I hate it when the politicians put the damned riders in spending bills. It's called "pork barrel" and sucks whether it buys things Lefties or Righties want. Here's an email I got from NRDC:

Dear NRDC BioGems Defender,

I am contacting you by email because the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge is in imminent and grave danger. [snip: part asking for money]

The White House and its Senate allies are vowing to open the Arctic
Refuge to devastating oil development by tying its fate to a federal
budget bill within the next few weeks.

This back-door ploy is a blatant attempt to avoid a public debate and
an open vote on destroying one of our greatest natural treasures.
President Bush knows full well he might lose such a vote, as he did
just one year ago.

That's why Senate leaders will try to sneak through their Arctic-
drilling provision by attaching it to a "must-pass" budget bill,
making it very difficult for pro-environment Republican moderates to
vote no. Those moderates will be under tremendous pressure from the
White House to get in line with its "Drain America First" energy
plan -- especially during this time of impending war with Iraq.

Make no mistake: the vast majority of Americans oppose drilling in
the Arctic Refuge, even in the event of war or a cut-off of our
Middle East oil supply. But NRDC must move swiftly to alert and
organize that opposition -- before the U.S. Senate capitulates to the
White House and the oil lobby.

The Arctic Refuge is the only remaining piece of Alaska's spectacular
northern coast that is off-limits to the oil giants and thus belongs
solely to wildlife. This pristine wilderness is our nation's largest
denning site for pregnant polar bears and the only birthing ground
for the 180,000-member Porcupine caribou herd.

The oil giants would turn this extraordinary wildlife nursery into a
vast polluted oil field. What's more, destroying the Arctic Refuge
would do little or nothing to further America's energy independence.
Improving the fuel efficiency of our cars and SUVs would provide far
more energy than drilling in the Arctic Refuge -- and it would do so
more quickly, more cheaply and without destroying our natural
heritage.

Only one group will benefit from destroying the Arctic Refuge: the
oil giants. Everyone else loses. Our nation's last pristine arctic
wilderness will be polluted forever. Wildlife will suffer and die.
And consumers will remain dependent on a volatile oil market.

That's why sacrificing the Arctic Refuge for the profits of a few oil
titans is offensive to the majority of Americans of all parties.

And that's why I'm asking for your financial help to mobilize
millions of Americans for the approaching showdown in the U.S. Senate
over the fate of the Arctic Refuge.

[snip: more parts asking for money]

Sincerely,

John H. Adams
President
NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council)

. . .

BioGems: Saving Endangered Wild Places
A project of the Natural Resources Defense Council
http://www.savebiogems.org

Well, Timber, as you know, I am rather prone to support drilling in the Arctic Reserve, so I guess that I'll send any money I was going to send to them to the RNC. ;)

But would you mind stating why you support drilling there. Is there any standard to which you hold a decision to harm untouched nature? What is the standard (note: 2 parts - (1) level of NEED before drilling and/or (2) level of harm you must be doing to nix the need-based decision)? Does the decision to drill there fit those standards, and why?

You may have told me this before Attalus, and if so I'm sorry I forgot. ;)

<font color="#ffccff">Uhh first, TL I thought "pork" was when they did that to bring spending back to their home states? I didn't know it meant all of that crap....but the expert and major teacher would be Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia [img]smile.gif[/img]

Secondly, its about damn time somebody used that place for something. Having been there, I can tell you, that this side of siberia there isn't amore useless waste of space on the planet. :D

Edit: Your untouched nature is a freezing cold tundra with permafrost that goes down several feet. The only time that area will be truely usefull to anyone is when the axis of the earth tilts or the global warming actually happens. The caribou and other wild life will do just fine even after drilling, they lived through the Alaska Pipeline, and they will survive drilling there. As for how much oil is or isn't there....Neither side really has any idea, just guesses and suppositions but every little bit helps....or we could do nothing and just sit on our hands all the time :(

Edit 2: I really hate it when the eco-people show grass and trees and butterflys when campaigning about the arctic...as if any of that has anything to do with ANWAR ...sheesh.</font>

[ 02-28-2003, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Is this what you are talking about, MagiK? Are you saying those pictures are in no way taken in the ANWAR? What about the birds and wolves that were part of Eisenhower setting aside the ANWAR.

In response to the "uselessness" of the place I'll note that it's bollocks. Nature isn't about being "useful" in the least. And land not set aside will be taken by human activity sooner or later. But, I'll trade you the ANWAR for an equal amount of the highly bio-rich swamps in FL that are continually being churned up to make new suburbs for those with bling bling.

It's like watching bacteria in a culture spread and consume itself. Humans know no equilibrium with the world.

[ 02-28-2003, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Purely speculation, I have wondered if these inflated gas prices are part of a bigger picture to lend creedance to the argument that there is need to drill in that great pristine wilderness.

Although it doesn't suprise me, I am disappointed that Bush and the oil-crowd of lawmakers that are running the place continue to prey on what some consider neccessary, beautiful, and others consider sacred as well:

Unfettered, pristine Nature.

That is worth paying more for gas if it comes down to it for me.

Thanks for the website TL, at least we will have pictures to remind us of the place in the worst case scenario.

I tried to send a letter to congress there TL. But they don't accept non-us letters unfortunatly.. Sucks..

Don't drill for oil there please.

Timber, I will just say that I don't know of a single case where drilling for oil harmed an ecosystem. True, arctic and desert environments are fragile, but the middle eastern fields are in desert, and I don't see anyone pleading with the sheikhs to stop their drilling, there. The desert grassslands that used to exist around the Big Bend area of Texas was destroyed, but by sheep farming, not drilling, which is confined to a few spots of an acre at most, and the roads to connect them.

<font color="#ffccff">TL neither of those pictures were of ANWAR...well the polar bears p[icture is tight enough it could have been anywhere I suppose...but that big green grassy plain is NOT ANWAR [img]smile.gif[/img] I don't know where they got that shot (probably somewhere in Canada).
I also never said that there wasn't wild life there. I only said that it would continue to thrive even after drilling and pumping starts. To leave a resource unused is to deny its purpose and potential, after all why would "mother gaia" provide the resource if it weren't for man to use?

Sounds a little like Maifest destiny no? :D Seriously, that green grassy picture is NOT ANWAR.</font>

TL, I agree about the pork added to the spending Bill.
Now on to the Oil drilling:
Here's the problem I have with the eviromentalists It all or nothing with them there can be no compromise at all. they seem to define compromise as giving in 100% to them. They also are extrme alarmists (SP?) Witness this statement from the site you linked in your answer to MagiK "Crucial wildlife habitat will be forever destroyed" Forever destroyed, Forever destroyed give me a break. Anwar is what a couple of 1,000,000 square acres. tell me how some 20ft wide roads and and oil pumps (that take up space measured in SQUARE FEET) are going to destroy 1,000,000's of acres? Oh I could buy that agrument if the intent was to dump the oil allover the ground but it is not the intent. No oil company ever is going to spill the oil for fun, that is how they make their money. Remember that is ALL BIG OIL is after is money (according to the enviromenalists) So if BIG OIL is only after money, and that is all they are after then it is 100% against their #1 interest to spill even 1 drop of oil. 1 drop of oil costs them money remember? I know you are going to argue what about accidents? Well what about them? they can happen, life is tough. But remember the BIG OIL only wants money, THE foundation of your arguement. When ever there is an accident IT is in BIG OIL's best interest to fix it ASAP because each drop of oil spilt is less money for them. Since greed is their primary focus in life then their greed will make them that much more effective in fixxing the promblem. Remember BIG OIL=greedy, takeover kind of people, not sit arround and talk about it kind of people. SO if there is a problem they'll be fixxing it before the sit arround and talk about it's get off their behinds. ;)

TL next time you are on a trip flying across this country sit in a window seat and look out from 30,000+ feet. Notice the great expances of wildnerness, open land, compared to the small size of the roads, and houses. And try and justify how those small roads, seldom used are going to kill off all the wildlife. Then ask hunters who spend time in the open spaces if the roads have killed off all the wildlife?

When you travel arround the suburds at night have you ever seen a deer in the suburds, a fox rabbits, coyote, raccoon or any other wild animal? of course you have they are all over the suburbs. I have.

EDIT: I forgot heres a good one for you. I beleive you've spent time in Vermont, as have I. How much of Vermont's forests fit into the enviromentailist diffintion of virgin forests? All? 75%? 50%? 25%? try less then 5% In the late 1800's and early 1900's Vermont was 95%+ Deforested! ( I really want to say less then 1%, but at my age the grey matter hard drive drops useless info ;) ) From my daughter's 2nd grade school books, and other museums, exhibits arround the State. So by diffintion it is ok to completely cut down almost every tree in Vermont.

[ 03-01-2003, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Yes, John D., Vermont was mostly deforested. And, have you seen those pictures? [img]graemlins/1puke.gif[/img] The beautiful town of Woodstock, so pretty that Wall-Streeters go there and buy $1.5mil. wooden cute village mansions to get away from it all in, was a muddy sog-fest. It's hills were stump-beds. It took going to the brink of ruin to instill the notion of "Stewardship" in folks like Billings and Rockefeller that turned it around. Go here for more info. Now, Vermont is 95% forseted and much happier for it.

The point is not "don't touch anything or develop." The point is can't we leave SOME places pristine. When I go hiking I like to actually get away from the sounds of cars and the sight of power lines. And being as I get a PAH/benzene headache from my 13-block walk to work every morning, it's really nice to have a "pure" environment to escape to every now and again.

And, with fragile environments, a few thousand drills and the cars and industry to support them will hurt the environment much more. But, again, its not about the notion that I know or even think there will be resulting harm.

It's about thinking "should we do this" before going ahead with the "can we do this." It's about PRECAUTION.

Oh, and any scientist will tell you that in any experiment you should have a "baseline" trial group that you do nothing to, so you can judge what changes you actually caused. This is ESPECIALLY true when the human industrial "experiment" is with the entire planet and there is no RESET button. ;)

Assume the worst, and work to avoid it. This is a much better philosophy that assume everything will be fine. It's also more mature.

It will take 20 years, more or less, to prepare the ANWAR for drilling and get started. I vote we prepare it, so it's ready to go if we need it. Then, we DON'T USE IT until we must. This is an especially good tactic considering this is a finite resource and we don't really know when other resources will run out. We should plan AS IF America will be here and need this stuff in 10,000 years.

[ 03-01-2003, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Careful about what you say should be done to the forests of Vermont, John! Some of us like it just the way it is! ;)

Mark

Yeah the pictures of Vermont I saw while up there looked bleak at best.

On the second part of your statement AMEN to that! :D Yes you have to prepare for as much as you can posibily thunk of, and then for a couple of things you can't thunk of ;)

<font color="#ffccff">TL I too like to get away from the civilized world now and then [img]smile.gif[/img] is why I hike, but I defy you to hikein ANWAR [img]smile.gif[/img] you better pack for an arctic adventure, because ANWAR is waaaaaaay inside the arctic circle and not all that far from the pole.

What JD said has a lot of merrit too, as crowded as we seem to think the US is, there are absolutely HUGE tracts of land with no people, roads or cars ont hem most of the time...flying cross country will give you some idea, but most of the time you are too high to really get a good look. I really recomend that everyone do a coast to coast drive, then do a Maine to Florida drive. You get a whole new perspective on things.</font>

[ 03-01-2003, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Well, I realize the arctic conditions, MagiK, which is why I also mentioned keeping a "baseline" pristine place so we can use it to analyze the part of land we've industrialized. I would assert we need several such "control groups" for each type of ecosystem so we can appropriately monitor our industrialization impacts.

HUGE tracts of land - where have I heard that before? Isn't that a good reason to marry someone? :D J. Cleese aside, though, I don't feel so happy-slappy about the view when I fly. I've mentioned the apportioned and cut-up squares to you before. But, I do catch your meaning. My reply is that given one of the best pieces of real estate on the planet, the US should make extra-careful to take good care of it. Same philosophy that makes one careful with their new sports car. You may drive it hard a bit to test it out and get a thrill, but you'll still rub it with a cloth diaper more often than you'll race it.

BTW, I made San Francisco to Vermont in under 60 hours, including pulling over for a nap. How's that for the cross-country. I-80 in ALL its horrible glory. :D