“Our culture is not up for sale”: The stakes of Trump’s push to drill in the Arctic refuge

[Lord of Planar]

I take it you are unfamiliar with petroleum exploration and exploitation or perhaps you are unaware of the fragility of high latitude ecosystems.



LOL. Hey, I want to store just a small bottle of extremely toxic crap in your linen closet at your home. Your home is what, a couple thousand square feet? This bottle is just really small. No prob, right?

The point is: we open up ANWR and it buys us a couple years more of "cheaper" oil to drive our big-ass SUV's around to the store because we can't possibly live with higher CAFE standards for our transportation. And in return we possibly irreparably damage at least SOME of a fragile ecosystem.

That's not a rational deal to make. I mean I get it that some folks are so addicted to oil and their giant SUV's that they'd gladly allow drilling on their grandma's head if it got them a couple more gallons of oil, but it isn't the way we should be going. It's poor payoff for bigger damage.

Even if it is just a "small" part of ANWR. Is there NO PLACE on earth you think should be protected? Because once you open a little bit up, well, you know the adage: "just the tip".

It appears you assume regulations will be ignored.

 

[Lursa]

"Our culture is not up for sale": The stakes of Trump’s push to drill in the Arctic refuge

A majority of voters don’t support drilling in the Arctic refuge. Trump is doing it anyway.

www.vox.com

Trump is trying to sell off our Alaskan wildlife refuge heritage to Big Oil.

Thankfully, this scheme to help out his fossil-fuel donor friends is running into numerous problems including financing. Trump will grift anywhere and everywhere he can.

Hopefully Biden will stop it or tie it up in so many knots it wont matter.

 

[code1211]

I take it you are unfamiliar with petroleum exploration and exploitation or perhaps you are unaware of the fragility of high latitude ecosystems.



LOL. Hey, I want to store just a small bottle of extremely toxic crap in your linen closet at your home. Your home is what, a couple thousand square feet? This bottle is just really small. No prob, right?

The point is: we open up ANWR and it buys us a couple years more of "cheaper" oil to drive our big-ass SUV's around to the store because we can't possibly live with higher CAFE standards for our transportation. And in return we possibly irreparably damage at least SOME of a fragile ecosystem.

That's not a rational deal to make. I mean I get it that some folks are so addicted to oil and their giant SUV's that they'd gladly allow drilling on their grandma's head if it got them a couple more gallons of oil, but it isn't the way we should be going. It's poor payoff for bigger damage.

Even if it is just a "small" part of ANWR. Is there NO PLACE on earth you think should be protected? Because once you open a little bit up, well, you know the adage: "just the tip".

With the greatest respect, the land area that will be affected by drilling in ANWAR is figured on the scale of acres.

Comparing this to the land areas destroyed or blighted in other areas of this country, it is tiny.

That land areas paved over in Washington DC, NYC, Chicago or even here in Indianapolis are larger and have destroyed more completely the natural habitats of various life forms.

Are you suggesting we correct ALL of these real world blighted areas or only prevent the imagined damage that might occur in this one much less expansive area?

 

[istodolez]

With the greatest respect, the land area that will be affected by drilling in ANWAR is figured on the scale of acres.

But why drill at all? Just for a couple years more of "cheaper gasoline" which we know will lead to more warming and climate change.

But even a few "acres" (which I am not convinced of) is more than should be damaged. As I said in my example: I would like to store some nasty toxic chemicals in your home. It's a small bottle and your home is much larger, so what's the problem?

Are you suggesting we correct ALL of these real world blighted areas or only prevent the imagined damage that might occur in this one much less expansive area?

No. I'm just saying that there's no reason to threaten a fragile ecosystem even on a small scale just for the simple expedient of a couple years more of cheaper oil which will ultimately lead to negative climate consequences everywhere.

It's like telling Sid Vicious that he can have this one last shot of heroin in hopes that MAYBE tomorrow he'll clean up. But that isn't how we operate.

 

[istodolez]

It appears you assume regulations will be ignored.

Considering that the same administration that has pushed to re-open ANWR is also the same administration that has a non-stop war on regulations in general I'm thinking that the cards are stacked against responsible activity pretty solidly.

 

[Steve Case]

I'm surprised you didn't post a picture of a giant oil field to make your point:

That one is near Bakersfield, California

Here's an ugly wind farm:

And some solar panels:

I suppose I could find some photos of mining activity for lithium cobalt and neodymium and whatever else it takes to be a woke green social justice warrior these days.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Considering that the same administration that has pushed to re-open ANWR is also the same administration that has a non-stop war on regulations in general I'm thinking that the cards are stacked against responsible activity pretty solidly.

The regulations that the Trump administration got rid of were almost entirely regulations that didn't take effect yet, and would have been damaging.

Why do you buy into all the propaganda out there?

 

[istodolez]

The regulations that the Trump administration got rid of were almost entirely regulations that didn't take effect yet, and would have been damaging.

I thought you were going to be able to extrapolate to the larger point but I'll go ahead and lay it out.

The GOP in general has had a very anti-regulation agenda for decades now. The regulations are constantly under attack. So you want us to believe that just opening up a TEENSY tiny bit of ANWR won't lead to an EXPANSION of that coupled with a DECREASE in regulations all of which is pretty much standard operating procedure? I am not buying your bridge.

Why do you buy into all the propaganda out there?

Ummm, because I've actually seen what happens in industry when regulations are eased, I know some history and I've spent most of my career in the chemical industry so I kinda know how all this stuff works and has worked in the past. Right now the petrochemical industry is functional with the restrictions and we put those restrictions in place precisely because citizens REQUESTED them to be put there.

 

[code1211]

But why drill at all? Just for a couple years more of "cheaper gasoline" which we know will lead to more warming and climate change.

But even a few "acres" (which I am not convinced of) is more than should be damaged. As I said in my example: I would like to store some nasty toxic chemicals in your home. It's a small bottle and your home is much larger, so what's the problem?



No. I'm just saying that there's no reason to threaten a fragile ecosystem even on a small scale just for the simple expedient of a couple years more of cheaper oil which will ultimately lead to negative climate consequences everywhere.

It's like telling Sid Vicious that he can have this one last shot of heroin in hopes that MAYBE tomorrow he'll clean up. But that isn't how we operate.

Manhattan is about 21,000 acres.

The sliver of the ANWR requested to be the site of the drilling is pegged by Snopes to be about 2000 acres. Some say the actual site in ANWR to be "blemished" is only 6 acres.

The scar left on Mother Earth, if apparent at all left by drilling in this frozen wasteland would be minor compared to the scar left by Manhattan on Mother Earth.

Fossil fuels have been demonstrated to be the most powerful, cheapest, most portable and most convenient sources of energy ever employed by the race of men.

Technology will supplant them in the next 100 or so years. One day, the use of oil from the ground as read in history books will conjure the same sort of curios wonder as the use of Whale Oil conjures today.

That day is not today.

IF the goal is to stop injuring mother Earth, THEN the action should be to eliminate NYC.

The Truth About ANWR

E-mail reports the truth about the environmental impact of drilling for oil in ANWR.

www.snopes.com

 

[istodolez]

Technology will supplant them in the next 100 or so years. One day, the use of oil from the ground as read in history books will conjure the same sort of curios wonder as the use of Whale Oil conjures today.

So you are just crossing your fingers and hoping the "scientists" will invent a solution and we don't have to worry at all? Don't have to take any responsibility? Don't have to incur any additional costs personally?

That day is not today.

Having worked in transportation fuel topics briefly during a postdoc 20 years ago I can tell you that your hoped for revolutions don't always come easy.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I thought you were going to be able to extrapolate to the larger point but I'll go ahead and lay it out.

The GOP in general has had a very anti-regulation agenda for decades now. The regulations are constantly under attack. So you want us to believe that just opening up a TEENSY tiny bit of ANWR won't lead to an EXPANSION of that coupled with a DECREASE in regulations all of which is pretty much standard operating procedure? I am not buying your bridge.



Ummm, because I've actually seen what happens in industry when regulations are eased, I know some history and I've spent most of my career in the chemical industry so I kinda know how all this stuff works and has worked in the past. Right now the petrochemical industry is functional with the restrictions and we put those restrictions in place precisely because citizens REQUESTED them to be put there.

Your use of "anti-regulation" is absolutely wrong. Again, you use language that proves you worself have an agenda. How about trying to introduce sensible regulations and see if you still get resistance? You are by no means unbiased. We already have enough regulations. In fact, we have too many. We have boatloads of regulations covering the same thing and it's a nightmare for corporations and small business to comply with all aspects. They need to be all brought together in a neat package, past regulations examined, before introducing more regulations that are virtually identical to existing ones. And things like the upcoming CAFE standards that were squashed were absolutely stupid when we are at the edge of squeezing efficiency out of cars that people want.

 

[istodolez]

How about trying to introduce sensible regulations and see if you still get resistance?

Because "sensible regulations" is a nice way to say "only those regulations YOU personally like". What you and others may think of as too much or onerous regulations were likely put there for some actual reason. Whether it was at the request of parents who didn't want their children drinking hexavalent chromium tainted water and dying of cancer or it was because the chemicals being dumped into the river were causing massive algal blooms and killing all the fish.

You are by no means unbiased.

Just as an aside, can you discuss topics without making it personal?

We already have enough regulations

Would you care to back that up with something like data? Or is it just your opinion?

. In fact, we have too many.

I've spent my life in the chemical industry and frankly, while I understand that yoke these can sometimes place on the business, the fact of the matter is the regulations make sense. And even the ones that seem extreme weren't put there just to make life hard. There IS a reason for most of the regulations.

We have boatloads of regulations covering the same thing and it's a nightmare for corporations and small business to comply with all aspects.

And again most of those regulations grew out of public request for safer industrial output, a cleaner environment and a better place to live.

They need to be all brought together in a neat package, past regulations examined, before introducing more regulations that are virtually identical to existing ones.

Any real world examples of this?