Yes, but their would be a pile of money to go into the project to get that 3 more mpg. And we would still be dependent of foreign oil?john831 said:http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=229&slb=SU&locID=rosw82806&srchtp=basic&c=2&ste=17&tbst=ts_basic&tab=1&txb=%2522Environmental+Policy%2522&docNum=X3010319213&fail=0&bConts=79
According to this article, if we raised average fuel economy in the US by 3 mpg, then in 10 years we would save more oil then would ever be produced from ANWR. We have the technology to increase average fuel economy by 15 mpg; it seems to me that, based on these statistics, it would be a much better idea to focus on conservation than drilling since it seems so much more effective.
Even simple maintences can get you the same 3 mpg.john831 said:http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=229&slb=SU&locID=rosw82806&srchtp=basic&c=2&ste=17&tbst=ts_basic&tab=1&txb=%2522Environmental+Policy%2522&docNum=X3010319213&fail=0&bConts=79
According to this article, if we raised average fuel economy in the US by 3 mpg, then in 10 years we would save more oil then would ever be produced from ANWR. We have the technology to increase average fuel economy by 15 mpg; it seems to me that, based on these statistics, it would be a much better idea to focus on conservation than drilling since it seems so much more effective.
Che said:Yeah ANWR is stupid since we won't get any oil from it for 10 years and when we do get it, it'll only lower gas prices by a penny per gallon according to recent studies. Plus Alaska is the last untouched frontier so do we really have to go drilling there?
Kandahar said:Will ANWR significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil? No. Will ANWR be an environmental catastrophe if we drill there? No. It's simply not an important issue.
If the people of Alaska are in favor of it, far be it from me to tell them otherwise. I'm never going to ANWR, and from everything I've heard it's already a barren wasteland.
Che said:This is a good statement except fot it being a barren wasteland. It is actually a breeding ground for Caribou.
Calm2Chaos said:I have heard a couple times it would only last a few years... Whats the estimated oil in ANWR? And whats our yearly barrel consumption?
jallman said:From my understanding, you are right about it only lasting a few years...but to Alaskans, the potential revenue and addition to our permanent fund dividends is well worth it. This whole thing wasnt even an issue until a bunch of hippy greenpeace ultra liberal tree hugging soy sucking *** wipes filmed 4 birds on the tundra and made out like there is a thriving migratory population where there isnt one. Fu.ck hippies from the lower 48 telling Alaskans what to do with our own land.
jallman said:From my understanding, you are right about it only lasting a few years...but to Alaskans, the potential revenue and addition to our permanent fund dividends is well worth it. This whole thing wasnt even an issue until a bunch of hippy greenpeace ultra liberal tree hugging soy sucking *** wipes filmed 4 birds on the tundra and made out like there is a thriving migratory population where there isnt one. Fu.ck hippies from the lower 48 telling Alaskans what to do with our own land.
jallman said:From my understanding, you are right about it only lasting a few years...but to Alaskans, the potential revenue and addition to our permanent fund dividends is well worth it. This whole thing wasnt even an issue until a bunch of hippy greenpeace ultra liberal tree hugging soy sucking *** wipes filmed 4 birds on the tundra and made out like there is a thriving migratory population where there isnt one. Fu.ck hippies from the lower 48 telling Alaskans what to do with our own land.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Umm....it's a federal wildlife refuge, so it falls under the "this land is your land, this land is our land, but mostly it's our land" umbrella of federal takeover...
Che said:fine destroy your own land if you want to, but keep in mind that cost of building an financing an oil drill in ANWR may cost more than actually getting the oil. Besides, there won't be as many jobs as the anti-enviromental **** the earth cons pretend there will be.
Che said:fine destroy your own land if you want to, but keep in mind that cost of building an financing an oil drill in ANWR may cost more than actually getting the oil. Besides, there won't be as many jobs as the anti-enviromental **** the earth cons pretend there will be.
jallman said:Umm...its not like federal lands dont get redesignated at will. This one is especially stupid because its being called a wildlife refuge and there is no friggin wildlife.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Hey, I think that if there's oil there, and someone is willing to put up his own money to get it, let'em. I was just pointing out that the feds had already grabbed that land from Alaska, is all.
But do note that I said the drillers should use their own money. I don't feel like paying taxes to pay for oil that I'll then have to pay full market price to have the use of. That seems like a damned stupid thing to do. Not a dime of federal or state money should go into those projects.
Opposing views
The Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, which represents 229 Native Alaskan tribes, officially opposes any development in ANWR.[8] In March, 2005, Luci Beach, [9] the executive director of the steering committee for the Native Alaskan and Canadian Gwich'in tribe [10] (a member of the AI-TC), during a trip to Washington DC, while speaking for a unified group of 55 Alaskan and Canadian indigenous peoples, said that drilling in ANWR is "a human rights issue and it's a basic Aboriginal human rights issue."[11] She went on to say, "Sixty to 70 per cent of our diet comes from the land and caribou is one of the primary animals that we depend on for sustenance." The Gwich'in tribe adamantly believes that drilling in ANWR would have serious negative effects on the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd that they partially rely on for food. [12]
The Kaktovik Inupiat, and 5,000 to 7,000 Gwich'in peoples feel their lifestyle would be disrupted or destroyed by drilling. The Inupiat from Point Hope, Alaska recently passed resolutions [13] recognizing that drilling in ANWR would establish a precedent to allow resource exploitation in other wilderness areas, marine refuges and sanctuaries nationwide. The Inupiat, Gwitch'in, and other tribes are calling for sustainable energy practices and policies. The Tanana Chiefs Conference representing 42 Alaska Native villages from 37 tribes oppose drilling, as do at least 90 Native American tribes. The National Congress of American Indians representing 250 tribes and the Native American Rights Fund as well as some Canadian tribes and International Tribal Organizations also oppose drilling in the 1002 area.
Most residents of the United States [14] and Canada [15] are also opposed to drilling in the wildlife refuge according to polls.
However, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), which was formed as part of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and owns 92,000 acres of subsurface mineral rights in ANWR is in favor of drilling. Lobbyists with ASRC do not represent all Alaska Natives nor do they represent any Alaska tribes, they represent only the ASRC.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that because of its compact size, the 1002 area has a "greater degree of ecological diversity than any other similar sized area of Alaska's north slope." The USFWS also states, "Those who campaigned to establish the Arctic Refuge recognized its wild qualities and the significance of these spatial relationships. Here lies an unusually diverse assemblage of large animals and smaller, less-appreciated life forms, tied to their physical environments and to each other by natural, undisturbed ecological and evolutionary processes."[16] It is because of this great diversity, and fear of its harm or outright destruction, that many environmental groups argue against drilling for oil in the 1002 area.
john831 said:sorry, i forgot to post a url for that last website i quoted...here it is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy#Opposing_views
jallman said:Again, I respectfully disagree. The state of Alaska would be well served by offering money to assist with development. By offering subsidies and tax benefits to companies willing to develop the land, the returns will repay any such state money 10 fold. The benefits are just too great for us to not support this.
john831 said:The opposition isn't just hippies who want to hug all the trees... drilling in anwr would disrupt the lifestyle of lots of native tribes according to this article. People always use the argument that all the Alaskans are for drilling because it would create jobs; they don't consider these people who would oppose drilling into their analysis. Compare the jobs created, which jallman claims to be in the thousands, to the 5000-7000 people whose lifestyles would be disrupted or destroyed by anwr drilling and it doesn't make so much sense anymore. We've already ravaged all the natives who were in the US before us, we might as well learn from our mistakes and respect the natives in Alaska. The US Fish and Wildlife Service even recognizes that the region has a great degree of ecological diversity, and the US government has never been known to exaggerate in favor of the environment. Jallman, lets try and keep this a civil debate rather than name calling.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?