I am trying to figure out if you are trolling or if you actually really believe this.

A few caribou herds?

The presence of one of the largest herds of caribou on the planet, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, migratory birds, and many other species in a nearly undisturbed state has led some to call the area "America's Serengeti." The Refuge and two neighboring parks in Canada have been proposed for an international park, and several species found in the area (including polar bears, caribou, migratory birds, and whales) are protected by international treaties or agreements. It is one of the few Pristine wildrernesses left in North America. The tundra, regardl;ess of the utterly irrelevant comments you keep making about the fact that you personally might not be comfortable there, is not some barren desert, it is a huge region teeming with wildlife of all varieties.

Interestingly, the Canadian government, thats the government, not environmentalist groups, agree entirely that this is a critical wilderness and that damage, possibly massive damage, is unavoidable. So its not just some lunatic fringe who think this whole thing is an excersise in aburdity.



Odd, environment Canada does not seem to agree with your silly assertion.

"Damage from the drilling has been considerable, profoundly affecting the land, the air, and the fauna of the region. The Prudhoe Bay fields and the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline have suffered an average of 400 spills annually on the North Slope since 1995, a total of 1.5 million gallons. A study of diesel spills in Alaska's arctic found that 28 years after an initial spill there were still substantial hydrocarbons in the soil and little vegetation recovery. The oil industry emits 56,247 tons of ozone depleting and acid rain causing oxides and nitrogen annually, more than twice the amount released by Washington D.C.. 3"

Are you quite sure there is no damage from Prudhoe bay, or was that just ill-informed wishful thinking?


And please, measuring the environmental damage of a region by 'how comfortable you personally would be there' is just plain nuts.

No, i can't guarantee it. I can't guarantee that when you send something in the mail, that it won't get lost. I can't guarantee that if you hop into your car to get some milk, that you will come back. I can't guarantee anything because it is simply impossible. What i can guarantee is that we need that oil and that the benefit outweighs the possibility for damage. And the Galapagos Islands to my knowledge do not have any oil under them.



Vermillion, is it so hard to figure out that i could care less about a few caribou if it meant the well-being of some American citizens? The only reason you find my argument absurd is because you can't believe that i dont share the same beliefs about the environment.

The fact is that ANWR is 19 million acres...and there is oil under about 8% of it...perhaps even less. This is useless space that could be developed and bring jobs, revenue, and oil to the American people. I apologize if i find that more important than a few caribou.

I don't remember saying how i would personally feel being there...perhaps you could quote me? I was making a slight joke on how i dont think protesters would find it to be a good place to make noise.

Its a tundra...a desert but with snow. Who cares what the Canadian government thinks about this issue? Its American soil and the people in Alaska overwhlemingly want to drill.

Yes Galapagos Islands are lucky that way...
I guess here's another question: why do we need that oil? Is our economy in peril? Are we in some sort of serious energy sources crunch? As far as I know we are doing just fine, the unemployment is low, people drive their SUVs happily, gas prices are still one of the lowest when compared to the rest of the world, stock market is rising (well, not lately, but the trend is there), inflation is contained, economy is just moving along. Where's this need to open the Wildlife refuge?



Actually, people in the rest of the states overwhelmingly don't want to drill.

Maybe we aren't in peril now...but i cant see into the future. I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

And secondly...what does it matter what the rest of the states think? They aren't directly affected by anything. However, the people that would be affected think it is worth the risk because of the benefits that would be bestowed.

But if we use it now, how's that "looking into the future"? I would much rather save it for the future (when the technology for drilling will be more advanced as well) then burn it now (or ten years from now) when we don't really need it.
It has been pointed out that ANWR is a national asset... as other posters noted, the variety of wildlife makes it akin to a national park. That's why people in the rest of the states have a say when we decide its fate.
Remember a few years ago when Taliban blew up two 2000-years old Buddha statues? It was a perfectly legal thing to do, they were on its own territory, but we cared anyway. Same thing here.

EH and Vermillion and the others that I normally agree with wholeheartedly on most debates- you must realize that there is so much hype on both sides of this debate- the "Serengeti of the North" makes most Alaskans roll thier eyes- that is a pure propaganda statement- only in the summer is there any real movement of any animals= and there are no crews there then!

I personally have no concerns about the DRILLING of the oil- it is the transportation of it that bothers me- all the spills happen up here not at the rig site, but some miles from them.

It has been proven and shown over and over again that Prudhoe has had no negative impact on Caribou or polar bear numbers, nor migratory birds. This is irrefutable fact- not even the natives that hunt those creatures up there disagree with this statement.

So, though I don't agree with leder's "don't give a rat's fanny" attitude towards caribou and whatnot ( I too hunt caribou and live off the land to some degree up here, but not that far north) - I also realize it has had no negative impact on the creatures themselves.

I have talked with my engineer friend, and he takes great pride in the 0 loss (which he calls "product"- meaning oil) policy he himself believes in and strives mightily to maintain. Any loss he takes persoanl afront too- and I like the attitude of the employees up here in that regard. He too is a hunter and conservationist- and wants to see that area preserved for his grandchildren= and remember, he lives here (and, during the winter, 2 weeks on , 2 weeks off, on the "slope") so this is his "backyard" and has far more of a personal stake in "his" land than anyone, with the exception of Artemise and myself.

I don't mind the argument that we need to conserve more and use less, and don't mind passing laws to do just that either. But I do, ever so slightly, resent the terms "serengeti of the north"- when the term is down right silly.

If the majority of Americans don't want ANWR to open, I am cool with that as well, then the majority, I hope, figures out an alternative as well!

Looks like the folks supporting ANWR drilling counted their chickens too soon, this comes from tomorrow's WaPo


The response? They caved:

lederuvdapac



I will put my two cents in here. Oil is not infinite, as far as what we do to the environment, and for what we can undue, I don’t know if that is infinite. As far as I know, oil is going to run out someday, so with that in mind, maybe we should think about that before we turn the environment into Swiss cheese looking for small pockets of oil, or oil period. The petroleum process is nasty, farming for oil is nasty, oil being used is nasty, nasty meaning its not green, or environmentally damaging. The dependence on oil is basically fostering the destruction of the environment for something that ultimately will run dry, simply because the cost to change to a better alternative, say hydrogen, just does not click well with certain people, whom also do not care about the environment.

If hydrogen was made common, oil could go out the window, and no one would care, because they could continue on the same way. Currently we need oil to survive, but there are better alternatives thanks to science and technology, currently we need the earth to survive, currently we have no other alternatives to this. Its really not just a point about ANWR, its really a political statement on where governments and people stand in relation to the environment and their actions and behavior. If it were simpler then that, it would not be an issue the way it is, how to create change to something better is not done by simply being quiet and laying around with such irresponsible acts going about.

Oil is becoming a vice in many negative ways.