• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why does the right seem to hate conservationists so much?

RightatNYU said:
Then I'm even more surprised you don't support it, the vast majority of Alaskans do.



The pollution would be carried throughout the region? Are you serious? The actual area where the drilling itself would be done is 2000 acres, .5% of the tiny little green area. Look at that map I put forth again, superimposed on the states. Do the car factories in Detroit pollute Houston? Does the oil drilling in Texas ruin the wilderness of Montana? No. And you might not care about the jobs, but 750,000 kids who are 15 years old right now are most likely going to care about the jobs. And as a side note, why WOULDN'T you care? It benefits our entire economy when jobs are created, and the tax receipts from ANWR would benefit the country as a whole.



It's less cost effective. Where do you get the idea that you're allowed to tell businesses what they can and can't do with their research? How about you go to Merck and GlaxoSmithKline and tell them to stop researching treatments for the things you don't think are important, and to focus on the diseases you deem important.



Rust damages the environment? Wanna tell me how Fe2O3 does that?

Why do you hate the environment? Why is your one goal in life to make sure we all die sooner than we normally would anticipate doing so?
I'm sorry, I've been drinking.

Honestly, if Alaskans support it, I really couldn't give less of a **** whether or not they drilled up there.
It just sort of strikes me that a lot of people expect everything to be either completely good or completely bad, and if something has one negative attribute that happens to be related to one of their pet issues, then logic and reason be damned, the penguins must live on, or something of that nature.

From what I've read, it'd either do a hella good or no good whatsoever, and either way I'm more or less indifferent, so if the republicans want to do it, god speed, Alaska has gone red every single time since it joined the US, so I guess they know Alaska better than us, and we just need to shut the **** up.

ROCK AND ROLL!!!
 
galenrox said:
Why do you hate the environment? Why is your one goal in life to make sure we all die sooner than we normally would anticipate doing so?
I'm sorry, I've been drinking.

Honestly, if Alaskans support it, I really couldn't give less of a **** whether or not they drilled up there.
It just sort of strikes me that a lot of people expect everything to be either completely good or completely bad, and if something has one negative attribute that happens to be related to one of their pet issues, then logic and reason be damned, the penguins must live on, or something of that nature.

From what I've read, it'd either do a hella good or no good whatsoever, and either way I'm more or less indifferent, so if the republicans want to do it, god speed, Alaska has gone red every single time since it joined the US, so I guess they know Alaska better than us, and we just need to shut the **** up.

ROCK AND ROLL!!!

You've BEEN drinking? That's in the past tense. Why are you not currently drinking? Don't let me be the only alcoholic taking shots of Jack while typing.
 
RightatNYU said:
You've BEEN drinking? That's in the past tense. Why are you not currently drinking? Don't let me be the only alcoholic taking shots of Jack while typing.
man, I had started drinking at 8, I stopped a little after two.
I am frickin hung over, I only woke up in time for the Bears game cause my dog was barking!
 
RightatNYU said:
Then I'm even more surprised you don't support it, the vast majority of Alaskans do.



The pollution would be carried throughout the region? Are you serious? The actual area where the drilling itself would be done is 2000 acres, .5% of the tiny little green area. Look at that map I put forth again, superimposed on the states. Do the car factories in Detroit pollute Houston? Does the oil drilling in Texas ruin the wilderness of Montana? No. And you might not care about the jobs, but 750,000 kids who are 15 years old right now are most likely going to care about the jobs. And as a side note, why WOULDN'T you care? It benefits our entire economy when jobs are created, and the tax receipts from ANWR would benefit the country as a whole.



It's less cost effective. Where do you get the idea that you're allowed to tell businesses what they can and can't do with their research? How about you go to Merck and GlaxoSmithKline and tell them to stop researching treatments for the things you don't think are important, and to focus on the diseases you deem important.



Rust damages the environment? Wanna tell me how Fe2O3 does that?

I don't give a rat's A$$ what other Alaskans think. That's the problem you republicans/democrats have. You think that just because a majority thinks one way that the whole population has to think that way. Well, it ain't gonna happen

The Carbon Monoxide would spread for several miles. The winds in Alaska are alot stronger than you think.

Where do YOU get the idea that nature wants you to drill up there? And I wasn't "telling" the oil companies what to do with their research. I was merely making a "suggestion".

And you still wouldn't see that oil for 15-20 years. So how would it help us now? It wouldn't.

Screw the environment! We need oil for our big, gas guzzling SUVs!!! I wanna drive my SUV through the mountains, running over deer for sport, YEEEEEEEEE HAWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!
 
Donkey1499 said:
I don't give a rat's A$$ what other Alaskans think. That's the problem you republicans/democrats have. You think that just because a majority thinks one way that the whole population has to think that way. Well, it ain't gonna happen

How dare the majority become educated and think something is right! I know what's best for everyone, and I'm gonna decide how it happens!

Why does the whole population have to agree, I wasn't aware it had to be unanimous.

The Carbon Monoxide would spread for several miles. The winds in Alaska are alot stronger than you think.

1. Carbon Monoxide? Are you really seriously telling me about the threats of carbon monoxide?

2. For MILES!??!?! OH NOOOOOOO. ALASKA IS 1500 MILES by 1500 MILES.

Where do YOU get the idea that nature wants you to drill up there? And I wasn't "telling" the oil companies what to do with their research. I was merely making a "suggestion".

I couldn't care less what nature wants. Last I checked, nature didn't want you to burn oil to create energy to power your computer to make foolish claimes either, but that's not stopping you.

And you still wouldn't see that oil for 15-20 years. So how would it help us now? It wouldn't.

So? Because something would only help in the future we shouldn't pursue it now? I guess we should stop builing the new WTC, or any other mass capital project. And why bother fixing Social Security. Or doing anything for that matter.

Screw the environment! We need oil for our big, gas guzzling SUVs!!! I wanna drive my SUV through the mountains, running over deer for sport, YEEEEEEEEE HAWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!

Whether you drive an SUV or a moped, you need oil. Need is only going to rise, not fall.
 
RightatNYU said:
How dare the majority become educated and think something is right! I know what's best for everyone, and I'm gonna decide how it happens!

Why does the whole population have to agree, I wasn't aware it had to be unanimous.



1. Carbon Monoxide? Are you really seriously telling me about the threats of carbon monoxide?

2. For MILES!??!?! OH NOOOOOOO. ALASKA IS 1500 MILES by 1500 MILES.



I couldn't care less what nature wants. Last I checked, nature didn't want you to burn oil to create energy to power your computer to make foolish claimes either, but that's not stopping you.



So? Because something would only help in the future we shouldn't pursue it now? I guess we should stop builing the new WTC, or any other mass capital project. And why bother fixing Social Security. Or doing anything for that matter.



Whether you drive an SUV or a moped, you need oil. Need is only going to rise, not fall.

Who died and put you in charge of what's best for everyone?

The wind WILL blow the carbon monoxide around.

All you republicans are the same. "SCREW NATURE!"

Yeah, for now the oil is ok, but they need to start finding alternatives, like Cold Fusion.

I never said we should stop building the WTC.

We can either go back to riding horses OR discover Cold Fusion. Those are the best alternatives. The asthma rate is rising due to the unclean air.
 
Donkey1499 said:
Who died and put you in charge of what's best for everyone?

Nobody. But you know who Alaskans DID put in charge of their state? Their governor, their senators, and their Representative, all who are responding to the will of the people and want drilling.

The wind WILL blow the carbon monoxide around.

I'm becoming fairly certain you're ignorant of the byproducts of drilling, their preponderance, and their potential for harm.

All you republicans are the same. "SCREW NATURE!"

I could make an equally stupid lumping claim, but I'll refrain.

Yeah, for now the oil is ok, but they need to start finding alternatives, like Cold Fusion.

Oh, you're one of those.

I never said we should stop building the WTC.

But it has no benefits now, and it won't benefit anyone for like 15-20 years, so why bother? Or did you realize the folly in your statement now?

We can either go back to riding horses OR discover Cold Fusion. Those are the best alternatives. The asthma rate is rising due to the unclean air.

Hell, I lived on a horse farm. I'm all set.
 
Donkey1499 said:
Who died and put you in charge of what's best for everyone?

The wind WILL blow the carbon monoxide around.

All you republicans are the same. "SCREW NATURE!"

Yeah, for now the oil is ok, but they need to start finding alternatives, like Cold Fusion.

I never said we should stop building the WTC.

We can either go back to riding horses OR discover Cold Fusion. Those are the best alternatives. The asthma rate is rising due to the unclean air.
Dude, come on.
 
RightatNYU said:
http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm

1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

I love pristine wilderness as much as anyone else, but 600 billion dollars and 700,000 jobs is more than a fair trade for .5% of a completely empty frozen tundra.

See that’s the problem though. You are going by anwr.org which is nothing but an industry funded propaganda site. They make claims like less than 2000 acres would be affected.

They way they get that number is they take the absolute lowest estimate of the infrastructure required, then they figure what ever square footage that is, and they then figure the acreage off of that. Their methodology is flawed though. They are not counting the necessary port facilities, they are not counting air strips, roads or other infrastructure necessary to support that oil production infrastructure. I currently live in Kansas City. Kansas City is about 360 square miles in size. That equates to about 230,000 acres in size. Of course, like any other city, not every square inch is developed. So if I were to figure the size of Kansas City using “anwr.org methodology”, I would figure just the total square footage of the homes and businesses that occupy Kansas City, and would not count roads, air strips, port facilities, areas for power and gas lines, parks, or even peoples yards, and add that total square footage of homes and businesses and use that to figure the total acreage of Kansas City. I would go out on a limb and say that using that method, the total acreage of Kansas City would be less than 10% of the actual acreage. That is why most independent estimates put the total amount of land on the north slope affected as approximately 200,000 acres.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not totally opposed to drilling there. I am however totally opposed to drilling there without an energy policy that includes huge mandates towards conservation, efficiency, and smart / sustainable growth.
 
RightatNYU said:
I'm becoming fairly certain you're ignorant of the byproducts of drilling, their preponderance, and their potential for harm.

Oh, you're one of those.

So you're saying that the trucks that bring the supplies to this facility back and forth WOULDN'T produce carbon monoxide? :rofl

One of what? Or don't you have the balls to say it?
 
Why does the right seem to hate conservationists? Hmmm.... Maybe it's because most of em' own an oil company or some kind of company that pollutes! Like Cheney and Halliburton. By the way, where is ol' Cheney? Down in the Whitehouse basement planning ways to take over over the world??? (That would be funny tho)


I do not own any oil companies nor do I work for any.
I get tired of of the crap that spews out of the mouths of pinko socialist commie hippy enviromentalist scum that want to blame America for everything
that somehow beleave that if a a study on the enviroment is somehow done by them then it is unbiased but if that study contridicts thier pinko commie views then it is a corporate oil company study.


I can be slightly conservative at times, but when it comes to the environment I tend to agree with democrats. Let's find out a way to run vehicles on a cleaner substance before we start drilling anywhere else. Although, if we ditched cars all together and went back to the old horse n' buggy, that would be fine with me, cuz I ain't in no hurry to go anywhere!

I drive what I can afford to drive,my car cost me $850 gas cost me $10-$20 a week and that is with price increases taken into account.So in other words the solution does not mean **** if it cost too much.One of those fuel economy vehicles may cost around $20,000 or more and it may save a whole lot of gas,but If I pay $850 for may car and spend $960 for ten years on gas for that car I am still getting a bargin.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
See that’s the problem though. You are going by anwr.org which is nothing but an industry funded propaganda site. They make claims like less than 2000 acres would be affected.

They way they get that number is they take the absolute lowest estimate of the infrastructure required, then they figure what ever square footage that is, and they then figure the acreage off of that. Their methodology is flawed though. They are not counting the necessary port facilities, they are not counting air strips, roads or other infrastructure necessary to support that oil production infrastructure. I currently live in Kansas City. Kansas City is about 360 square miles in size. That equates to about 230,000 acres in size. Of course, like any other city, not every square inch is developed. So if I were to figure the size of Kansas City using “anwr.org methodology”, I would figure just the total square footage of the homes and businesses that occupy Kansas City, and would not count roads, air strips, port facilities, areas for power and gas lines, parks, or even peoples yards, and add that total square footage of homes and businesses and use that to figure the total acreage of Kansas City. I would go out on a limb and say that using that method, the total acreage of Kansas City would be less than 10% of the actual acreage. That is why most independent estimates put the total amount of land on the north slope affected as approximately 200,000 acres.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not totally opposed to drilling there. I am however totally opposed to drilling there without an energy policy that includes huge mandates towards conservation, efficiency, and smart / sustainable growth.

Excuse me, by 2000, I meant 200,000 acres. That is exactly 0.5% of ANWR, and an absolutely miniscule portion of alaska.
 
Donkey1499 said:
So you're saying that the trucks that bring the supplies to this facility back and forth WOULDN'T produce carbon monoxide? :rofl

Do you have any idea how many millions of trucks travel the country now? Do you have any idea how absolutely infinitesemal the effect on the 18,000,000 acres of ANWR would be because of the CO of a few hundred trucks? You're barking up the wrong tree. If you're going to fight the conservation fight, focus on an actual harm.

One of what? Or don't you have the balls to say it?

One of those who are so detached from reality that they believe "Cold Fusion" or some other similarly named spurious science will provide us with energy. The last person who tried to tell me about cold fusion was the homeless person who carries a billboard around talking about it near Washington Square Park.
 
RightatNYU said:
Do you have any idea how many millions of trucks travel the country now? Do you have any idea how absolutely infinitesemal the effect on the 18,000,000 acres of ANWR would be because of the CO of a few hundred trucks? You're barking up the wrong tree. If you're going to fight the conservation fight, focus on an actual harm.



One of those who are so detached from reality that they believe "Cold Fusion" or some other similarly named spurious science will provide us with energy. The last person who tried to tell me about cold fusion was the homeless person who carries a billboard around talking about it near Washington Square Park.

Fine, whatever you say. But when something bad happens up there, I'll be one of the first to say, "I told ya so!"

And we do need to find an alternative fuel. Oil ain't gonna last forever. Just like when ppl said that the Wright Bros. weren't gonna fly, then they did, because they had the WILL to do it and they succeeded. So if some scientists would just work a little harder, Cold Fusion can be discovered.

And when the oil in ANWR is gone, what's going to happen to all those 750,000 jobs you were talking about? And what about the facility and the pipe lines? What's gonna happen to all stuff?
 
Donkey1499 said:
Fine, whatever you say. But when something bad happens up there, I'll be one of the first to say, "I told ya so!"

For $600,000,000,000 and 750,000 jobs, I'm willing to take the risk of having someone mock me on a message board.

And we do need to find an alternative fuel. Oil ain't gonna last forever. Just like when ppl said that the Wright Bros. weren't gonna fly, then they did, because they had the WILL to do it and they succeeded. So if some scientists would just work a little harder, Cold Fusion can be discovered.

Well, yes, I agree we need to find an alternative fuel. Doesn't mean we shouldn't maximize our use of the one we have now, or that cold fusion specifically will ever happen, because it won't.

And when the oil in ANWR is gone, what's going to happen to all those 750,000 jobs you were talking about? And what about the facility and the pipe lines? What's gonna happen to all stuff?

Who knows? After they finish building the WTC, what's going to happen to all those jobs?

Do you see my point? Just because after 20 years or so, the jobs might dwindle, that's not a reason not to have them.

As to the facility, who cares? The costs of cleanup compared to payoff would be infinitisemally minimal.
 
RightatNYU said:
For $600,000,000,000 and 750,000 jobs, I'm willing to take the risk of having someone mock me on a message board.



Well, yes, I agree we need to find an alternative fuel. Doesn't mean we shouldn't maximize our use of the one we have now, or that cold fusion specifically will ever happen, because it won't.



Who knows? After they finish building the WTC, what's going to happen to all those jobs?

Do you see my point? Just because after 20 years or so, the jobs might dwindle, that's not a reason not to have them.

As to the facility, who cares? The costs of cleanup compared to payoff would be infinitisemally minimal.

How can be 100% sure that Cold Fusion won't be discovered? Are you a prophet sent from God? I doubt that.

The workers from the WTC will just move on to the next building project. But there aren't many more places to drill for oil.
 
Back
Top Bottom