Bush, and anti-environment piece of pondscum

For the BILLIONTH time, they are not going to open up “ANWR” for drilling.

1.) They are asking for the rights to do exploratory drilling.
2.) The area in which they hope to find oil is on a tiny fractional piece of gravel beach in the far northwest corner of ANWR, they aren’t going to go digging up miles of tundra and forest.
3,) Procedures, used in Prudhoe and improved upon since then (I’ve posted massive quantities of photos of the wildlife enjoying itself in and around Prudhoe Bay, in other threads on the whole ANWR thing before, will look them up if you like, it’s not a giant oil stained smokestack marring the landscape)
4.) They have to have permission from the (too lazy to find correct spelling so SUE me) G’wichin native corporation FIRST

and so on and so forth.

Having worked for environmental companies contracted to various oil companies and having helped author and put together contingency and emergency response plans, I’ve a bit of insight into the whole ANWR thing (and I’m a 35 year Alaskan resident). The forestry thing I won’t pretend to know anything about as far as the other states.

However, if the propaganda the greenies spread about ANWR is any indication, I’d take the whole “they’re going to rape mother earth” thing regarding this new decision with a grain of salt.

After all, the greenies are the ones who produced propaganda including a warning about how “they (the oil companies I presume)”, cut down all of the trees on the North Slope in order to put in the pump stations and so forth.

There ARE no trees. It’s tundra, there have never BEEN any trees. Just my 2 cents worth.

Sorry, forgot to clarify this one. They don’t even know if there is enough oil there to make it worth drilling, so currently the oil consortium is just asking for persmission for exploratory drilling.

After that, IF and only IF there is a reasonable amount to make it worthwhile, will they ask for permission to drill. And there is a lot of “stuff” to get into place, such as the aforementioned tribal permission and the contingency plans, how much they’re going to pay the state and tribe, all sorts of stuff.

What do the ecology experts say about this move? The link didn’t work for me, so I can’t read what the OP was based on. At any rate, when we talk about ecology experts, are we talking about objective scientists, or the Sierra Club? Nothing against the Sierra Club, per se, but they are pushing an agenda and are just as much biased parties as the oil companies are.

Yes, I do.

The problem is in determining the actual moral value of a proposition in a discussion between two people that do not share a common moral authority.

I thought you did. If that’s not the implication you’re making, then why the hell did you bring it up in a thread which is ostensibly about woodlands management?

Yeah, trees do; a relatively small percentage anyway. Oddly enough, the algae in the world’s oceans produces between 70 & 80 percent of our atmospheric oxygen. Even if we killed all the trees on the entire planet overnight, the oxygen defict would only be a few lousy percent. And even that would be short-term since growth of other exising plant species would rapidly fill the void.

Now, how 'bout you introduce some actual facts and science to this argument, instead of useless, feel-good Chicken Little whining like: “It’s heartbreaking that they’re not trying to save our lives.”

Dunno yet; this is the first I’ve heard of this. I’m willing to listen to both sides, though my gut instinct is that if this is truly pristine wilderness, there’d better be a damn good reason to mess with it. But it’s not a hot button issue for me. Bricker’s tendency to insist that popular support justifies anything is a hot-button issue for me, and that’s why I jumped on him.

Well, I chose my words carefully. I did not say that because Mr. Bush got a majority of the votes cast, voters all agreed with him on every issue. Indeed, I would be living proof of the falsity of that claim: I abhor the death penalty, which Mr. Bush supports, and yet I voted for him.

What I said was: *Mr. Bush can take this position because many people that voted for him believe the proper balance between business development and environmental protection is quite different than you believe it is.

I am one such person. Faced with two Presidential candidates, one who said he’d open Alaska for oil drilling and one who said he would never do such a thing, I’d vote for the first guy. I think Greenpeace are a bunch of fucking lunatics.

There are enough other people like me that this decision is politically popular.

I think each of those statements are defensible. I don’t claim that an absolute majority share or support this view – but that there are enough people that DO share the view that the decision has political support. It is hardly political suicide, after all. In other words, ENOUGH people share this view that the decision to go forward is politically palatable. He’s not cutting his own, or his party’s, throat, here. Most people that oppose this move ALREADY oppose the Republicans, already believe in drawing a line between business development and the environment that strongly favors the environment.

I recognize that most people in this category are not crazy (I believe Greenpeace represents a far fringe that IS crazy). I don’t consider Greenpeace to be evil – crazy, yes, but motivated by a sincere desire to help make the world into what they believe is an ideal balance between man and the rest of the wild.

And I plumb forgot this one. I’m pretty sure I said nearly an identical thing when I mentioned China’s industrialization. The point being, that Bush doesn’t really have a heck of a lot of control over China’s plans for developing an industrial economy, and since that is one of the main sources of dust over North America, it’s not exactly logical to blame Bush.

Further, you’ve stated something that isn’t quite supported by today’s research into asthma. While there is a definite positive correlation in asthma and allergy sufferers, there’s nothing (yet) that shows causation. That is, there’s no statistical medical evidence showing that asthma is the result of allergic reactions to airborne particulate matter. There is, however, some evidence that one cockroach allergan may be a causitive factor in asthma.

I was commenting on the **general outlook and the attitudes ** towards environmental issues by politicians.

How 'bout you quit being a puffy-chested little man and you lick my ass? You’re just a cock. If you don’t care about environmental issues, then that’s something you have to live with.

Where the hell did I say Bush? Please point to where I said this is Bush’s fault and he’s the only one to blame. They ALL are to blame because of the generalizations that caring for the environment is a “pussy liberal issue”.

Why don’t you try reading instead of looking to start an argument because you feel inadequate? Quit being a god-damned bully for once. I was making GENERAL COMMENTS about the environment and how it is being mishandled and you jump all over me for not talking about what YOU want me to talk about? Get a fucking grip you self-centered, dried up cum stain. Maybe you should refresh yourself on the rules of these forums; this is the fucking PIT, where it’s not in the rules to bring links and other to the argument, GD is set up for that. As a taxpayer and a paying member of the SDMB who’s fully within the bounds of the rules, I am allowed to talk about the general lack of caring about the environment (in a thread about the environment no less) from those in a position to do something about it.

You are just making an even bigger ass out of yourself by trying to poke where there is NOTHING to poke at. Do you feel small today? Somebody not tell you that you’re cool? Not feeling so fresh lately?

I don’t see what’s wrong with logging - as long as you plant new trees and don’t allow people to settle. It’s better for a forest to be logged than for it to be fired.

As for the oil, well, it’s that or nuclear power.

Mining - particularly open cast mining - is a wholly different matter.

Sorry, wrong, fire is part - a large part - of the forest ecosystem.

I’m probably a rarity. I am concerned about the environment, yet am fully behind nuclear power. It is the future. Let’s spend some time and money on solving its problems.

It’s part, but it doesn’t usually need to be. While I’m aware that certain trees benefit from fire in their reproductive cycle, the primary benefit of fire is to kill off older trees that are blocking light from reaching the forest floor, resulting in a rejuvenation of the forest. Logging, properly done, achieves the same result.

The one huge problem I have with my party is its stance on environmental issues. I consider myself an environmentalist (though not the true hugging kind, I tend to favor environmental projects that actually work and I don’t oppose the use of the environment to human gain as long as it is done in a way that allows us to replenish our natural resources at an acceptable rate) and a lot of the things the Bush administration has done upset me in that regard.