Senate Approves Oil Drilling in ANWR

[Makalakumu]

1. Read some Sigurd Olson.

2. Visit any Wilderness area.

3. Your usage of "wasteland" is a moral judgement. I haven't been to ANWR but I've been to Alaska, I've been to the North Slope.

4. Get back to me when you've done two out of the three above.

As far as your other questions, I've answered them again and again. The bottom line is that if one takes the moral/ethical part of this argument away, there is no reason why we shouldn't drill in ANWR.

I feel that the ethics of preservation and conservation are more important then the short term, miniscule, gain we'd get from drilling in an area we set aside for future generations because of its natural value. People in this country need to be reminded that we set aside this land for a reason...and those reasons were good reasons.

 

[sgtmac_46]

1. Read some Sigurd Olson.

Why, does he attempt to use fallacious appeals to emotion in place of a coherent argument too?

2. Visit any Wilderness area.

Why, are all wilderness areas the same? Why the vague generalizations? Aren't we capable of discussing Anwr without getting in to hysterical over-generalizations about the "moral rightness" of "wilderness areas"?

3. Your usage of "wasteland" is a moral judgement. I haven't been to ANWR but I've been to Alaska, I've been to the North Slope.

That's part of your problem...you have come to the fault conclusion that morality has anything to do with any of this. The term "Wasteland" is not related in any way, shape or form to a moral judgement. How does one "form" a moral judgement about a piece of land? The very concept is ludicrous, and is what I take exception to in your entire characterization. My only guess is that you've fallen victim to the "Environmentalism as Religion" mentality where environmental issues become pure religious dogma and cannot even be discussed rationally.

4. Get back to me when you've done two out of the three above.

Of course you haven't been to any of the 19 MILLION plus acres of Anwr and you likely never will. That's the point. You can't even tell me what's so important about keeping the entire 19 MILLION acres free from even small level oil exploration other than using vague appeals to emotions like "Honorable, commitment, etc". Again, your argument appears to simply be more of the same hysterical environmentalist dogma that has become the modern substitute for religious fundamentalism.

As far as your other questions, I've answered them again and again. The bottom line is that if one takes the moral/ethical part of this argument away, there is no reason why we shouldn't drill in ANWR.

You've answered nothing, period. All you've attempted to do is created a fallacious "My side GOOD, your side BAAADDD" argument by using appeals to emotions. You've simply characterized your (not rationally supported) position as being "Simply the right thing to do" with not one shred of evidence provided.

I feel that the ethics of preservation and conservation are more important then the short term, miniscule, gain we'd get from drilling in an area we set aside for future generations because of its natural value. People in this country need to be reminded that we set aside this land for a reason...and those reasons were good reasons.

At the risk of asking another unanswered question...What were the reasons this particular piece of 19 Million acres were set aside again?

(I predict i'll get something like 'because it was the right thing to do'.)


The saddest part of this whole thing, North, is that I sit on the fence of this issue. I'm not dogmatically supportive of drilling in Anwr. The problem I have is that you, or anyone else here, has not given me one good concrete reason not to drill. I've heard lots of fallacious arguments, but nothing tangible. I remain not only unconvinced, but i'm becoming increasinly convinced that your whole reason for opposing drilling is nothing but an example of knee jerk contrarianism toward anything proposed by anyone you dislike politically. Please prove me wrong by providing me a reasonable argument against drilling that doesn't involve fallacious appeals to emotion that don't insult my intelligence.

I would consider a more intelligent argument that it would disrupt the habitat of the "great northern wobbler elf", or some such assertion. That could at least be debated. I haven't heard that level of discourse.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

What I would really like to see is a Manhattan type project on alternatives to fossil fuels. We went to the Moon on 1960's technology - certainly if we had the WILL we could find an alternative. Oil is just too darn expensive in both life and treasure. We wouldn't need 13 Aircraft carriers to keep places like the Persian Gulf open (lest you think this is wasted, imagine the suffering and loss of life an economic collapse caused by a major disruption in the oil supply would entail).

I have mixed feelins on ANWR. I believe that if we had made better energy decisions (under both Democratic and Republican Administrations and Congress's) over the past twenty or thirty years, it would not be necessary.

 

[Makalakumu]

You've answered nothing, period.

Then drill away.

The saddest part of this whole thing, North, is that I sit on the fence of this issue. I'm not dogmatically supportive of drilling in Anwr. The problem I have is that you, or anyone else here, has not given me one good concrete reason not to drill. I've heard lots of fallacious arguments, but nothing tangible.

I've explained my values to you. We don't share the same values, it seems. I would not drill because I value wilderness as defined by the 1964 Wilderness Act. I posted a couple of websites with some material that explained why setting areas aside as wilderness was important.

I remain not only unconvinced, but i'm becoming increasinly convinced that your whole reason for opposing drilling is nothing but an example of knee jerk contrarianism toward anything proposed by anyone you dislike politically. Please prove me wrong by providing me a reasonable argument against drilling that doesn't involve fallacious appeals to emotion that don't insult my intelligence.

This is a pretty nasty thing to say and assume. My values insult your intelligence...

I really do care about this stuff. Two years after I was born, the BWCA in MN was created. The government used eminent domain to remove people from a million square miles in north eastern MN. All signs of their habitation were carried off, burned, and erased. The sacrifice that we made to create this "wilderness" area was huge. Our country did this because of our committment to the concept of wilderness. In my opinion, the whole concept of opening up a wilderness area after all we gave to preserve them trods on the sacrifice made to create them.

I would consider a more intelligent argument that it would disrupt the habitat of the "great northern wobbler elf", or some such assertion. That could at least be debated. I haven't heard that level of discourse.

Why can this be debated? Is ecology something you value? Why not just drill? Screw "the great northern wobbler elf"! Why is that animal so important that it has to disrupt human activity? Why?

This is totally hypothetical. However, the "why", in this case illustrates the values I've been talking about.

 

[Makalakumu]

The Meaning of Wilderness

 

[Brother John]

"great northern wobbler elf.

Funny you should mention them...
it's open season on wobbler elves. But there is a bag limit of 3 per hunter.

Your Brother
John

 

[lhommedieu]

Cf. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007819

I disagree with Herrera's conclusion, by the way: the oil to be gained from ANWR is negligible with respect to improving the American economy and making things easier on the average person filling their tank next summer. Of course, some petroleum industry fat cats will be making a short-term killing in the meantime, and then show up in congress later to claim that they "couldn't help" the high price of gasoline, "couldn't help" the ecological damage they created, and "couldn't help" their huge profit margins. In this respect, even tobacco industry executives lying to congress look marginally better than the Big Oil honchos we saw last week.

With respect to a "wilderness ethic:" I have found that either you have it or you don't. No amount of rational argument is going to convince someone who believes in the sanctity of oil for the sake of oil that it is "ethical" to conserve wilderness for the sake of preserving wilderness: the two points of view are incommensurable.

The world would certainly be an interesting place if we weren't so dependent upon oil to maintain our economy. Imagine what would happen if we found a clean, sustainable form of energy and were no longer dependent upon foreign oil: issues like ANWR would no longer be a problem, the Middle East as a geo-political issue would fade into history, terrorists would have to find another reason to hate us, etc. It is said that environmentalism requires sacrifice; I would gladly “sacrifice” the above issues for the sake of a cleaner, wilder America at peace.

Best,

Steve Lamade

 

[arnisador]

What I would really like to see is a Manhattan type project on alternatives to fossil fuels.

This is a great idea. I believe it could be done. Of course, any "solution" woul dhave problems of its own...but we know that we're running out of oil, and that it brings with it various problems. A big research push by the govt.--not the oil industry--would be very helpful.

 

[Makalakumu]

With respect to a "wilderness ethic:" I have found that either you have it or you don't. No amount of rational argument is going to convince someone who believes in the sanctity of oil for the sake of oil that it is "ethical" to conserve wilderness for the sake of preserving wilderness: the two points of view are incommensurable.

The Worth of a Tree


The old pine stood near the shore of a wilderness lake. It was old even as pines go in this country, perhaps 300, even 350 years old. It was gnarled and twisted, showed punk knots further up and the scars of fire at the base, but the foliage was heavy and fine and the wind murmurred through its branches and the kinglets and chickadees found refuge there.

"No place for a tree like that in a growing forest," said the man. "Old trees like that are over ripe, and should be cut to make room for young stuff underneath. Even the seeds are not as good as they should be, and the decay inside--did you notice? It must be a veritable nest for fungus and beetles and borers of all kinds. This sort of tree is dangerous. It ought to come out. People don't get any more pleasure out of such a tree than a bunch of healthy saplings.

"This is what we call improvement of shoreline timber," he added, and with his axe he cut a clean white chip to mark it for the logger's saw.

I tried to argue, but the words stuck in my throat. I tried to tell him that this tree was worth far more just as a landmark than as timber, even though the punk was eating out its heart and it was marked by fire and furnished a breeding place for fungus and grubs. I tried to say that trees centuries old had a value far greater than anyone could possibly estimate, but my arguments seemed empty and weak against the scientific viewpoint of my friend. I was merely old-fashioned and sentimental about these things and knew nothing about modern forestry practices.

I went away saddened by what I had heard, but knew that there were many others who felt as I, who valued a tree not by what it might bring on the market, or what its effect might be on surrounding growth, but rather by their feelings toward it and the associations they had made; that certain trees have an emotional value far in excess of any other consideration.

And knowing that I was not alone I was glad, because I knew that some day and soon, people who loved trees and understood them would make themselves heard, that someday a great shout would go across the land to save forever these ancient landmarks which through many generations have woven themselves into the life of a countryside and into the hearts of those who have known them.

http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/JMC/Olson/articles/columns/worth_of_a_tree.htm

 

[7starmantis]

With respect to a "wilderness ethic:" I have found that either you have it or you don't. No amount of rational argument is going to convince someone who believes in the sanctity of oil for the sake of oil that it is "ethical" to conserve wilderness for the sake of preserving wilderness: the two points of view are incommensurable.

Yes, but this issue doesn't stand in between these two points of view. The hard factual truth is that even if this drilling is allowed, they find oil and actually start the drilling, it will use less than .5% of ANWR which after drilling will return to its previous state. So it doesn't violate either point of view. Also, I am a major supporter of wildlife and wilderness with my time and even personal money. I am also in favor of drilling at ANWR. The two points of view can coesixt becasue the facts are that the two wont contradict each other, not in this instance.

We would be much better off with alternate fuels, but until then we must do something. The only things being offered by those who oppose drilling in ANWR are impossible short-term "fixes". We must use oil and we must have energy....we can change that, but not tomorrow. So now people are offering things like:

If every American shaved one mpg off their top driving speed, we'd conserve enough to save ANWR in a couple of years.

This is an unatainable assumed "fix" that would only slow down the enevitable. The true solution is becoming less dependant on foreign oil and finding true alternative fuels. Its not possible to get every american to shave 1 mph(I'm assuming you meant mph) off their top driving speed. And its not even proven that it would really help much, especially when the top driving speed is probably more like 85mph than 70mph. We can see the ineffectiveness of this proposed "fix" by looking at the legal speed limits and watching the inerstates for 2 or 3 minnutes.

The only reason still being listed in this thread is an ambiguous promise to children. First, we shouldn't need to bring children into this discussion to gather support for our point. Any promise made about wilderness land is made to everyone, not just "our children". This is a cry for emotional support of one's point. The truth and facts are:

1) We set aside these lands for future generations.
2) These lands need to be preserved
3) We have a responsibility to our present and future citizens to protect these lands
4) We have a responsibility to our present and future citizens to provide efficient affordable energy
5) We can preserve our wilderness lands and drill for oil
6) We can preserve ANWR and drill for oil in ANWR
7) We must be addressing alternative fuels

7sm

 

[michaeledward]

The hard factual truth is that even if this drilling is allowed, they find oil and actually start the drilling, it will use less than .5% of ANWR which after drilling will return to its previous state.

This claim is false. It's a nice talking point, but it is not true and your continued use of it displays an agenda.

You claimed that 2000 acres worth of development was going to create hundreds of thousand of jobs .... someone argued that, 'well, gee, not all of the jobs will be on those 200 acres'.

To which my response is : "Duh!".

To actually think about the claim, would, hopefully, cause some to think about how much resource is required to create a quarter of a million (or three quarters of a million) jobs - and gee, that's a pretty big variable on the number of jobs .... I wonder why the amount of space required is so damn accurate. Accurate to the number of acres or within a half a percent of the size of ANWR.

Here's something to think about.

During the development process (which hopefully never arrives), Ships containing construction materials will need to dock in the area of development. They can only do this during the summer months because the water ways are not clear any other time of year. How big are those ships going to be? How big will the pier need to be? How big will the staging area need to be?

And, of course, because this takes place in summer, the tundra will not be frozen, which means moving the heavy equipment into place will require the construction of permanent roads (Which will be unnecessary in winter months when the ground is frozen solid). Where, and how long do you think those road are going to be?

Humpty Dumpty folks .... Humpty Dumpty.

 

[7starmantis]

This claim is false. It's a nice talking point, but it is not true and your continued use of it displays an agenda.

You keep saying this. Prove it as false, dont just keep shouting its false.
What agenda is that exactly?

You claimed that 2000 acres worth of development was going to create hundreds of thousand of jobs .... someone argued that, 'well, gee, not all of the jobs will be on those 200 acres'.

To which my response is : "Duh!".

Humpty Dumpty folks .... Humpty Dumpty.

Whats your point? I've lost you somewhere in your exact explination of shipping and road building. Argue the point. You say its false, provide some kind of proof or resource that shows it as false, dont just say, "C'mon, think about it, it can't be true".

7sm

 

[michaeledward]

Whats your point? I've lost you somewhere in your exact explination of shipping and road building. Argue the point. You say its false, provide some kind of proof or resource that shows it as false, dont just say, "C'mon, think about it, it can't be true".

My point is to other who may read this thread. I have no delusions about changing your opinion.

My point is that people engage their brains and think about the claims. If people think that 2000 acres of development can produce 750,000 jobs, then why do we not have similar productivity numbers throughout the world. Hell, if it was that easy to create good high paying jobs, why are there so many people in the Middle willing to blow themselves up? Why aren't they laughing all the way to the bank.

I don't like to use the phrase, "It's clear that ... " - because usually, the argued point is only clear if you already believe it (It's clear that God Created the Universe). So, instead of claiming 'It's clear that these numbers are made up talking points', I am asking people to actually think about the claim.

One thing is certain, however. Once development moves forward in ANWR, or anywhere else, it can not be undone. (Ok, maybe that should read, it can not easily be undone).

Do you think the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker is a usual occurance? An extinct animal found after 50 years. Well, if it is the porcupine Caribou, I'm thinking a bit more difficult to find.

Humpty Dumpty .... all the kings horses and all the kings men really just don't give a ****.

 

[7starmantis]

My point is that people engage their brains and think about the claims. If people think that 2000 acres of development can produce 750,000 jobs, then why do we not have similar productivity numbers throughout the world. Hell, if it was that easy to create good high paying jobs, why are there so many people in the Middle willing to blow themselves up? Why aren't they laughing all the way to the bank.

I don't like to use the phrase, "It's clear that ... " - because usually, the argued point is only clear if you already believe it (It's clear that God Created the Universe). So, instead of claiming 'It's clear that these numbers are made up talking points', I am asking people to actually think about the claim.

This is nothing more than sidestepping valid questions and data. Your appealing to people's uneducated suppositions of job production within the oil field and its relevant subsidiaries. Why not post some data that would prove your point, rather than "asking people to think about it". You trying to say that thinking about it will show it false, thats simply not true. Again, I ask for data to prove it false, not convoluted appeals to thought process. The truth you are trying to cover is that there will be jobs created, there will be energy created, there will be positive affects to this issue.

Please, address the issues or dont, but lets not try to play games and cloud issues.

One thing is certain, however. Once development moves forward in ANWR, or anywhere else, it can not be undone. (Ok, maybe that should read, it can not easily be undone).

True, it wont be easily undone. Has the ease of doing something ever stood in our way? Going to the moon wasn't easy, should we have just past that over because it was going to be hard to do? I'm not one to run from tough things, I seem to think if its easy to obtain it may not be quite the worth we think it is.

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

Lets say that the oil companies are allowed to drill and the amount of land they need is much more then they said, the amount of jobs created is much less, the amount of oil is much less, and/or they pollute more then they said. Who will hold them accountable? Will anybody?

 

[michaeledward]

This is nothing more than sidestepping valid questions and data. Your appealing to people's uneducated suppositions of job production within the oil field and its relevant subsidiaries. Why not post some data that would prove your point, rather than "asking people to think about it". You trying to say that thinking about it will show it false, thats simply not true. Again, I ask for data to prove it false, not convoluted appeals to thought process. The truth you are trying to cover is that there will be jobs created, there will be energy created, there will be positive affects to this issue.

Please, address the issues or dont, but lets not try to play games and cloud issues.

True, it wont be easily undone. Has the ease of doing something ever stood in our way? Going to the moon wasn't easy, should we have just past that over because it was going to be hard to do? I'm not one to run from tough things, I seem to think if its easy to obtain it may not be quite the worth we think it is.

I am not going to address your questions. Because I don't think they merit consideration. I am not going to attempt to counter foolish claims.

750,000 jobs on 2000 acres. Good Grief. 375 jobs per acre.

Once people think about it, they can come to their own conclusions. If they think about, I don't care what conclusion they come to.

As for going to the moon .... do you think that there is an overarching desire on anybody's part to undo that? Yes, we have littered the moon a bit, as well as several other planets (not to mention low-earth orbit). But I don't hear anyone calling to undo the trip to the moon.

Things we can't undo that we should (or at least think about):

• Nuclear power - what do we do with the waste?
• Dams - andronomous fish stocks have been destroyed
• Genetic Modification of food - can't be contained.

The ecosystem in ANWR is tens of thousands of years old, or older. It has reached a delicate balance. But, hey, it's four years worth of carbons. Eco-system, eh, not so much.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here is something that I would like to discuss...is our "problem" with oil so bad that we need to break into land we set aside as wilderness? I don't think it is. According to the DOE, after Katrina and Rita, Americans cut their consumption of oil by about 2% because of high gas prices. Consequently, we've seen huge reductions in the price of gasoline and sharp increases in our reserves. Why can't we conserve more in order to leave our wilderness areas alone?

 

[7starmantis]

I am not going to address your questions. Because I don't think they merit consideration. I am not going to attempt to counter foolish claims.

Well at least you admitt your not going to answer questions. I guess the thread is pretty much done now then.

750,000 jobs on 2000 acres. Good Grief. 375 jobs per acre.

Once people think about it, they can come to their own conclusions. If they think about, I don't care what conclusion they come to.

Oh, your whole point in posting here is simply to get people to think on their own. Wow, thats very noble of you
Of course, in fact you should read my post, I never said the jobs would be contained on the actual land. The fact is if you can only argue the drilling of oil in ANWR by saying the number of jobs to be created is false....maybe you should sit this one out.

7sm

 

[sgtmac_46]

Congress has made this a dead issue for the time being. Guess we'll take up this debate at a later date.

 

[michaeledward]

Of course, in fact you should read my post, I never said the jobs would be contained on the actual land. The fact is if you can only argue the drilling of oil in ANWR by saying the number of jobs to be created is false....maybe you should sit this one out.

... and if you read my post, you will see that I did mention productivity. So, I understand that your claims do not represent jobs located on the two thousand acres. However, I think the a comparison of other fields of productivity would prove you claim false.

Did you see the walmart movie? It showed some of the Chinese factories used by walmart .... now those facilities might genereate 375 jobes per acre ... maybe. Good High quality, high paying jobs .... 18 cents an hour. Of course, it is sweat shop quarters.

Oh and "The Fact is", I could argue other arguments, but why bother? This one claim is so outrageous, that by focusing on it, perhaps people will see it is unrealistic. And if this claim is unrealistic, perhaps other claims that included with it, are similarly unrealistic.

375 jobs per acre! ... Such productivity could employ the entire population of the planet in less geographic area than the State of Maine (19.75 million acres).