 years to put on the market. "Energy independent" doesn't just mean ending the reliance of our oil from foreign nations. It also means looking toward renewable sources, NOT expanded oil drilling. * A 13-year old, Sierra Pell of Marlboro VT, who researched ANWR and filed a petition against oil drilling was right on here when she wrote about the importance of wildlife habitat in the region. She had this to say in her essay! "Each Spring, one of the worlds biggest Caribou herds travels over 400 miles just to give birth in ANWR'S almost perfect nursery. Pregnant or nursing Caribou can be very sensitive and, at any disturbance, may leave the nursery and their calves. Each Summer, millions of graceful Snow Geese, Sand Hill Cranes, Red Throated Loons and many other bird species come to nest in this precious place before starting their long journey south. Each Fall, more pearly Polar Bears than anywhere else, come ashore to birth their cubs and build their dens. Pregnant and nursing Polar Bears are very sensitive and if disturbed they might leave their dens, resulting in fatal consequences for their cubs. All throughout the year, over 350 cumbersome Musk Oxen (one of our few survivors of the ice age) roam the fragile plains that they depend on so much, the plain that gives them shelter, food and a place to be! They depend on this land! If we let the Bush administration destroy this land that the animals depend on, our age old survivors may die! It may sound strange that they can survive the NATURAL ice age and yet not survive UNNATURAL land destruction; but it's true! All year round, along with the Musk Oxen, Grizzlies, Wolves, Arctic Foxes, Golden Eagles, Snowy Owls and many others live off the hospitable land of ANWR. Do we really want to see such magnificent animals or their homes become destroyed?" I'm telling you, I teared up reading that beautiful essay of hers a few years ago in warmth, and now I am tearing up sadly as I wish there was something I could say in condolence and warmth for her, for now all these beautiful creatures are truly are in grave danger. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
There's the rub. Even with the most advanced technologies at our disposal, we never really know how much oil is in a natural deposit, even after it's first tapped. Somewhere there's simple guesswork, which can be whittled down a bit by lots of education and a knack for the trade. My late uncle was a geologist and worked for oil companies in Texas. He had the knack, and was always about 5 years ahead of his competitors, and never in his 30+ years in the field did he ever have an initial dry well. When his kids were in school, they paid more in taxes than their teachers from oil revenue, since they each owned several wells. That girl's petition does make a lot of sense, and none at the same time. To truly preserve ANWR, all humans would have to be banned from entering it, since the mere presence of people instantly changes the environment. From tracks and trails, to spooking critters, to our very scent. Not to mention the careless who need rescuing, creating more havok, or who leave foodstuffs around which drastically changes animal behavior and habits. So if the argument boils down to preserve or not, then that means no people at all, or any amount of people at any time. Excluding some to 'preserve' the preserve is a fallacy of reason, for the same examples I've given. Either exclude all, or exclude none. Though middle ground and grey area is all well and good, some things are all or nothing, black and white. And I feel ANWR is one of em. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
"a piece here, a piece there and another over there" yep That's how the WHOLE of it eventually goes, isn't it? I cannot even address the whole of this tonight, unfortunatley, due to time constraints. *sigh* thank you both, Noah and Alicat, for spending time on these issues, which I believe are ultimatley critical to survival of ALL Life on planet earth. [This message has been edited by Midnitesun (03-16-2005 11:39 PM).] |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Just dropped in before heading out to work, not much time to write more than a note to state my grief. I morn for the earth often, but what can one expect from those who rule it with a clenched fist full of dollars...but short sighted decisions such as just went down in the senate... "To truly preserve ANWR, all humans would have to be banned from entering it, since the mere presence of people instantly changes the environment." Not true, Alicat People do belong in the wilderness, but very few, and for ancient purposes...I am sure native hunters and fisherman have used the area and rightly so.. But oilmen are a different story, and the reasons they should not be allowed to enter their are obvious, look at the trail of pollution they have left in their wake around the world. Be back later. '_________ice ><> |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I'll readily concede that Alaskan Native Americans be allowed to utilize any wildlife preserve, but you never hear any group, well, most groups, crying foul about Inuit hunters killing animals in those preserves for food, clothing, transportation and tools. I'm sure some of the more radical PETA groups have schitzophrenic reactions there: how to protest animal killing and fur usage while defending Native American culture. Back to oil, all residents of Alaska get cash bonuses each year from oil production and revenue. It was a major incentive to encourage immigration from the lower 48 and Hawaii, and it's still in place today. People, PACs and special interest groups are always quick to attempt undermining another state's economy with little thought of the long term impact. Granted, oil exploration in ANWR could definately have long term impacts. So did the massive tobacco lawsuit and PACs that were against coal mining, hurting just about every state along the Atlantic and Appalachians. Then those same groups have the gall to remark upon the poor living conditions, state services, and income levels of those affected cities, counties and states. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
If history has taught us anything, it's that once you start scratching at any surface, you keep scratching at it. This is not going to stop there. Soon those oil barons will be starving for more...and more...and more...until one day we turn our heads and see there really is nothing left, and all the magic is gone for both tourists and the oil barons. What about those jobs that'll be created from it anyway? They're temporary jobs. It's far more economical, and creates far more jobs, in working for environmental sustainability. But now that those oil barons get to have it their way, both them and their temporary workers' achievements will be a blessing in disguise. They say that only 2000 acres will be drilled on along the Coastal Plain. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), oil under the Coastal Plain is spread across the entire 1.5 million acres. The 2000-acre limitation would not require that the 2000 acres of production and support facilities be in one compact contiguous area. That limitation only addresses "surface acreage covered by production and support facilities." It only includes where oil facilities will actually touch the ground. The USGS also estimates that the amount of oil likely to be recovered from the Arctic Refuge would be no more than 0.3% of the World's reserves, and would do nothing to help secure the nation's energy independence. These oil barons have, naturally, a ravenous appetite for cash, and though it may not seem like much they're drilling now, just watch. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
