[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', 'A')NWR is already doomed---global warming will wreak special havoc there. So, indeed, why not kick it in the teeth while we still have the chance.

[Colorado-Valley]

I guess if we (well ... the multi-national corporations) drilled it, perhaps we could prolong the easy motoring lifestyle for a few more months.
But American taxpayers aren't going to see a penny of that loot.

[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Colorado-Valley', 'I') guess if we (well ... the multi-national corporations) drilled it, perhaps we could prolong the easy motoring lifestyle for a few more months. But American taxpayers aren't going to see a penny of that loot.

[Ludi]

Where is there any "conservation" if any area is open for exploitation? An "aesthetic" issue? Man, that is just frikkin' weird to me. All along here I thought real conservation was about protecting ecosystems and biodiversity. Pretty damn hard for that to happen if we can just decide to go charging into anywhere to take whatever it is we "need" from that area.
The old "it's inevitable" "it's pragmatic" "don't be naive" blah blah.
Screw that.

[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'W')here is there any "conservation" if any area is open for exploitation? An "aesthetic" issue? Man, that is just frikkin' weird to me. All along here I thought real conservation was about protecting ecosystems and biodiversity. Pretty damn hard for that to happen if we can just decide to go charging into anywhere to take whatever it is we "need" from that area. The old "it's inevitable" "it's pragmatic" "don't be naive" blah blah.
Screw that.

[Heineken]

Whether ANWR is raped or not, it won't change the oil picture significantly. Production might reach 1.4 million barrels per day (according to former Interior Secretary Norton's highly optimistic view) for a year or two before falling. The US currently consumes about 20+ million barrels per day; by the time ANWR is at peak production US consumption (or demand, at least) would be dramatically higher, let's conservatively say 25 million barrels per day. So even with ANWR the US will be in even worse shape from an oil-supply perspective than it is now. The damage to ANWR will be permanent, however---quite a price to pay in terms of natural capital for very little real return, and an ephemeral return at that.

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'W')here is there any "conservation" if any area is open for exploitation? An "aesthetic" issue? Man, that is just frikkin' weird to me. All along here I thought real conservation was about protecting ecosystems and biodiversity. Pretty damn hard for that to happen if we can just decide to go charging into anywhere to take whatever it is we "need" from that area. The old "it's inevitable" "it's pragmatic" "don't be naive" blah blah. Screw that.

[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', 'W')hether ANWR is raped or not, it won't change the oil picture significantly..

[Heineken]

The point of my posts is not that the drilling of ANWR is unlikely but rather that it is irrational. I agree that this sad outcome is probably inevitable.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

Beginning of the solution is not to let the opposition frame the issue. Start by always referring to it as Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, not by the acronym, which sounds vaguely middle eastern.

[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', 'B')eginning of the solution is not to let the opposition frame the issue. Start by always referring to it as Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, not by the acronym, which sounds vaguely middle eastern.

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', 'B')eginning of the solution is not to let the opposition frame the issue. Start by always referring to it as Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, not by the acronym, which sounds vaguely middle eastern.

[mekrob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think you are misunderstanding something about politics. Politicians obey constituents. When Granma NewEnglander can't get her heating oil, she will demand heating oil; not conservation. And the politicians Will Obey. Now, whether what they do actually helps all that much is really irrelevant to the picture. Granny knows there's oil in ANWR, she knows we're leaving it there, and she knows she will never go there. Result, ANWR gets drilled, and not nicely like they'd do if we said go now.

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he environmentalists (sane and insane) are actually hurting ANWR (sorry, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) in the long run while the drill now people are saving Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (not completely, but somewhat). We can drill now and do it relatively safely and securely to make sure that the oil flows to China and Japan. Or we can wait 20 years when the oil world is on it's knees and then we'll have people rushing up to Alaska with picks and shovels trying to get to the black gold and not caring how many seals, caribou, foxes, birds, etc they kill. I could never consciously be a part of any organization that wants to 'save' the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

[mekrob]

I don't mean that drilling will be 'safe and secure' in an absolute way, but in a relative meaning. We ARE going to drill there sooner or later as others have pointed out. It is only a matter of time. If we do it now, then we have the safeguards in place that will make it 'safe and secure' in a relative manner compared to how we will drill if we put it off for 20 years. When the SHTF in a few years, NOBODY will care for the environment with the exception of a few people who will have no control or power to stop that absolute raping of the land.

Yes, there will be devastation upon the land. But it's like comparing how US companies operate to how the Soviets did, which is how we will become.

[Heineken]

If you think all consideration for the environment will be abandoned going forward as we enter crisis mode, then you are even more of a doomer than I am, mekrob. My hat's off to you!

[mekrob]

Listen, I care for the environment. I don't want it to get fucked up. But unless someone on here gets elected to President (or Vice President and has the Prez taken out), then there won't be much we can do for it. It's like a fly trying to stop a train. It is pretty much fruitless. We've only hit three dollar gas. We have a 'booming' economy. And even now we have Ralph Nader saying that Big Oil needs to drop the prices because they are too high! You think he'd be estatic as high prices push people away from this shitty consumptive Earth-destroying lifestyle. But no. He's saying we need cheaper gasoline.!!! Just wait until lil ol' granny can't heat her home. Until we have a real recession or depression and gasoline is still 3 bucks/gallon or even higher.

Yes, people will care about the environment. But when it comes to 'saving' the environment or actually keeping your kids and family warm and fed, guess which is going to occur? As for the major environmentalists, well, Nader's crossed already. If the others don't cross, then...well, they're environmentalists. They have no and definately won't have any power in the future government.

[Eddie_lomax]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', 'A')NWR is already doomed---global warming will wreak special havoc there. So, indeed, why not kick it in the teeth while we still have the chance.

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', 'L')isten, I care for the environment. I don't want it to get fucked up. But unless someone on here gets elected to President (or Vice President and has the Prez taken out), then there won't be much we can do for it. It's like a fly trying to stop a train. It is pretty much fruitless. We've only hit three dollar gas. We have a 'booming' economy. And even now we have Ralph Nader saying that Big Oil needs to drop the prices because they are too high! You think he'd be estatic as high prices push people away from this shitty consumptive Earth-destroying lifestyle. But no. He's saying we need cheaper gasoline.!!! Just wait until lil ol' granny can't heat her home. Until we have a real recession or depression and gasoline is still 3 bucks/gallon or even higher.
Yes, people will care about the environment. But when it comes to 'saving' the environment or actually keeping your kids and family warm and fed, guess which is going to occur? As for the major environmentalists, well, Nader's crossed already. If the others don't cross, then...well, they're environmentalists. They have no and definately won't have any power in the future government.

[thorn]

Could there be an acceptable case for drilling in ANWR? What if the government allowed drilling in ANWR with the provision that all the oil extracted from ANWR would be used for building a sustainable infrastructure or for sustainable energy technologies? Or leave it for a rainy day reserve (critical needs). The problem is that if they leave ANWR undeveloped for the future, in 5-6 years the Trans-Alaskan pipeline will be shut down as the North Slope reaches depletion. It will then be more difficult and take more energy to use tankers to transport the oil to the lower 48.

Any opinions?