OK, littlek, even energy efficient car consumes fuel. I also support usage of such vehicles for civil purposes, since fossil fuel resources of the Earth are limited. I do not advocate uncontrolled drilling either, but I believe that strict rules must be imposed on the drillers that oblige them to restore the environment their activities have damaged.
Alternative energy sources, at least, in our days, are not efficient enough to replace the fossil fuel, they do not meet requirements of the techologically advanced societies. When they are efficient enough, I shall surely support replacement of fossil fuel with these alternative sources of energy.
You're right that there must be a compromise. But, why the national refuge? There must be remaining spots on U.S. territory to wink wells into.
And, if we'd started really putting money into developing alternative energy when scientists first started to think about it, we would have been way ahead of the game. We may never be fully oil-independent, but were ALT energy sources already established our reserves would have lasted much longer.
It depends on where the oil is. Maybe, it is technically possible to drill, for example, in the NYC or Boston, but no fuel will be obtained as a result, if we do not drill (occasionally) into the underground storage of the gas station.
I have read about Alaska's being rich in oil in '70s. But there was no drilling under pressure of the environmantalists. The complicated economical and political situation in the world requires diversification of the energy sources of the USA. Of course, Alaska cannot replace Saudi Arabia, but it may be one of the alternative sources of oil, together with Russia and some African non-Islamic countries (Cabo Verde, Angola and some others).
steissd, perhaps in your experiences it is different but in the United States we have a concept of "public land" which i believe in many other nations is assumed to be "government lands" the difference is that our public land is owned by the public-the people- and as such it is the people that determine the use of such lands. we the people set aside specific lands to be used as "nature preserves" or "wilderness areas" we have an intent to preserve for our future a very scarce commodity- far scarcer than oil, this set-aside implies an optimism there we have a future worth living in. For the government the ignore the intent of the people by disregard of what as been designated as "preserve"=To maintain in safety from injury, peril, or harm; protect, is an assult on what we as a people, as a society, value. This rich tradition was originated in government by a president, Teddy Roosevelt.
But why do you think that oil drilling may spoil the public land if the necessary environment protection measures are taken while drilling?
BTW, the term "public land" is not obscure to me. In the former USSR all the land was public, there was no land in private ownership.
while i have never been to soviet russia i do believe the very concept of "public land" varies significantly from the United States. It is my understanding, as i stated in my post, we see public land as belonging to the public and not the government.
Any government is a body that represents public interests. I mean normal governments, and not exotic bodies like authorities of N. Korea or Iran.
I say drill for the oil.
Let's go after that black gold everywhere we can, and use the last drop of it.
Only then, will alternative fuels be considered, and personally, I would rather see it sooner than later.
"Any government is a body that represents public interests"
where that true it would be a far, far different would we live in today. Steissd perhaps you did not understand my comments on an earlier post-we americans highly value the ownership of private land and in doing so we highly regard land owned by the public that is set aside for preservation of nature. to violate one is to violate the other. the interests of the govenment, while in an ideal situation match the interests of the people, it is not always true.
I'm with The Doc, here. At present, we don't even know for certain how much petroleum resource value there may be in the region. I agree too that we need not rape the land to draw sustenance from the land.
The Public Lands are set aside "For The Public Good" The US is voraciously energy-dependent. Alternative Energy Sources are acknowledged as being required, but practical conversion to such non-fossil-resource derived energy, albeit receiving increasing attention, eludes our current ingenuity. It is in The National Interest to strive for less dependence on imported energy.
What is being proposed for the Anwar Reserve indeed promises very low-impact exploration, not petroleum production of any consequence. There is reason to believe The Anwar Oil Reserve may be more significant than currently estimated. Personally, I would favor intensive exploration of the limited are of interest, an area of interest which, while a fragile ecosystem, is a sparse ecosystem. Current technology does in fact permit oil exploration, and even drilling, with very precise focus . The Petroleum Industry is capable of determing what lies beneath the landscape with very little effect on the landscape. The cost of exploiting such resources as may prove thereby available, naturally must be born by the market for that energy. Towering derricks, flaming waste stacks, huge earthmoving equipment, massive explosions, acres of stark, angular, Sodium-Vapor Lighted, steel-beam construction, enormous pipelines, and six-lane highways are obviously not expense the market would, or should, wish to bear. The market should be allowed to determine if it is willing to support the cost of responsibly husbanding, as opposed to wantonly exploiting, such resources, if sufficient, as may exist. We should most expeditiously explore the issue, and the region, and make an informed decision in the matter. That would be "Ihe Public Good".
timber
Did anyone read - at all - the homework?
timber, sparse ecosystems are in many ways the most vulnerable.
I do want to respond to two of dyslexia's comments. The first it that we've only talking about a six month supply of oil. This does not mean that it is going to be pumped dry in six months. It is an actual six month's total usage assuming all other domestic and imported sources of oil were removed from the supply side of the equation and consumption remained constant, and both assumptions are only that - assumptions.
That the oil would not be available for at least ten years does not argue against proceding now. We simply do not know what our needs will be in the next five to ten years. We may be absolutely desparate. Maybe we'll be on a purely hydrogen economy. If the former proves to be true, we had best get started now.
Steissd is correct, of course. If the oil companies are eager to shoulder the developement costs for a return that isn't going to begin to show a return for at least ten years, this is a major oil field indeed. They really are in it for the money.
Once again, I think the field could be developed without serious ecological problems, though it would require some hard nosed regulatory enforcement.
Did anyone read what homework, little k? I'm forever missing assignments.
I read the homework, in it, the 6 Senators did not say that they would vote against exploration in ANWR, they said that it was too important not to be debated on it's own merits.
I was talking about the bit from the US Fish and Wildlife service.
I think Streissd is right (omigod, did I just say that?) about compromise. But compromise exists between all and none, yes and no.... there's a lot of inbetween.
littlek wrote:I think Streissd is right (omigod, did I just say that?) about compromise
Got lost, littlek, and failed to understand your last posting. Do you mean that I cannot be right by definition?
no she doesn't, at least from my perspective. it's just that you two always seems to be at opposite ends of most discussions that i read.
of course, littlek can correct me on this (and i'm sure she will) :wink:
