ANWR -- Down in Flames, Baby!

The BBQ Pit
81

Anthracite
My apologies for not responding sooner. Damn work keeps getting in the way of my dope time. I’ll try to hit a good portion of your post if not all. Kinda tired :slight_smile:

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Anthracite *

No, I did not. Your calculations do shed a less sinister light on the extent of damage. Being that the numbers only reflect an average of spills though, I would be interested to know if the frequency has increased or decreased over the past 6 years.

I try to look at both sides because I don’t fully agree with either position. Believe it or not, I don’t even consider myself a democrat. This administration is not giving me a good feeling at all though. I don’t agree with their positions in most areas, none of which I care to list so as not to hijack this any further. One of those things is the energy policy. The areas we need to start taking seriously (conservation and alt. sources) are all being set aside while these politicians play their friggin games. I don’t think Clinton was much better but I think he was better. We are basing policy on an antiquated way of doing things. And I agree that both sides are guilty of using this area to their advantage. That doesn’t mean I can’t also think that there is very little benefit to ANWR and we should leave it alone, which we appear to be doing.

The reason I mentioned the 10 year development time is because ot the administrations attempt to spin this as "we have to do this because Saddam is gonna withhold oil. They act like this will somehow help that situation. It will not. Raising mileage standards would in the long term, be more effective.

Finally, I must say that you make a very valid point about strategic resources. I think a more prudent plan would be to save this for an absolute emergency *while *developing alternative sources and conserving energy. That’s where I want the focus to be, not on some unverifiable amount at ANWR. We are hardly in an emergency situation here. I would support the drilling for a true emergency.

Whew, I’m going to bed.

82

musicguy, the problem with saving it for an emergency, is that it will take 10 years to get anything out of it. In an emergency, you don’t have 10 years. If you tried to speed up the process, you would run a much higher risk of screwing up the environment.

Strategic is the correct term, you don’t develop strategic resources in response to single events, you develop them as part of a plan, and use them in response to events.

83

What does “maximum environmental safeguards available” mean?

Hmmm, I believe I said nearly the same thing just a couple posts ago.

Again, we agree. Or almost. I just don’t believe there’s enough evidence yet to declare the ANWR an “insignificant benefit.” Nor do I believe the estimates of environmental damage that are put forth as the unavoidable consequences of exploratory drilling, are accurate. I think they’re significantly overstated. And we have other similar long term projects currently operating that bear this out.

And how do you draw your line between acceptable and unnacceptable projects? Suppose I own a piece of old farmland in middle Ohio, about 20 acres, or so. Is it okay if I build a 50 home subdivision and a strip mall on it? Even if the ringnecked pheasant, a species that’s had a rough go of it over the past few decades, but is beginning to make a comeback, uses that farmland as a nesting ground?

84

Depends on who’s talking to Congress at the time. Politics is peppered with phrases like that, such as ‘reasonable gun control measures’, that are widely open to interpretation, that have no definite meaning, and that no two politicians can completely agree upon. They’re rather like legislative pizza toppings. Nobody can agree on which ones to get.

There’s not enough evidence yet to know how much oil is in ANWR or exactly what enviornmental effect there would be from drilling - but that’s usually why research and experimentation are done.

85

PigDog Journal has a nice rant about ANWR here.

86

What bollocks these arguments be!

Again, the question is not how many caribou will be affected. At the simplest level, we should not be despoiling national wildlife preserves when better solutions exist. Jehosaphat!

A few points that have been submerged by all the “bad science” and “caribou love the pipeline” misdirection.

1) Pillaging National Parks is a last fucking resort!

Now I’m hearing that the Republicans want to drill in Yellowstone, since ANWR was shot down. Have they no sense of the future? Would you really sell your future for a year’s supply of oil?

2) Phony reasons show bad-faith intent.

It’s because of Saddam! It’s the situation in the middle east! It’s whatever’s in the news this week! And you’re an anti-american caribou hugger if you say different. Riiight… current credibilty? Nil.

3) Phony numbers show worse-faith intest.

And if our studies don’t show how wonderful drilling will be, we’ll send them back until they do. As you can see from the above links and, I’m sure, remember from previous debates (global warming, anyone?) the only science the administration likes are the ones that reaffirm their faith. Remember the scientist who got fired for posting a map of the calving grounds? Sure, this administration is interested in the best solution… for the energy companies.

4) Conservation – none for me, thanks.

“Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.” Further, we’re never going to mention it again. – Dick Cheney

5) CAFE Standards, or how I stopped worrying about oil and learned to love Saddam

Would you care to compare these two policies that were shot down? Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards & ANWR. CAFE, under the same generous time frame given to exploratory oil drilling, would net us more oil, be just as safe!!, take less years to bring about, had more popular support, and would reduce greenhouse gases. And of course, was promptly demonized using, shock, bad-faith arguments and worse-faith numbers, much like the Kyoto Treaty, “Clean Air Standards”.

These unsupportable positions are yet another example of how our current administration is bad-faith-based.

http://www.ens-news.com/ens/aug2000/2000L-08-29-09.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/energy/warming_6-7.html

87

Who in this thread has opposed CAFE? Enough with the straw men.

Please demonstrate one “better solution” from a cost/benefit standpoint as the situation will exist 10 years from now. This is called “begging the question.” You’ve taken as a given there exist, or will exist, better solutions. Before you can make this claim, it must first be legitimized. Something you’ve signally failed to do.

Exactly right. I believe I said the same thing earlier in this argument. Yet, here we are, the environmetalists are celebrating because the doors to research and experimentation have been slammed, locked and barred. It’s absurd, ain’t it?

88

Ahem

I don’t believe that the doors to research and experimentation have been slammed, locked, or barred. However, by derailing the mad rush to exploit, we have time to see the research, and the objective research at that. There’s time to assess how big the oil field is, and how to get to it without trashing the landscape.

What it looked like to us was an overwhelming pressure to rape the wilderness on a mere possibility, and be damned to the consequences. While I know that it was no such thing, still…that’s how it looked. And I loathe the eco-freaks quite as much as you, if not more. I had friends working at Windy Craggy, and a bunch more that would like to work at Redfern. Thanks to the eco-freaks, there’s squat for mining up here right now. Apparently, the water has to be purer when it leaves the mine than when it entered, among other things. And don’t get me started on the Friends of the Wolf assholes.

The heavy metal poisoning the animals along pipelines I know, we have the South Canol pipeline from Norman Wells running through the Yukon. It was demonstrated that the contaminants were coming from pinholes in that and in the old, poorly maintained White Pass pipeline. I can’t see much difference between a pipeline and a drilling platform, I think the chances for environmental contamination are too great. And even Anthracite fell into the trap of misleading percentages. Sure, the spillage rate may only be 0.0011% of total production, but when you see how many acres are poisoned for how long, it makes a difference. Prudhoe Bay isn’t a place where I’d want to be attempting to pursue a traditional lifestyle. I wouldn’t eat country food gathered anywhere within a hundred-mile radius, and even that’s dicey.

So, UncleBeer, got any pictures of caribou happily birthing healthy calves on contaminated land? Got any research that says they’re still safe to eat? More to the point, would YOU eat them? Would you feed them to a putative pregnant wife?

89

I’m pleased to learn that everyone in this thread, especially you, UncleBeer, supports CAFE, and agrees with me in castigating the Republican forces for shooting down the CAFE standards. Any idea why that made any sense? Anyone?

I’d say you’ve signally failed to understand rather obvious, logical arguments for the better solutions of, for the millionth time, CAFE and conservation programs over the ephemeral nature of the ANWR exploratory drilling.

Are you really saying that you believe ANWR to be a better solution than CAFE standards? Are you willing to commit to denouncing ANWR if CAFE standards had a better cost-benefit ratio?

That’s almost a rational debate – a new experience for this thread.

90

Thing is you can do both, conservation and exploration, at the same time. This is similar to business, one can focus on cost savings, or revenue growth. Cost savings are great, they’re pretty much guaranteed money, and you must consider them, but you don’t become a world class Fortune 500 company on cost savings. Revenue growth is where the action is, that is where companies live or die.

Conservation is inherently limited in it’s scope. You can only save so much, there is a point at which you cannot reduce your consumption without impacting quality of life. Exploration is much more open ended, there is more upside potential than with conservation. Cheney was right in saying that conservation is not the only factor that once needs to consider for your energy policy.

I’d love for CAFE standards to be raised, but our love of the SUV is strikingly similar to the love of gas-guzzlers in the 70’s, it will be tough to get people to stop buying them.

91

It’s not a misleading percentage at all when you are talking quality control. It can seem like a high percentage when the leaks are near you, or contaminate a key wildlife or especially fragile area. And it can be very destructive. But realtive to other

My point: It’s still a very low leak level, even if it really sucks for any leaks to occur. I can’t argue against that.

92

Ironic, when:

You referenced an urban legend as “proof” that the Republicans are evil. Why did you do that? Is that a supportable position? :confused:

And…um…didn’t you modify that Dick Cheney quote? Just a little bit? Was that an honest way to present it as being his quote? Is that, and referring to urban legends to support your cause, a valid tactic to use, when you cry out about dishonesty on the right?

93

You’re right, it isn’t a fallacy as such. It’s just misleading when you are considering risk factors. Once you remember to translate that percentage into actual barrels of oil soaked into the tundra, it doesn’t look quite so safe and nice. The numbers are perfectly correct, and are very impressive - and very useful to mask realities at the bottom level. I just think our current methods of oil exploration and extraction make it far too risky in an exceedingly sensitive area. It won’t handle that degree of contamination without permanent damage. I’m glad we agree there.

It’s just that that particular method of measuring risk and benefit is a sore spot with me. Reducing things to numbers and percentages can blind a person to what is physically happening. Once the whole thing is an abstract, then many people stop worrying. Especially if they don’t live anywhere near it - but sometimes even if they do.

It’s like saying that the beach that’s just had hotels built on it only consists of 0.003% of the known turtle nesting beaches. What isn’t mentioned is that it comprises 100% of the nesting beaches left in your country, and that the other countries are in the process of paving theirs.

94

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. Yes, I agree that CAFE standards should have been raised, but again, as cheesesteak has said, it’s not an all or nothing proposition. There’s no reason we can’t support a two-pronged approach. Or three-pronged even, if you include some kind of funding for alternative energy research. I am, however, stopping well short of “agree[ing] with [you] in castigating the Republican forces for shooting down the CAFE standards.” There’s a simple reason for not imposing these standards that has not a goddamned thing to do with oil. Cost. The cost to the automotive industry which they expect to be passed along to consumers. (After all, that’s what bib business does; sticks it to the little guy. Right? At least that’s the favorite liberal theory.) So, since the effects of implementing higher CAFE standards results in higher car prices, and thus less consumers able to afford and finance new automobiles, the Bush administration could be said to be protecting: a) the average consumer, b) the economic recovery now underway, and c) the jobs of thousands of union workers. As you see, not a bit of that has anything directly to do with oil.

Furthermore, you might be surprised to find what I support. Such as a higher federal gas tax. And by higher, I mean a large* increase on the order of $0.50 to $0.75/gallon. That money could be used for many beneficial things: support of alternative energy research, federal highway maintenance, vehicle safety research, transportation systems efficiency, and pollution research. It’d probably convince a significant number of people to buy higher fuel economy cars, too. Maybe enough that the scale of economy would help reduce the costs of implementing a higher CAFE standard.

Now, see if you can guess what kind of car I drive. I’ll bet it’s not what you were thinking at all.

Well, this among other things. As I said earlier in this thread, I’m not certain the benefits of drilling the ANWR outweigh the costs, even on it’s own merits. All I’m in favor of doing in the ANWR at this point, is gathering the necessary data to enable us to make an informed decision, which simply means a bit more exploration and research. I don’t think we have enough data to make that decision yet.

It’s very frustrating that you consistently overstate my stance on the ANWR drilling. If I were prone to sarcasm and suspicion, I’d say I believe you’ve done nothing more than a quick scan of my posts. Fortunately, I am prone to sarcasm and suspicion. So, why don’t you go back and read my posts thouroughly, prior to making another interpretive statement of my opinion on this matter. I think you might find that enlighenting.

Unfortunately, no. I have no pictures of calving caribou. I also was I unable to find any research papers claiming the caribou are safe to eat; conversely, nor was I able to find any research claiming the meat from caribou harvested in the vicinity of, or caribou that had migrated through, existing pipeline areas holds any special danger. I did, however, find many stories of local inhabitants who still hunt and consume this meat. These stories made no mention of any increases in any specific health problems in the persons consuming this meat, even if this meat is their primary source of food. This leads me to believe that it’s as safe as anything else harvested directly from the wild. And at least as safe as anything else that’s had who knows what pesticides and fertilizers poured on it and the ground around it for dozens of years.

95

I agree with you Tisiphone. I was caught up in the semantics of the situation. Of course, you could also take the total length of the pipeline, and divide it out to get gallons spilled per mile, or per foot…but there’s nothing wrong with your point. I just wanted to let you know that I did not miss the point myself.

musicguy, I’ve had a nice post discussing some positive things about your position, and stating that you seem reasonable, and that we surely have much more in common than not, but the damn server kept timing out all day for me, so it’s still at work. Anyhow…what I just said.

I wonder…just as a side point, and not meaning anything sinister or assholic at all…how many people here are talking about the ANWR, as opposed to Area 1002 of the ANWR? Because they are very different things… :confused: