Bush's Drain America First Plan - Alaska Redux

[pritchke]

The big concern is migrating herds. I am not aware of critters that exist in
Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Texas and California but I am sure they do not have migrating herds of caribou and to compare these areas to Alaska is folly.

"(I would also note that heavy drilling and production hasn't killed off much of the life in the Middle East.... "

I think you are very wrong in this assumption. Most of the middle East is a desert and there is more life then you would see at first glance, both the tundra and desert are very fragile it takes a long time for anything to grow plant wise, and when things are disturbed and uprooted it is unlikely we will see anything grow again in those spots again in our lifetime. Your government is being irresponsible with its attitude, well I think on many issues but this one I am sure it is not acting responsible. Should make a couple CEO's a few extra billion however.

[ 03-11-2003, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Sir Kenyth]

The real solution is finding a viable, renewable alternative energy source. That and controlling our population. Everywhere I see nothing but population growth these days. Whether it's from our own progeny or immigration is irrelavent. More people equals more consumption and more waste. Unfortunately, more people also generally means more money for the upper class. Less workers means higher wages, less product, and less buyers. I'm not an economist, so I could be mistaken.

Originally posted by pritchke: The big concern is migrating herds. I am not aware of critters that exist in Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Texas and California but I am sure they do not have migrating herds of caribou and to compare these areas to Alaska is folly. Pennsylvania has HUGE herds of white tail deer and some Elk herds as well. They are all over the place...just driving along the highway you can see one laying dead from being hit by a car every mile or so. "(I would also note that heavy drilling and production hasn't killed off much of the life in the Middle East.... " I think you are very wrong in this assumption. Most of the middle East is a desert and there is more life then you would see at first glance, both the tundra and desert are very fragile it takes a long time for anything to grow plant wise, and when things are disturbed and uprooted it is unlikely we will see anything grow again in those spots again in our lifetime. Your government is being irresponsible with its attitude, well I think on many issues but this one I am sure it is not acting responsible. Should make a couple CEO's a few extra billion however. I was speaking about most of the two legged wildlife in the Middle east, the truth is, even massive drilling operations only take up a very small part of the total land mass. There is plenty of wildlife in the middle east where the worlds most dense oil operations take place.

Sir K, I agree, we need to continue spending on renewable and clean energy solutions, no one has said otherwise, as for population growth, you are not speaking about North America or Western Europe all of which has a pretty much flat growth curve...less than 5% mostly and in some place it is declining.

I think TL and I discussed this a loooooong time ago [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

MagiK a few notes:

1. This isn't exactly a rehash of the ANWAR stuff. This site is much more populated by animals. The people living there are also dependent on these animals. The article doesn't specify the indiginous folks, but I presume it's the Innuit.

2. Until we have other (renewable) resources, the National Security issue trumps the environmental ones, don't you think. Regardless of how much fossil fuel there *is* (it's unknown), we do know that it's finite. I want the USA to still be sitting on ALL of its reserves when everyone else's runs out - be that in 40 years as some predict or 10,000 as others predict.

3. The elk and deer that have rampant populations due to the dying off of the wolf, large cats, and bear in Pennsylvania do not equate to a healthy ecosystem. It's out of balance and will likely never recover. I don't want Alaska to be the same way.

It's already a damn shame Alaska is where you must go to see a Grizzly Bear (or more importantly, for there to *be* a bear, whether or not you care to try to see it), which once populated much of the US. I quote a famous ecologist and apologize for forgetting his name: "Relegating grizzly bears to Alaska is like relegating happiness to heave."

Again, if you check out the full article, you'll note this place involves seals, sea lions, polar bears, etc.

Don't forget that Alaska is one of the few refuges for these animals to migrate south as their hunting grounds melt. Quick note: there is irrefutable evidence the ice caps are in fact melting. While global warming may or may not occur, the temperature *at the poles* is increasing for some reason. As these ice caps melt, as in previous climatic changes, the animals will seek hunting and foraging grounds to the south - on land - in Alaska and Canada. The situation may reverse, and the animals may migrate north again, but in the meantime shouldn't we make way for such natural migrations? You cannot symie wildlife by making it live on the animal equivalent of a reservation (not that I'm saying you *can* do it to people).

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: The real solution is finding a viable, renewable alternative energy source. That and controlling our population. Everywhere I see nothing but population growth these days. Whether it's from our own progeny or immigration is irrelavent. More people equals more consumption and more waste. Unfortunately, more people also generally means more money for the upper class. Less workers means higher wages, less product, and less buyers. I'm not an economist, so I could be mistaken.

Population growth is the single biggest human environmental and social problem. There will be a new New York City's worth of people added to the planet this year. And next (plus a slight bit more). And next (plus a slight bit more and another slight bit more). We are, and have been since the industrial revolution began, experiencing geometric population growth. At some point we will reach the "carrying capacity" of the planet. Actually, we'll superceed it at first, and a huge population crash will follow due to starvation.

It is true that you can fit the world's population inside of Texas and give everyone a decent home with a 10 - 100' yard. However, the idiots who crunched these stupid numbers forget to tell you that you need all of New Mexico to contain the industry, all of California to contain the entertainment and restaurant services, all of Oklahoma to run power and municipal support services, all of Arizona to contain offices for professionals and support services, and all of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississipi to house the waste and all the s**t people send to storage. [edit] Oh, I forgot, it still takes every last acre in the remaining US, Mexico, and Canada to GROW THE FOOD.

[ 03-11-2003, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: MagiK a few notes: 1. This isn't exactly a rehash of the ANWAR stuff. This site is much more populated by animals. The people living there are also dependent on these animals. The article doesn't specify the indiginous folks, but I presume it's the Innuit. Yes I know this isnt the same as ANWAR [img]smile.gif[/img] I was refering to our eralier discussion about birth/growth rates in the western Hemisphere. 2. Until we have other (renewable) resources, the National Security issue trumps the environmental ones, don't you think. Regardless of how much fossil fuel there *is* (it's unknown), we do know that it's finite. I want the USA to still be sitting on ALL of its reserves when everyone else's runs out - be that in 40 years as some predict or 10,000 as others predict. I can see the benefits there, would make the other kids on the block a bit jealous though...but then they already are... 3. The elk and deer that have rampant populations due to the dying off of the wolf, large cats, and bear in Pennsylvania do not equate to a healthy ecosystem. It's out of balance and will likely never recover. I don't want Alaska to be the same way. The wolves and Coyotes weren't killed off by Oil Drilling. The Coyotes are making a come back, by the way. My Brother in law had to shoot a Coyote that was prowling around his back yard about a month ago (I just heard the story this past weekend) It's already a damn shame Alaska is where you must go to see a Grizzly Bear (or more importantly, for there to *be* a bear, whether or not you care to try to see it), which once populated much of the US. I quote a famous ecologist and apologize for forgetting his name: "Relegating grizzly bears to Alaska is like relegating happiness to heave." If you miss bears, I don't know about Illinois but PA has tonsd of them as well, We have a ton o Black bears and they raid gardens like you wouldnt believe. Again, if you check out the full article, you'll note this place involves seals, sea lions, polar bears, etc. Don't forget that Alaska is one of the few refuges for these animals to migrate south as their hunting grounds melt. Quick note: there is irrefutable evidence the ice caps are in fact melting. While global warming may or may not occur, the temperature *at the poles* is increasing for some reason. As these ice caps melt, as in previous climatic changes, the animals will seek hunting and foraging grounds to the south - on land - in Alaska and Canada. The situation may reverse, and the animals may migrate north again, but in the meantime shouldn't we make way for such natural migrations? You cannot symie wildlife by making it live on the animal equivalent of a reservation (not that I'm saying you *can* do it to people). TL I don't want to see the animals slaughtered or killed off....I am just maintaining that Drilling or exploring for Oil isn't going to kill them off or seriously impact them.

[Attalus]

I drive a Suburban. [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img] And, I am all for drilling in the ANWP. What happened to all of the massive wildlife dislocation that was supposed to occur with the Alaska Pipeline? Didn't happen. And, as for the crack about electing a Bush as Governor of Alaska, the last thing I read is that the Governor (and population) of Alaska are all for it. They live there, you see.

Attalus, it has something to do with the fact that families in alaska don't pay income taxes but instead receive roughly $1500 per person per household in oil revenue sharing.

[Timber Loftis]

Ah, yes, nothing garners popularity so much as a good old fashioned bribe. [img]tongue.gif[/img]