help save the environment!!

I really hope you misunderstood me, or that I missed something. Every link I followed -- and I've followed all the links you provided to pictures, as of this post -- clearly stated in the caption that the muskox were not only in Alaska, but in ANWR. Did I miss an identical photo that is known to have been taken in Wyoming? I asked the questio about proof specifically to the comment that a picture looked to the poster like Wyoming. Now you say that a different picture looks to you like Montana. I do not understand the point that either of you are trying to make, and I expected that if anybody believed those photos were actually fakes, they would offer substantial evidence of that.

To the question about tundra, no, that grassy plain appears to be above the timberline, which exists even in desolate Alaska. Tundra, as I remember, describes wide areas of small trees that live in so-called permafrost, ground that remains frozen through most of the year. The summary, which also applies to the [i]higher[/i] elevations where no trees can grow [i]at all[/i], is that ecosystems in these conditions are likely to be less adaptable to additional impact than ecosystems where there is plenty of water -- liquid -- sunlight year-round, etc.

It sounds to me like Walter Hickel, like anybody else who expresses an opinion, has an opinion. His former jobs do not make his opinion better, they only mean that he should have access to more facts than those you posted. I also won't take anybody at face value who claims "Most of these scientists recommend" to support either position. I would like to know exactly how many, and what is their specialization. That would give me enough data to begin to develop an informed opinion. I would expect geologists would be making their recommendations almost entirely on their evaluation of the ease of extracting oil, but ecologists and biologists would be likely to consider the wildlife. "Scientist" does not always mean "qualified expert" or "trustworthy source". A lot of people, in a lot of professions, will offer an opinion on just about any subject. I'm a shining example of that.

In advance, because I will have to dig for statistics regarding your second and third questions. The first, though, is simple logic, assuming the premises of the Bush administration when it tries to sell the idea of drilling.

When I said that "my position is that more drilling will only lead to prolonging dependence on oil generally as our primary source of fuel for passenger vehicles" I base that on the drilling proponents' claims that if drilling is allowed, more oil will be available to the US market than if drilling is not allowed.

Then I applied what I learned in first-year economics. First, that for any given level of economic demand, if supply increases, the equilibrium price will be lower than at a lower level of supply. Second, compared to any baseline price level, an increase in price tends to reduce consumption, while a decrease in price tends to increase consumption. So even in the worst-case scenario (worldwide price-fixing), the economic pressure on US purchasers of petroleum will be less with drilling in ANWR than without it, if not less than it is at present.

I don't have the research for my statements about the total discovered, unmined oil in the world or its geopolitical distribution bookmarked or otherwise at my fingertips, so to speak. I am, however, confident of my memory that those qualitative statements are accurate. While I do that, I ask that you append to your third quote of me -- which you ended with "enemy states" -- the remainder of that sentence as it appeared in my post. The entire sentence makes clear that I mean to include not only Iran, Syria and maybe Iraq, but also Saudi Arabia, and every other country in that region that profits from US consumption of petroleum and pursues terrorists less aggressively than the US.

Finally, I appreciate your answer, but it doesn't quite address the question as I posed it: which is a higher priority? More drilling, or switching to non-terrorist fuel on an accelerated schedule?

Why don't you read some of the reply's before you post something that proves you haven't been followeing along?

Why don't you read a bok or something even, wait until you gaduate or something?

This is an international agreement to protect the land.

Canadian coastline IS being contaminated and will suffer moreso if YOUR country's businesses start dumping MORE sludge to avoid spending on few dollars to have it recycled as the law dictates.

So why don't you get an a clue before you waste your breath and make yourself look retarded in front of your countrymen?

"Alaskan oil drillin has cause dfar more damage than making Elk starve." - They are NOT starving. If you are starving, you are NOT fat!

"Alaska is a big city" - Last time I checked, Alaska was a state.

Exsqueeze me, but I think you are attempting to talk greenspeak and is failing. Their population has held steady for the last 50 years. Where are your facts that back up your claims that Elk, who are happily eating year round next to the pipeline are miserable?

Were are your facts that show (I.e. PROVE) your claims that they don't have enough food? I am giving you facts, and you are acting as if you have e2e syndrome. (ear to ear - "It goes in one ear and out the other.)

I want facts, not an askewed version of a twisted thought.

Facts are not radical. Facts are results that have been due to action. For every action their is an equal and opposite reaction. (Physics) For every action, there are results. Those results are not hypothetical, they are facts.

Prove to me that my comments are radical, and I can show you the facts. I base everything I do on facts, not an aggregate of attempting to make sense of nonsense.

Nope, not at all. I just have not been presented the data that supports the view that the world is going to hell in a hand basket.

Once I am presented with those facts, then my mind will change.

When you can't discredit the message, you attempt to discredit the institution and/or person. A typical reply. I notice you didn't cite and/or question a single assertion in either article. What is it about either article that you question?

And go ahead, provide some alternative support from Greenpeace, The Land Conservancy, or any other eco-minded group to provide balance to my two articles -- please. I don't think you'll find an economically based rebuttal, other than, perhaps, the tired old rhetoric about greedy big-oil or something, to argue against drilling for economic reasons. And after all, that's what I was challenging in the first place -- his assertion that it (drilling) would be economically unsound (paraphrased). I provided two economists that disagree; and I simply invited him (and still do) to provide some of "his own economists" to provide support for his economical argument -- and feel free to do the same.

To find sound economic policy suggestions based on eco-scare tactics isn't exactly something that's falling out of the woodwork. But please, post some links. I'd love to see them.

No, I don't read anything into the message that says that drilling in ANWR would be economically unsound. Unless of course "paraphrasing" requires a complete disjuncture of the readers thought process in order to replace the original message with something more in jibe with the recipients desires. In other words communication is 90% receiver, 10% sender. You can take any message and make it into whatever you wish.

As far as economically "unsound". To the contrary. It ONLY makes economic sense to drill in ANWR. The rest of the arguments not to drill there are for completely NON-ECONOMIC reasons.

Oh, its been awhile since I heard the last statistic on how much oil is there but doesn't it come out to about 1 years worth of oil for the US? That doesn't exactly impress me as being a much more than a speed bump in the long term.

The long term economic question is and always has been - What do we do after cheap oil? We simply don't have a real agenda as to keeping our precious economic engines running. Oil. More Oil and if there were huge surpluses of oil down lower than known resources are today still would not be an answer.

For every argument I hear against the "greenies" I see a long term business opportunity to make money from new markets. Max, we don't disagree that terribly much it how we get there that we often disagree.

So, yeah. I can go dig up some liberal green biased information to counter the Heritage Institute and George Mason at will. Would such biased information change anything? Lets be real here. It wouldn't you'd attack my research just as much as I'd attack yours. Theres got to be a more middle ground to these arguements. Its the same with the whole American community. There is no room but on the very edge of extremism.

Caribou bothered by siesmic drilling? Don't drill through the migration patterns. Keep open pathways through the pipeline for them. They are herd animals - help herd them if thats what it takes. It can't always be an "Us versus Them" argument. Its whats strangling the US in the first place.

The oil will be drilled eventually. Its only a matter of time and how safely we do it. The market pressures will become to great for everyone involved to resist.

Now, back to perfecting my water based carburator. (*Joke*)

- beads

You are very right beads, the other thing you will notice is just how many (suposedly left wing rants) are also owned by the Sinclair Broadcasting Group.

SBC is like the ultimate collection of Republican executives that are simply out to support and air news that will make democrats look stupid and uninformed.

But hey, if you are an American you've seen it all before I guess.

I am just watching the last few minutes of a show produced by David Suzuki, chronicling two people (I think a married couple) who followed the caribou from the southern Yukon into thier breeding ground in Alaska. They are took a WALK to investigate the migration by actually migrating WITH the caribou the whole way up.

They have proven several questions that have been raised in this thread and did so with a video camera in thier hands.

First of all, these two people carried packs and used skis to follow the Caribou ALL the way there, they had several remote radio towers where they were able to stop and call the air support that would drop more food supplies as they reached each area on the way. Other than the fact that this entire MASSIVE land offers an absolutely STUNNING panorama, it also proves that

[b]Those pictures are accurate[/b], the landscape has vast patches of dry area and mountains just as shown(that from what I am told, look a lot like Montana)and endless areas of ice and tundra as well.

They were constantly surrounded by bears when they camped as the bears were getting ready to hunt the herd. The bears followed all the way to the calving grounds.

This film was made in 2003, one of the key issues they noticed was wear on trails from years of the caribou walking across various rocky areas on route, just as mountain goats all follow a similar path, so had these caibou, they also found many bones from bear kills. They followed the exact same route to the exact same place they always go, right to the tip of ANWR right at the edge of the frozen Arctic ocean, right to area 1002..

So it also proves that the Caribou DO go to the same place and use the same route, the bears seem to know it well too.

That place, as shown on thier own aerial map is smack dab in the middle of area 1002 (proposed drilling development site) and I mean [b]right where they will be[/b]. They go right to the shores and there is so much evidence of past calving in the same area that it simply cannot be argued.

Watching the entire film, watching the caribou, desolation and the layout of this seemingly endless set route makes it so real that there's no speculation left, they MUST follow this same path if they are to go to the same area and they HAVE been going to the exact same area for many years. End of story, really.

Next episode they are apparently gathering and compiling data to be shown in Washington DC. I suppose it didnt' do much, this is two years later now.

.
All the following information is from various sources (mostly from only one). Feel free to question the numbers, if you'd like. But since we seek the same end result, and only disagree on one factor in how we should get there, what's the point?

Let's just respectfully agree to disagree on the ANWR issue, and leave it alone. Neither one of us will convert the other. But you get your vote, and I get my vote, for whatever that may or may not be worth in this case. The end result, however, will most likely be decided by people other than us.

----------

The United States of America is the world's largest energy producer, consumer, and net importer. It also ranks eleventh worldwide in reserves of oil, sixth in natural gas, and first in coal.

According to the Oil and Gas Journal, the United States had 21.9 billion barrels of proved oil reserves as of January 1, 2005, eleventh highest in the world. These reserves are concentrated overwhelmingly (over 80%) in four states. As of December 31, 2003, Texas had 22% of total US oil reserves, Louisiana had 22%, Alaska 20%, and California 18% (note: all of these figures include onshore plus Federal and state offshore reserves).

The United States consumed an average of about 20.4 million bbl/d of oil during the first ten months of 2004, up from 20.0 million bbl/d in 2003. Of this, motor gasoline consumption was 9.0 million bbl/d (or 44% of the total), distillate fuel oil consumption was 4.1 million bbl/d (20%), jet fuel consumption was 1.6 million bbl/d (8%), and residual fuel oil consumption was 0.8 million bbl/d (4%)l.

----------

Consider this, if the USA has only 22 billion barrels of oil in its known reserves (and I'm not admitting that I know what "known reserves" really means), and we use 21 million barrels a day, then by doing the math, one could determine that if we used ONLY our own "known reserves" (whatever that means), then we have about a 1,000 day supply - 3 years. That doesn't seem like very much. (My guess is that it's more than that, but I have nothing to support it. This just seems to be too little.)

But therefore what? (And therefore what, being realistic.)

That's the $10,000 question.

----------

The United States averaged total net oil (crude and products) imports of an estimated 11.8 million bbl/d during January-October 2004, representing around 58% of total U.S. oil demand. Crude oil imports from Persian Gulf sources averaged 2.4 million bbl/d during that period. Overall, the top suppliers of crude oil to the United States during January-October 2004 were Canada (1.6 million bbl/d), Mexico (1.6 million bbl/d), Saudi Arabia (1.5 million bbl/d), Venezuela (1.3 million bbl/d), and Nigeria (1.1 million bbl/d).

Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)
The SPR was officially established in December 1975 under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which created a reserve of up to 1 billion barrels.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

----------

Canada?s total oil production (including all liquids) was 3.1 million barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2004, making it the seventh-largest oil producer in the world. Canada was also the seventh-largest world oil consumer in 2004 at 2.3 million

According to Oil and Gas Journal, Canada had a reported 178.8 billion barrels of proven oil reserves in 2005, second only to Saudi Arabia. However, the bulk of these reserves (over 95%) are oil sands deposits in Alberta. The inclusion of oil sands in official reserve estimates is not without controversy, because oil sands are much more difficult to extract and process than conventional oil.

Canada sends over 99% of its crude oil exports to the U.S., and the country is one of the most important sources of U.S. oil imports. During the first eleven months of 2004, Canada exported 1.62 million bbl/d of crude oil to the U.S., the single-largest component of U.S. crude oil imports.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/canada.html

----------
With one-fourth of the world's proven oil reserves and some of the lowest production costs, Saudi Arabia is likely to remain the world's largest net oil exporter for the foreseeable future. During January-May 2005, Saudi Arabia supplied the United States with 1.5 million barrels per day of crude oil, or 15%, of U.S. crude oil imports during that period.

According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Saudi Arabia contains 261.9 billion barrels of proven oil reserves (including 2.5 billion barrels in the Saudi-Kuwaiti Divided, aka "Neutral" Zone), around one-fourth of proven, conventional world oil reserves.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html

----------

China:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/china.html

----------

My conclusion - We should REALLY do BOTH.

Have fun with the numbers.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/contents.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/

.
Regardless of what the real numbers really are, and regardless of how fast we can make the switch to alternative energy sources, it seems to me that the "Save The Environment" folks are not placing their priorities correctly. Their stance of, "save the environment at all costs" is one of the most stupid and unrealistic positions we could possibly take. They are unwilling to concede anything, nor will they provide realistic solutions to the energy-needs considerations. They are unwilling to find an acceptable balance. And for those reasons, it's very easy to simply dismiss them as dangerous extremists.

I won't argue against you on that, Max. I've seen wildlife, and it does not care about us. I care about my environment because it's where I live. But I care about my life as precondition to any other concern.

I agree on one other thing Maxwell: we just don't quite agree here about what is in the nation's best interests, but I don't feel like trying to talk you out of that. I'd rather try to sell you an electric car!

I think burning chemicals for energy is stupid in general when there is so much usable radioactive material just lying around, but a lot of people have the weird idea that it's dangerous to split or fuse atoms. Oh well, educating people gives me something to do in my free time.

I noticed the estimate that it would take seven years to get any oil out of ANWR. I plan to make a racket about electric vehicles in that time, starting with the following:

http://www.dontcrush.com/

I see you comprehended that comment well. Firstly, you are correct, a simple slip turned Alaska into a city.

As far as my comments about Elk starving, I am referring to the comments that Elk are fat and healthy, that's not what this is about though.

Your argument is that Elk are fat and healthy. This neither represents and argument from the environmentalists nor justification to drill in ANWR.

There's more to it than FAT Elk, there's more to it than the environmentalists complaining about STARVING Elk" (as commented in my original post, you just missed the implication) Starving Elk seems to be what you see as the complaint, well there's more to it than starving Elk, with me now?

I have seen, what I consider to be, undeniable proof that the Caribou take the exact same path to the exact same area (1002) that is to be developed. The impacts on thier calving will be more impressive than the impacts on Elk in a developing Alaska, that has has SOME population for a long time.

Regardless of which, I am referring to the amount of damage that illegal bunker oil dumping has directly on my front doorstep. First stop for the volume of waste that IS dumped, well beyond what the cost guard is able to stop, is Vancouver Island.

Perhaps you could make a compelling enough case to actually convince me that illegal bunker oil dumping will NOT increase due to increased shipping traffic bound for the USA right past my coastline.

Dig deep, it's a global issue that is out of control all over the world. So far with no resolve and an increase in offenders that aren't caught until it is found at sea or birds are killed on the BC shores. This is a REAL problem that we face daily here, I know it doesn't bother you, but there ARE reasons it shouldn't be allowed for the miniscule gain and incredible damage and loss.

.
...I'm all for it.

And always have been:

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-11181-0.html?forumID=6&threadID=166642&messageID=1703358

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-11181-0.html?forumID=6&threadID=166642&messageID=1703956

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-11181-0.html?forumID=6&threadID=166642&messageID=1704283

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-11181-0.html?forumID=6&threadID=166642&messageID=1704308

Edit:

The original link referenced in that discussion is no longer valid, but it was something similar to these:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/06/bush-energy/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/29/tech/main538451.shtml

if we don't want the drilling to interfer with the herd, just have someone shoot all the carabu before hand!

Then we could just make the oil company promise to air drop mcdonalds hamburgers in to the natives everyday to replace their food source!

Absolutely;

I would love to see the geologist who says theres plenty of Oil in America. The research I have found (let me run to the car after this). Suggests that we have or about to reach the theoretical 'half-way' point of all known oil reserves. Otherwise why would Kerr-Magee be going after Alberta's tar sands for oil? Theres a lot of oil there about 20% of the worlds 2 trillion barrels but it extremely expensive to get the energy out for the energy you put into extraction.

Eagerly awaiting to be flat out proven wrong, myself. Really! Nothing would please me more than to be wrong on this one.

- beads

One of the so called 'benefits' of cheaper oil would be the ability to send more oil to more lucrative markets like Japan where the price of oil is at a premium over the world $61.00 a barrel. Much like so much of the oil diverted from the Alaskan Pipeline was diverted in the late 70s and 80s.

Though I thoroughly agree that we need to produce more electric vehicles in general and get off the oil/heroin addiction the American people won't budge till gas reaches the $4.00 a gallon point. Pew research, if I am not mistaken. If we had lots of electric only vehicles. Where do you generate the electricity? From more oil? Nuclear? Natural Gas? The equation needs to be expanded a bit here. A combination of Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric (both micro and large scale) would be a definite start but doesn't quite get us off the oil/heroine effect quite yet. And remember we can't kick the habit until we can construct other large scale projects without the use of oil as well. Things like nuclear power plants, (though disgusting are currently our only reliable means of mass electric production), bridges and even farming are all dependant on cheap oil. So those things will have to be addressed as well.

Now the DOE isn't known for anything but its own rosy scenarios as well. Almost as bad as the Saudi's. Atleast the Saudi family has kept thier oil supplies a 'state secret' and appear to be dropping a bit as they are no longer able to 'swing' (enduce extra oil supplies) the market as they once could. Evidence appears to be even more contrary to this: Saudi Arabia appears to be quickly drying up! Reduced to pumping millions of gallons of sea water into reseviors in order to maintain pressure for pumping.

The problem for Saudi Arabia isn't the oil that they appear to running out of its that they have nothing to show for it. When the oil is gone so are they, both figuratively and most likely politically. If you have ever been to Saudi Arabia as an American, you'll quickly learn two things: A.) Your pond scum and should be sent to the back of the bus, immediately; B.) They don't like to work - at anything!

Though its a pork endowed mess at least the energy bill recently passed does set aside monies for private solar and hybrid cars. Its a very modest start. Unfortunately, we have seen these types of incentives before with renewable energy only to see the tax incentitives fall out of political favor. The results? A rocky and unsteady investment in the renewable energy sector. Boom or bust. Thats no way to run a sustainable energy policy in general. America invented the solar panel and is a world leader in the technology but its actually difficult to buy solar panels here in the USA because we sell so many of them to Europe! Not that I blame the German government for the 20% rebate a year over 5 years. What does our government do? Oh, heres $500 bucks! Thats about three 187 watt panels unistalled.

Another way to encourage conservation would be the 'feebate' program where larger gas guzzlers would be essentially tariffed resulting in a rebate for smaller more economical vehicles. Chicago already charges a higher 'vehicle registration' fee for SUVs and other trucks (yes an SUV is a truck) over a certain vehichular weight. Though this is Chicago where the Board of Water is also your best place to buy 7M a year of cocaine (true story).

My thought would have been to simply add a VAT to all non-commercial trucks (excluding Farm and Log pick-ups) to pay for infrastructure upgrades and maintenance. Currently, its been estimated that upto 70% of the new vehicles in Chicago are SUV/Trucks. Imagine the millage they get in rush hour? Makes me shudder.

- beads

You can start by not buying Exxon gas. ExxonMobil has spent millions against efforts to combat global warming and it does have direct influence on the Bush administration and America?s political stance on global warming. It is also the company that would profit most from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They won?t back off until they begin to feel it in ther pockets.

For more information you can check out:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org

I always find it funny when I get into a discussion about politics and they don't know who the Speaker of the House of Representitives (Denny Hastert) is or that hes from thier "home state" of Illinios.

Actually the Brits just blow me away with there knowledge of the American government. I got stumped once because I didn't know who the Undersecrary of Agriculture was at the time. You'd think I didn't know what year it was!

- beads

To answer your question, in Absolutely-World cars will be powered by batteries that are charged from wall sockets that distribute electricity generated by nuclear reactions. Radioactive waste is nasty, but it came from the ground in the first place, and there really are plenty of places it can be kept far enough underground, and from existing human habitation, to bother nobody.

Including Chernobyl, nuclear energy is still responsible for less damage, including deaths and related medical problems, than any other source of energy, per killowatt-hour. I don't know exactly how people are killed by dams, but maybe that includes China's Yellow River Massacre. Anyway, there are not enough rivers left that have not already been dammed to make more hydroelectric energy a viable, complete solution, even if environmentalists are denied a vote!

if they were the scientists going on about gloom and doom with global warning, the opponents of the drilling would be singing their praise. But when their studies don't mesh with the preconcieved and desired results they are ignored.

This will end up with drilling going on. The people that are apposed to it will hope for a big accident so they can gleefully dance around saying "i told you so, i told you so".

Others yet will see the logic of if we are going to use oil, why shouldn't as much of it be ours so the money stays here? This is also supported by AB's thoughts about oil money supporting terrorism. Drill local and fight terrorism.

I don't know about everybody else's double posts, but this one happened when I hit my browser's stop button after submitting the post below, then realizing I needed to replace "heads" with "skulls" to be consistent with jdclyde's post. How irritating.

First, I read a title suggesting that the other folks are illogical, then I read that if company X gives money to both parties -- which supposedly compete against one another for votes -- then that is an indication of NO corruption, which is topped only by your conclusion that panda's skulls should be drilled to lower gas prices.

Hilarious!

...that they can offer lower prices than their competitors, even after spilling "53094510 gallons or 1264155 barrels. How does the Exxon Valdez spill compare to other spills?"

Measurements quoted from:
http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/facts/qanda.html