I sometimes jog around the blogosphere, even in conservative ones, and the only reactions I’ve really seen on this proposal are mockery and derision.
I don’t want to start a big ANWR debate here, but those figures vary wildly, depending on who is spouting them, and how they are calculated. As for “destroying a wildlife preserve”, that sort of argument is the worst sort of hyperbole. The Arctic Refuge is ENORMOUS, as in about 31,000 square miles of enormous. The footprint for the proposed oil drilling is fairly tiny in comparison, sort of like a postage stamp pasted to your living room wall. I have no quarrel with responsible exploration and development; what I have a problem with is that this is a perennial political football that Republicans (from here, anyway) like to use to gain election-year traction, without really caring whether it’s opened or not. There’s not really even a big interest from oil companies in developing this field.
You may be thinking of Venezuela.
True, but we’re not talking a stand-alone operation like an ocean-drilling rig. They would have to build roads, as well as living facilities for the workers, which means electricity, water, sewage, etc.
Once the roads are in place, it opens the area up to tourism, which would bring pressure to build businesses to serve the workers and tourists. I think it highly unlikely that a town would not grow up there, or at least nearby.
The area may be tiny in comparison to the vastness of the park itself, but the resulting growth could displace a lot more wildlife than you may think. Some animals have specific breeding grounds which are suitable because of availablity of resources or safety from predators. If they were forced to breed in other locations, it could have a negative impact on the species.
I have a fairly good idea of what we’re talking about here. I’ve driven to Deadhorse, which is a much larger facility than ANWR will ever be, given both the limited oil reserves in ANWR and the newer technology that allows much smaller footprints for drilling operations. There is only one tourist draw on the entire highway, which is little more than a hamburger stand that sells t-shirts. That’s located near Coldfoot, which is a loooong way from Prudhoe Bay (in fact, it’s even south of the Arctic Circle). The business has been there since long before tourists were allowed on the Dalton Highway. Between Coldfoot and Deadhorse, there is literally nothing. No gas stations, no businesses of any kind. The only sign of civilization is the pipeline itself and the pumping stations. In other words, zero growth in 30 years. No town has sprung up near the oil fields or anywhere else. The road remains unimproved, rough, and full of potholes. Huge trucks barrel by you, throwing rocks and dust in the air. You really have to want to see that country to undertake the trip.
Now, it’s true that the pipeline is an ugly scar across the landscape, as is the road. Tourists are allowed to drive up there, and the cruise lines even take busloads of geezers up there. But the impact to the country surrounding the road and pipeline is nearly zero, other than from additional CO emissions. I saw no evidence of excessive trash or disregard for the surroundings.
The environmentalist concerns are for the Porcupine caribou herd, which calves in that area. A legitimate concern, in my opinion. More study needs to be done before impacting the area, which is what I mean when I say responsible development. Unfortunately, most people not from here consider Alaska to be a giant amusement park that is here for their entertainment, and that Alaskans are incapable of self-government and self-determination. It’s a contemptuous, patronizing and uninformed attitude. Most opinions and decisions about Alaska are made in a vacuum, without ever having been here or even having read anything meaningful about the place.
Small nitpick: it’s not a park, it’s a wildlife refuge.
I think the proposal is absolutely ludicrous. One hundred dollars is a drop in the bucket.
They can keep their (actually mine) $100.00 and use it towards funding for researching alternative fuel sources and come up with a solution sooner rather than later.
Public transportation in my area sucks, so this is not an option for me.
We have already cut way back on extra driving.
It’s my understanding that the caribou calve in the spring, and the drilling would be done in the winter and folded up for the season long before the caribou return. Unless I’m mistaken on this, the impact on the calving would be nil.
How stupid are Americans to think gas prices will not continue to rise due to world demand? Seriously, anyone want to make the statement that last year you thought prices would go down?
I’m driving a middle of the road economy car (32/36 mpg) and I’m paying less now (at $3/gallon) then when I was driving in 1974 (before the oil embargo).
Although we’re paying less for gas than other oil importing nations it’s still possible to lower that cost. Write your representatives and demand we open up all available oil fields and build more refineries.
That sounds very unlikely, given the cost of not having oil coming out of the ground. But I suppose anything is possible.
Statements like these are reassuring. Since it’s practically inevitable that sooner or later the oil will be drilled (we’re fundamentally incapable of leaving an exploitable resource be 
) it’s good to know my fears don’t represent reality.
Thanks for the info.
To be blunt, my fellow Dopers are not exactly known as the rich elite, but the fact that almost everyone here has suggested sticking this $100 in a White House body orifice, or investing it in a real energy plan, should be an indication of how well this half-assed idea is going to fly.
$100 will buy me gas for both cars for about two weeks. Big whoop.
For the Republicans floating this cynical, grand gesture, $100 is about what they pay their Mexican gardeners for a week.
If I should get said check, I intend to sign it over to either my local school system that desperately needs the money for little things like books, or - if I am in a pissy mood, will simply send the money to my local Democratic Party and hope it helps get rid of the idiots who come up with hairbrained ideas like this.
Well, duh. Y’all choose to live in a state where the average yearly temp. in the warmest city is 40F and 10F for the coldest. Your normal lows dip into the negative numbers and August highs barely reach the 50-degree mark. Of course people think you’re nuts.
I mean, really, you use contemptuous when contemptible would be more appropriate.
Meaning those sorts of people are contemtuous in their manner. I should also have used patronizuous and uninformidable.
And I’ll have you know that summer fell on a sunday last year.
While I agree that its a stupid idea and it panders to the idea that gas prices are unexpectedly high you’re blaming the wrong group of people. If you need an orifice to shove the check may I suggest a member of the party that continues to block oil drilling on Federal land. You can start with Senator Ted “no wind generators near my island estate” Kennedy.
I’ve yet to meet someone from any political party who doesn’t want this done in an environmentally friendly manner. The only way to do this is to drill in our own country where we have the means to monitor and regulate it. Since we are the end users of the product it is our responsibility to do it right.
Moderators, could one of you fix the quotations above please and delete this?.
This is a bit disingenuous, don’t you think? If it was a matter of party lines, the Republican-dominated Senate and House would have passed this legislation many years ago and had their rubber-stamp president sign it into law. Truth of the matter is, there are responsible people on both sides of the aisle who are not convinced that all the homework has been done, nor that it is in the country’s best interests. On top of all that, if the oil companies were really interested in exploration in that area, don’t you think there would be a media and lobbying blitz from that sector? It’s purely political gamesmanship. If this measure somehow ever miraculously passes, the oil companies will be in the embarrassing position of having to say “no thanks”, which would make a herd of politicians look pretty stupid indeed.
What are you talking about? What “homework”. This isn’t rocket science. The world demand for oil is increasing and it will continue to do so. We need oil and we have huge oil reserves.
There’s nothing disingenuous about the current voting pattern. 90% of the Republicans would vote to open up drilling in places like ANWAR. The problem lies in the Democratic Party. They’ve dominated the last half of the century but have done nothing to promote internal energy supplies. The last major policy decision by President Clinton was to turn a huge coal reserve in Utah into a Federal monument. While that may sound like a nice bone to throw to environmentalists it’s a nice juicy steak for contributors like the Lippo Group who have large coal reserves in Indonesia. Somebody’s glass is half full and it’s not my electric company.
It’s human nature to complain and rising gas prices will certainly fuel that desire. But blame should go to those who caused it.
Ah, of course, I should have realized that it’s all Clinton’s fault. How silly of me.
You should feel silly but feel free to show me how the Democratic Party has encouraged the use of our own resourses rather than exploiting 3rd world countries. It has collectively voted down anything that would help with the supply side of world demand for energy.
This should be above politics but it’s not. By the way, if you can cough up a Democratic Senator who promises to vote for all available energy sources I have a Republican that needs replacing in my state (DeWine).
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Lest we think that Republicans have a monopoly on bad ideas, from here:
It was the Pubbies however that decided to tie in the whole ANWAR mess.