roger_ramjet said:
I'm not too sure where to go on the ANWR thing. Even though I consider myself fairly Libertarian, I'm also fairly 'environmentalist' as well, so it's a strange mixture of ideologies. I'm just not sure the very short-term benefits of a resource such as ANWR are worth the energy required, and the environmental effects are unknown. From what I can tell, ANWR has relatively small deposits of oil which would probably be rapidly exhausted (perhaps no more than twenty years), and there's no guarantee that the reserves are even that large. Having said that, the benefits for the region could be huge. I think it would be a shame if drilling and development of the region was going to be environmentally detrimental, for something which has a fairly small potential resource-wise.
Have you lived in Atlanta long?? If so, you should be aware of the political football this has become. The point really is not how long the ENVIRONMENTALISTS think the resource will last. Whether it lasts a year or fifty years is not their concern. The only important thing to consider is this:
Will the development of the resource cause permanent harm to the environment? I think the answer to this is a definate NO. Now, for whatever short term disturbance is caused on that one hundredth of one percent of the ANWR region, that is a matter of short term concern. If the resource is used up in a year, then the disturbance will be over in a year. If it lasts ten years, then it will be over in ten years, etc. Whatever timeframe you put, the long term disturbance will disappear.
As for the question - is it worth it? That seems to be a question for the developers. If they think it is feasible, then let them do it. I happen to believe they would not invest tens of billions of dollars if they didn't think there would be a substantial return on that investment. What if they are wrong? Then SOMEBODY is going to have had a ten billion dollar investment, lots of jobs will have been created, there will be infrastructure put in place that is beneficial to some local people. What is the harm - IF they are wrong?
On the other hand - what if they are right? and what if they have UNDER ESTIMATED the amount of resource? We may have potential for a significant reserve for many years. For instance - it would have been GREAT if we had done this ten years ago. By now that oil would be online and ready for processing. By now, that one reserve would represent - by even the most conservative estimates - a six month supply of our TOTAL ENERGY NEEDS.
Think of the leverage that would give us in our negotiations with OPEC. We could tell them to pound sand for the next six months if we really needed to. But we are not in that enviable position. WHY ??? Because the environmental wacko movement in the USA has decided that anything that has to do with OIL - especially if there is a Bush invovled - must be STOPPED at all cost.
I assume you are aware that the photos they show of the "pristine wilderness" is not anywhere near the actual drilling sites. I assume you know that the plans are for the roads to be made of ice, so that when they are abandoned they vanish. I assume you know that the footprint of the total installation is about the size of one large airport.
I consider myself an environmentalist. By that I mean that I do not want to do any permanent damage to the environment. I want clean air. I want clean water. I want pretty vistas. I want lots of wildlife. I want all these things to be available for my grandchildren to enjoy as I have enjoyed them. But I do not believe in sacrificing important economic interests on the altar of a fanatical bunch of socialists. If I thought they were correct, I would join them.
But from what I have seen their arguments consist of nothing but exaggerated scare tactics. I believe their political opposition to the GOP, and to Bush in particular, leads them to make unsubstantiated claims. I do not for one second think they are concerned with the environment as much as they are concerned with defeating Bush.
