A little video by the NRDC and Robert Redford http://www.nrdcactionfund.org/tellafriend.asp http://www.nrdc.org/
F8L, I'm loving you more and more with each of your posts! First, you comment on the deleterious effects of invasive species and now this!!! You rock! Ever since the current administration took office, they've been trying to pass a bill to drill here. They hid the drilling in a bill that was to fund our troops in Iraq, then they tried to bury it in an energy bill that gave americans a lousy 100 credit on their energy use. Each and every time the outcries were heard and the bills were voted down. After numerous years of attempting to drill here, they will not give up. A collective voice has spoken and the administration is not willing to listen. I have probably killed and entire tree writing letters opposing this matter. Thanks for posting this thread. Here are some facts that I was able to obtain when making my decision as to whether or not I wanted to support the matter. ANWR maybe has 10 billion barrels of oil. We here in the US consume 19 million barrels of day of this fuel. When one does the math, you can see that drilling here would support a little over one year of our energy needs. Our foreign imports would drop by only about 5% and the price of a barrel of oil by only .50 cents. The oil generated from this area wouldn't even hit our market until about 2013 so it's not even a short term solution. Meanwhile, we'd be destroying one of the most pristine habitats in the US. I haven't found any data on this theory but am wondering if the cost to implement drilling here would yield more cost effective results by investing this money in the research of alternative energy.
LOL Thanks SSimon. I agree with all that you have said. On the last part concerning cost effectiveness, some believe that it is not even about the oil contained in ANWR and that it has to do with setting a precedent. If we allow the drilling to commence then we se t aprecident where it makes it easier to exploit our national parks and refuges in the future. One must also recognize that A National Wildlife Refuge is one of the highest levels of protection that can be placed on a piece of land. It is much more important than even a national park. One must also consider the ludicrous claims that the drilling operation will only occupy a small parcel of land when in reality it will be spread out and have connecting roads to and from each smaller station, which in ecosystem terms, will divide the area up and could create boundaries and fragmentation.
How someone could even think of desecrating a wildlife refuge is beyond me. Destroy something forever in return for one year's oil for one country? Let me think...umm...NO! Whoever counted the beans on that one is counting some of them twice and others not at all, or only counting their own. I think my Greenpeace contribution just went up again. Time for a little civil disobedience?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 25 2006, 11:02 AM) [snapback]309391[/snapback]</div> "Hammer, let me introduce nail..." (squarely on the head)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Aug 25 2006, 11:53 AM) [snapback]309416[/snapback]</div> Where is your house? Was it not at one time a pristine natural habitat? I am not arguing for or against the drilling in the refuge (frankly I don't know all of the argument pro/con), but it seems - no offense intended - somewhat hypocritical. Remember that the oil we use is coming from somewhere. Where that comes from now or in the future is also an area that was once a pristine natural environment. I agree we should all cut back and conserve where we can. But to think that we will never again drop another oil well into the ground on this planet is a bit ridiculous. The question is, where will that be (our backyard, so to speak, or someone else's)? Does anybody have a reason why we should / should not drill here vs. drilling somewhere else on the planet? Again - not advocating either way, just interested in the rationale pro or con vs. the alternatives.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 25 2006, 02:31 PM) [snapback]309439[/snapback]</div> you have a point. the house that i live in is on land that was once rolling prairie. only about 1% of this type of land remains in illinois. your point is exactly why i don't think we should be desecrating more of our public lands - especially for reasons that don't provide logical, long term based solutions to our problems. there are over 6 billion people on the planet and a lot of these people are located in areas that are just now begining to drive cars, become technologically oriented, etc. the global demand for resources will grow exponentially. because the resources we use are finite, i think we should be investing in energy solutions that originate from sustainable sources. if we don't every single area of our planet will be developed, drilled or mined. the following is a link concerning global population. while it's not entirely accurate, you can see that the global population increases like a ticking clock. http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop all of these people are, or will be, placing demands on our resources that are not going to be sustainable for the long run. it's probable that the money that would be utilized by the administration to drill for a year's worth of our oil, and wouldn't be available for market for almost another decade, is not a good enough reason to disturb a protected site. it cannot be done without catastrophic affects on the environment and its inhabitants. in the end, it's about saving these natural, protected areas for the life of this planet - at least for me. they're predicting a total destruction of the amazon rainforest within a few decade, if this is telling enough.
I agree with SSImon. There are ways around it but we as humans are reluctant to change something until we know its borken for sure. A lot of us realize it is broken but the masses don't and as such change comes slowly, too slowly IMO. Like I stated before, this is a Wildlife Refuge which means it is a very important site and has one of the highest levels of protection of any wild place, along with National Sea Shores. To destroy this area for simple greed is a real setback to human development IMO. Like SSimon stated above, the money spent on production could be better used elsewhere to find alternatives to fossil fuels, but we know that its not really about the oil anyway. As for housing built on once pritine or even "regular" old natural lands, what can you do? Well we could try to push for a reduciton in urban sprawl and convince builders and city planners to create efficient cities where everything is located on a smaller footprint and within closer reach of most of its citizens, carefully planned public transit systems and community style housing are all good starts. Realisitcally speaking we cannot continue down the path we are currently walking. With higher populations and rising affluence the earth won't be able to support us. Anyone that can do simple math should be able to figure that out. We are literally already over capacity by what 15% now?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 25 2006, 03:31 PM) [snapback]309439[/snapback]</div> Close to 70 years ago, the land on which my house now sits was a fruit orchard. Before that, it would have been considered 'unimproved land.' I've spent a pile of money updating my house in the past few years, vastly increasing its energy efficiency, and I have a ways to go yet. The yard has less lawn and more native species and food crops than when I moved in, and more are in the works. I have commuted to work by car and/or motorcycle a grand total of maybe three summers my entire life. No, I don't live in the trees. Yes, I use oil. That doesn't disqualify me from thinking that trading a public asset for a private short term gain is a bad idea.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 25 2006, 03:36 PM) [snapback]309465[/snapback]</div> our coasts were just opened up for drilling. this just passed. i'm not sure if it goes through another step of if it's final.
Perhaps a simple message to our government representatives: "What part of NO don't you understand?" Then punctuate it at the polls come November. If we don't start voting them out, they'll never get it that it pays to listen to the voters...not the money.
It's about balance and priorities. We will not see long term gain from drilling ANWR. We'll see a temporary drop in our need for imported oil starting in about 10 years with the result of permanant damage to a pristine area of the world few have even seen. I have been to, backpacked in and personally feel attached to the area near ANWR. Frankly, I wish everyone could go there. I think every senator considering voting to drill there should have to go spend a week with someone who knows the area, camp, fish and wildlife spot for that time. Learn about the flora and fauna and how fragile and unique it is. If they can still cast their vote in good conscious then more power to them. As an abstraction it's just to easy to do, once you've experienced a place like that I think it's much harder. Finally, if we put even a fraction of the money it would cost to drill ANWR into research and promotion of alternative energy we could probably completely avoid the need for the oil that would've come from there in the first place while also reducing the pollution to the environment we've already taken over.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Aug 25 2006, 04:36 PM) [snapback]309498[/snapback]</div> a friend of mine does consulting work. he trains companies on osha policy and the implementation of same. he, just this last year, went to alaska and saw sections of anwar. he came back with a view of anwr; that it is barren and that there's not much there to save. when i mentioned the caribou, he said that the caribou would probably use the roads constructed for the oil drilling to migrate and that we'd be helping them. i think that when people backpack, bird watch, hike and get involved with and gain knowledge of native flora, one starts to have a different view of the world. to be honest, i believe it renders one less selfish. there are plenty of places that i've hiked locally that on the surface don't look that pretty only to find out that there are endangered orchids or rare birds nesting in the area. at that point the area takes on a whole new meaning. even though i believe i am very "in tune" with these natural areas, i gained an entirely different experience when i backpacked the wind river range in wyoming. you loose track of time, experience a serenity, start to appreciate the land on a different level. as far as i'm concerned, this had to have been one of the most amazing experiences of my life. i have a special concern for anwr simply because it is so remote and untouched. unless there is an extremely sound reason, it should stay that way. (if you happen to like neil young, the last song (i believe it's the last song) of greendale will strike a chord on this topic)
I agree, yet again. The average Joe that would visit such a place might not be able to see the intrinsic beauty and the understand the complexity of the ecosystem at work in ANWR. When I first drove through California's Mono Basin all I saw was htis nasty alkaline lake and no big trees or anything. I figured it was kinda of a baren wasteland. After getting into biology/ecology I have a MUCH greater appreciation for that area and now understand that just because an area doesnt look like Yellowstone doesnt mean its a barren wateland and useless. It's called Ecological Literacy and this is what we should be teaching in schools prior to the college level. This is a great book for those who have a basic understanding of ecology so that they might change some of their learned views and expand them into something more useful.
F8L, is it a useful read and does it provide practical, workable knowledge? if so, i'm ordering this. funny, look what i just found from your link. how appropriate! http://www.ucpress.edu/books/sc/pages/SC51142.html
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Aug 25 2006, 03:22 PM) [snapback]309527[/snapback]</div> I am just starting it so I could not confirm its usefulness as of yet. Its more of getting a better picture of the complexities of ecosystems and how important it is to teach our children to live in sustainable ways by changing our school systems and its associations. IE: A few schools in the Bay Area of California have done away with the typical lunch menus and are now working with local organic food growers to supply the lunch foods and taking the children on field trips to these farms and/or working to help grow the products or help with restoration of wetlands and such in their areas. I feel the book is useful in reminding you of how important it is to teach the public and children especially, how critical the environment is to our survival. It could also give you tools to work with to create change if you are in a position or would like to get into a position to facilitate change. I know my professor was VERY interested in it after thumbing through it while on our last field study. He said there are some big names (educated and credible) in that book. Funny you found that book. I was so busy making my post in the Pancake forum that I missed it. Good find
well, i don't and won't have children and i am not a teacher so it's not going to assist in that area. but i am an active volunteer (you know ridding invasives and such) so maybe it would help with my engagement in that area. i sure hope you're educating yourself with an end result in an environmental field. it seems you have a very good basic knowledge and that you have a genuine concern. we need more and more people like you!
I should add, for a truely inspirational book I'd order Ishamel - Daniel Quinn You can find othe rinfo at the Ishmael Community site. IMO it is a life changing book and nearly everything I learn can be related back to what was tought in this fictional book that was written I htink in the late 70s but wasnt printed till much later. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Aug 25 2006, 03:39 PM) [snapback]309539[/snapback]</div> I am on the fence with the decision to have children of my own as well. It was once the obvious thing to do but with so many orphaned children in this world I am having a harder time justifying adding one more. My reason for these studies are for an eventual career in the environmental field but I just started college again and have to start fresh. Most of my knowledge comes from reading books and watching videos and observations of nature in my freetime. I have not taken the advanced classes at school yet. The degree was for Conservation of Fisheries and Wildlife but it may change to more ecology oriented stuff. My other reason for learning pychology and societal concerns and politics is I want to teach others, especially my step sisters (18 and 13), my newphews (3 and 5) and pretty much anyone willing to listen to my banter about environmental concerns, affluenza and most importantly what it takes to be truely happy and driven to accomplish lifetime goals instead of just making a bunch of money to fit in or dealing with a sense of failure because you are not making the big money. There is so much more to life SSimon, thank you again for your compliments. They really do mean a lot <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Aug 25 2006, 03:39 PM) [snapback]309539[/snapback]</div> I'm interested in hearing about your volunteer work though. Sounds interesting! Have you read the Book "Out of Eden: An Odyssey of Ecological Invasion"? I rather liked it enough to read it 3 times lol
