Do you support drilling for oil in the 1002 area of ANWR?

[gnjsdad]

I absolutely support drilling in the ANWR. We need to build more refineries, too. Our refining capacity is at the max right now. And the less dependent we are on foreigners for oil, the better.

 

[LabChick]

I didn’t vote because I think the choices are a bit biased. Even though I’ll probably be attacked for saying so, I am against drilling for oil in the ANWR.

 

[jlw]

LabChick:

I didn’t vote because I think the choices are a bit biased. Even though I’ll probably be attacked for saying so, I am against drilling for oil in the ANWR.

Against it…because??

 

[Fitz]

Steph700:

I’m 100% against it.

If America is the land of innovation and creativity, why not focus our energies on coming up with alternative fuel sources… or how about we stop buying gas guzzling SUV’s? What a waste of resources! And we have only ourselves to blame.

I think we have to do both. Drill in Alaska, and focus on innovative solutions.

 

[condan]

sbcoral:

But if we have a tract of land deemed a “Wildlife Refuge” by the government, shouldn’t its purpose be to offer refuge for a little bit of wildlife? “Wildlife Refuge” and “exploiting and irrevocably scarring for a finite amount of oil” don’t seem to go together. I think it is very short-sighted to potentially scar this pristine landscape so that - maybe - we’ll get to pay a penny less a gallon for a couple of years. Something like that is what ANWR would amount to - certainly no panacea for our energy needs. We don’t have much land anywhere that is pristine and virgin; the few places that we have, I think, we should do everything we can to protect. What if oil was found in Yosemite Valley? Who would want to drill there? What if it was a whole lot of oil? Hopefully people can recognize that limits to exploitation of the environment have to exist. The boundary of a National Wildlife Refuge would be a good example of such a limit, to my crazy mind.

38% of the United States is completely untouched. Not country, not rural, completely undeveloped. I think that would fall into the pristine and virgin category. Any drilling in the 1.5 million acres would be done so in a way that would not interfere with wildlife who would still have their refuge.

 

[TPJCatholic]

BobbyJim,

There is no doubt that searching for alternatives is a wise path to take…yet exploring for oil and tapping into that oil is also a wise action.

 

[Hildebrand]

jlw:

Against it…because??

I thought I covered the bases. (1) The Republicans think it will increase our energy independence. (2) The Democrats are opposed to it because it will hurt wildlife, especially the caribou. (3) They also add, we cannot drill our way out of this crisis, we need to come up with cleaner and safer alternatives.

(4) The last one is for any who believes Christianity is about feel good things like worshiping of the earth. I am not inventing these latter people, they really do exist. They can be found on liberal Catholic college campuses.

Options one, two, and three all have their arguments.

 

[StratusRose]

I am completely, totally, 110% against drilling oil there. (For all the reasons the other naysayers have listed.)

 

[Mike_Olson]

quijote:

I support it 100%.

Also, I support the building of more refineries so that more oil can be processed faster.

Also, I wish that the entire country would use the same formulation of gasoline.

Also, I support tax incentives to companies, individuals, to develop alternative sources of fuel so that we are not dependent of oil (obviously this is a long-term project).

cheers

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_11.gif I ditto that!

 

[jim_orr]

Steph700:

I’m 100% against it. If America is the land of innovation and creativity, why not focus our energies on coming up with alternative fuel sources… or how about we stop buying gas guzzling SUV’s? What a waste of resources! And we have only ourselves to blame.

Steph700, what about nuclear energy, do you support that?

 

[Steph700]

jim orr:

Steph700, what about nuclear energy, do you support that?

I haven’t really thought much about it, to be honest I don’t know much about it.

Why do you ask, Jim?

 

[jim_orr]

Steph700:

I haven’t really thought much about it, to be honest I don’t know much about it.

Why do you ask, Jim?

Because you said, “If America is the land of innovation and creativity, why not focus our energies on coming up with alternative fuel sources…” America is that and has, but the so called environmentalist teamed up with the anti-nuclear war people of the 60s and 70s and made the most economical and environmentally friendly source of energy production too cost prohibitive to build more nuclear power plants. Ignorance and anti-American propaganda has resulted in keeping Americans from benefiting from her “innovation and creativity.” I was just curious to see if you were part of that mindset.

 

[Steph700]

jim orr:

Because you said, “If America is the land of innovation and creativity, why not focus our energies on coming up with alternative fuel sources…” America is that and has, but the so called environmentalist teamed up with the anti-nuclear war people of the 60s and 70s and made the most economical and environmentally friendly source of energy production too cost prohibitive to build more nuclear power plants. Ignorance and anti-American propaganda has resulted in keeping Americans from benefiting from her “innovation and creativity.” I was just curious to see if you were part of that mindset.

Yeah, that is an interesting point. I guess when I hear the word “nuclear” I automatically think “dangerous”. I’m not a scientist, but I think that there must be a way to create safe fuel sources, and in the meantime as a country we need to conserve the energy that we do use… by making better choices about the cars we drive, the energy we use in our own homes, etc etc.

I’m not sure what anti-American propoganda you are talking about… interestingly I am often labeled anti-American myself. I am hard- really really hard- on America and on the choices we make. Probably I am this way b/c I expect the best from the people and the country that I am part of. This is why I am determined that we have the know-how and determination to figure out alternative means of energy resources. In the meantime, it upsets me to hear that America will be drilling for oil in wildlife preserves. What is the point of having nature preserves if we aren’t actually preserving them? It seems hypocritical to me.

And for all of the complaints about oil prices… I’ve just returned to the States this past week after living abroad for some time, and all I have to say is that gas is SOOO much cheaper here than anywhere else I’ve been. If prices go up and they cause Joe six-pack to decrease his consumption, so be it. I’m sure there are lots of areas in my life and in my family’s lives where we could (and should!) cut back on our consumption b/c things have gotten so out of hand. If prices increase this will only serve as a reminder to be more reasonable about our lifestyles. Every other country has high gas prices, why shouldn’t we?

 

[Lisa_N]

sbcoral:

But if we have a tract of land deemed a “Wildlife Refuge” by the government, shouldn’t its purpose be to offer refuge for a little bit of wildlife? “Wildlife Refuge” and “exploiting and irrevocably scarring for a finite amount of oil” don’t seem to go together. I think it is very short-sighted to potentially scar this pristine landscape so that - maybe - we’ll get to pay a penny less a gallon for a couple of years. Something like that is what ANWR would amount to - certainly no panacea for our energy needs. We don’t have much land anywhere that is pristine and virgin; the few places that we have, I think, we should do everything we can to protect. What if oil was found in Yosemite Valley? Who would want to drill there? What if it was a whole lot of oil? Hopefully people can recognize that limits to exploitation of the environment have to exist. The boundary of a National Wildlife Refuge would be a good example of such a limit, to my crazy mind.

Do you know a) how much wildlife is in the area and b) whether it would actually DAMAGE that wildlife? Again this whole debate reminds me of all the screeching that preceeded the pipeline.All the caribou would die…nope their population has expanded dramatically.

Honestly when you are talking about 2% of NINETEEN MILLION acres, I hardly think it’s going to have that much effect on total wildlife population. The Yosemite analogy doesn’t work because Yosemite is NOT in a remote unpopulated area with a hideous climate much of the year as is this part of Alaska and Yosemite isn’t l9 million acres either.

WHat makes this project appealing is the reality that the place looks like a lunar landscape. So we have one small section that has some oil drilling on it? There are another l7 million acres of ugly brown tundra to ‘enjoy’ if that’s what appeals to you. It’s not like the entire state of Alaska is going to be under an oil derrick.

Lisa N

 

[sweetchuck]

Interesting that BOTH of Alaska’s Senators voted to allow the drilling. You’d think that if it would reak that much havoc upon the environment there, they would’ve voted against it.

I’d like it if we didn’t have to drill there. But alas, desparate times…

…anything to loosen the world’s economic death grip upon our country.

 

[Digitonomy]

Hildebrand:

I thought I covered the bases.Fraid not. I didn’t vote, because while I’m in favor of opening part of ANWAR to drilling, the energy independence argument is specious.

I think it’s unlikely we’ll be faced with a serious crisis in foreign oil production anytime soon - the oil producers are too self-interested to permit that. Even if they did, ANWAR is small potatoes.

The bigger issue is energy independence from oil. It’s a declining resource, and one which is not particularly friendly to the environment. So if we have a major spike in oil prices, it may cause some short-term pain and anguish, but life will go on - In the UK, they’ve been paying $5-6 per gallon of gas for several years now, and their economy is one of the strongest in the world. Back to the US, the important thing is that Adam Smith’s invisible hand will move the economy a bit more quickly toward less dependence on oil, which is the best place to be in the long term.

 

[jim_orr]

Steph700:

Yeah, that is an interesting point. I guess when I hear the word “nuclear” I automatically think “dangerous”. I’m not a scientist, but I think that there must be a way to create safe fuel sources…

Do you think the American Congress would waste tens of hundreds of millions of dollars to build a ship, and risk the lives of over 4000 well-trained American sailors and marines, not to mention dozens and dozens of multimillion dollar jets, if nuclear energy can not be harnessed safely? America’s newest aircraft carrier, the Ronald Reagan, was launched a couple years ago and is powered by two nuclear power plants with over 4000 men and women living, working and sleeping all around them. The Ronald Reagan won’t have to refuel for 20 years!

Steph700:

I’m not sure what anti-American propoganda you are talking about…

The anti-nuclear demonstrations of Tom Hayden and others along with the communist sympathizers and activist whose propaganda blurred the difference between nuclear armaments and nuclear energy for the purpose of weakening America both militarily and economically. The first is designed to produce destruction; the other is designed to produce safe, renewable electricity.

Steph700:

…interestingly I am often labeled anti-American myself. I am hard- really really hard- on America and on the choices we make. Probably I am this way b/c I expect the best from the people and the country that I am part of. This is why I am determined that we have the know-how and determination to figure out alternative means of energy resources.

Do you think America should spend a lot of money educating the best and the brightest among us? Do you think that is a good use of our tax dollars? Do you think America should encourage its children to get a good college education? Well, it seems that the same crowd who is for spending more tax money on students to get a good education also seem to be against those same graduates using what they have learned to improve the lives of all Americans. I am speaking of those students who study nuclear energy and want to work in the field where nuclear energy can benefit people, not destroy them. The anti-nuclear people are against those college graduates using the knowledge they have acquired in their education.

Steph700:

In the meantime, it upsets me to hear that America will be drilling for oil in wildlife preserves. What is the point of having nature preserves if we aren’t actually preserving them? It seems hypocritical to me.

Much of the “point” of having “nature preserves” has been political, not to preserve nature as much as to prevent mining and exploration and development of our natural resourses. There are ways of doing that with out destroying nature, and are highly educated college graduates know how. As in this case, I have heard that the actual land size on which buildings will be built is about two square miles. I live across the street from a county park called Mile Square Park; it is four miles around. People walk and jog around that park within an hour walking, and 30minutes running. There are millions of acres in this Alaskan preserve, and 99.999999999999999999999999%of Americans will never see one foot of it. What good is a nature preserve that people can’t get to to enjoy, and there is nothing there to do or look at once they do get there? It is not like Yellowstone Park.

Steph700:

If prices increase this will only serve as a reminder to be more reasonable about our lifestyles. Every other country has high gas prices, why shouldn’t we?

It is not governments job to “punish” its people. Why should families and workers, in general, pay more for something than it actually cost to provide it? Artificially raising the price on basic commodities like energy and fuels punishes people disproportionately to their income. People who are well off will always be able to buy such things with no problems. It is the middle class and the less well off who are punished by governments who are trying to “force” people to do something that the free markets should be allowed to determine. If people are called to conserve and others aren’t, so be it. Why should you dictate to others how you want them to live? You live your life the way you want and let others live theirs - that seems to be the “Christian” thing to do.

 

[Digitonomy]

sweetchuck:

Interesting that BOTH of Alaska’s Senators voted to allow the drilling. You’d think that if it would reak that much havoc upon the environment there, they would’ve voted against it.

No, I wouldn’t expect Alaska’s senators to ever vote against oil drilling or exploration - you don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Last I heard, the field mice or whatever varmints live up in ANWAR don’t have much of a PAC to influence the state’s US senate races.

I’d like it if we didn’t have to drill there. But alas, desparate times…

…anything to loosen the world’s economic death grip upon our country.

Yes, I see your point… even as the world’s economic death grip forces us into perhaps our nation’s worst depression ever, much of the rest of the world is developing economically, and that grip becoming stronger - we have little to hope for except that our demise will be short, so as not to prolong the agony.

 

[sweetchuck]

Digitonomy:

No, I wouldn’t expect Alaska’s senators to ever vote against oil drilling or exploration - you don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Last I heard, the field mice or whatever varmints live up in ANWAR don’t have much of a PAC to influence the state’s US senate races.Yes, I see your point… even as the world’s economic death grip forces us into perhaps our nation’s worst depression ever, much of the rest of the world is developing economically, and that grip becoming stronger - we have little to hope for except that our demise will be short, so as not to prolong the agony.

Ok, all your sarcasm aside, tell me, what would we do to stop China from invading Taiwan should it get to that point? Economic sanctions? “Hey China, we’ll stop buying stuff from you like we did with Cuba.” I think not, our economy would implode. Isn’t it strange: Communist Cuba, no trade; Communist China, you name it, we buy it? We’ve become too reliant on buying goods from peoples who work for pennies simply because it’s cheaper. The ANWR thing, as small as it is in the grand scheme of things, is a step in the right direction to regaining our economic independence. We just need to bring home the manufacturing sector as well.

Lets face it, greedy unions and corporate thieves have sent the American consumer overseas for EVERYTHING, and because of this, we have auctioned off our sovereignty across the four corners of the Earth. Drill Alaska dry, I say, and come up with a separate reliable energy resource ASAP, so we will never have to answer to a murdering Muslim nation like Saddam-regime Iraq again.

 

[quijote]

sweetchuck:

Lets face it, greedy unions and corporate thieves have sent the American consumer overseas for EVERYTHING, and because of this, we have auctioned off our sovereignty across the four corners of the Earth. Drill Alaska dry, I say, and come up with a separate reliable energy resource ASAP, so we will never have to answer to a murdering Muslim nation like Saddam-regime Iraq again.

:clapping: