Help me argue with a coworker regarding ANWR...

[WillParkinson]

I am working with a woman who lived in Alaska for many years. She was talking about ANWR the other day and saying how she supported them opening it to drilling.

I was aghast. I told her about the potential loss and damage and she said that was all hype and that there is a HUGE area that is unused even by most animals.

Then our night manager chimed in about how it was the way of progress and how he felt we could remove the oil safely.

How do I argue with these people? I was so peeved that I didn't even want to talk to the night manager and he's been a friend of mine for 10 years.

[Catshrink]

1. My sister lives in Anchorage and she says the same thing...

there's plenty of land, etc. She says people from the "outside" have no idea about how much area that is.

I'm wondering if Alaskans feel that way because they have a vested interest -- they all get a permanent fund check every year. Or am I being cynical?

[leftyandproud]

6. almost all alaskans want ANWR drilled

lots of money and jobs for them
I heard they were only planning to drill 1/100th of 1% of the ANWR refuge...I don't know if this is true or not, but if it is, I just may agree with them. The benefits to the people should far outweigh any damage to such a small area.

[toska]

8. This is where they pull a fast one

They only count the area where equipment touches the ground. So for an oil rig they total up the size of the supports, not the space in between them. This way 1/100th of 1% goes a long way.

[WillParkinson]

18. Yes, but...

What happens when they decide that they now want it ALL?

The problem is that there's never enough. They might say 1/100th of 1% but then there will be the 'more oil over there, too'.

[StClone]

2. I don't think you can

Ever Alaskan gets a state check funded by oil and that is all these "Individualists" care about.

Natural Resources like wildlife is not Alaska's alone. Most birds migrate out as do some mammals. We need a strong central Government to protect national treasures from local exploitation. Alaska was bought by NATIONAL FUNDS!!! Russia didn't sell the land to Alaskans, or to the people that now claim it, it was sold to the USA.

[baggypants]

3. Unfortunately, she might be right

Protection of the environment has to be balanced out with other factors...like being dependent on Middle East oil. I love the idea of alternative fuel sources, but until that happens, the ugly fact of life is the Middle East has us by balls (pardon the expression.

[gulliver]

5. She isn't though.

It's been explained many times that increasing fuel efficiency only slightly would provide dramatically better results in reducing our dependency on foreign oil imports. She is being simplistic because the energy company lobbyists are lying to her -- with the help of Bush and Cheney.

[Skittles]

10. OH PLEASE

how about NOT DRIVING SUVs AND HUMMERS?????

[tom_paine]

17. Don't try asking the Imperial Subjects of Amerika to give up their totems

After all, as they (we) live in a nation which could give twos h*ts about them, especially if they're in the lower 90%, a nation in which Imperial Subjects have no voice, little vote (and even that is being taken away) and a nation in which the checks and balances are erdoign down to nothing.

Driving an SUV is one way for such pathetic creatures as they to feel superior. They HAVE to feel superior to something, that's what knuckling under to Tyranny promises...that you can be superior to some other group.

Disgusting and disgraceful, I know, but don't ask the Imperial Subjects of Amerika to give up their totems.

It's all they have left of a nation that was once Free...

[gulliver]

4. Why not try conservation first?

That's the best argument. If ANWR must be used, let's save it for a rainy day. We shouldn't just spend-spend-spend all of our natural resources when we could be conserving them.

It has been noted many times that ANWR would contribute only a tiny fraction to U.S. oil supplies (like 1-2%). We would still be stuck with getting almost exactly the same amount of oil from foreign suppliers as we do now -- roughly 60% I believe. Increasing fuel efficiency standards only slightly would dwarf any return from ANWR.

In a way, the argument for not using ANWR is an argument for not exhausting all U.S. supplies before doing the simple, obvious, sensible thing, conserving and reducing our dependency. The Bushies are energy company boosters, so it is no surprise that they order their priorities only by profits.

[SeattleDem]

7. the specific area, Area 1002

there may be a huge area unused by animals, but where they want to drill is the heart of the ecosystem. Area 1002, right near the coast, is the birthing ground for the Porcupine caribou, a herd on which the Gwich'in native Americans in Canada depend for sustenance.

The caribou give birth there because it is an area safe from predators and has the right food sources for them. Moving them to the foothills of the Brooks range or further east will not allow the herd to survive. In some winters, when the snow falls early, the herd cannot get all the way from Canada to Area 1002, and in those years, the survival rates of the calves is much lower, giving evidence that their survival depends on giving birth in Area 1002.

People who say the caribou are thriving near Prudhoe Bay are correct, but their next assertion, that the same will happen in ANWR, is likley incorrect. The landscape is different in Prudhoe and there is more "room" for the caribou to live in. Not true in Area 1002. Also, all those pictures of caribou under pipelines are usually male animals - the females still go elsewhere to birth their young.

Also, because Canada native Americans depend on this herd, our doing anything to interfere with this herd would break an international treaty (not that Bush cares about treaties!)

All this used to be on the Fish and Wildlife Services webpage, but the information was "mysteriously" moved after Bush et al entered office.

[maggrwaggr]

9. Look at this photos and tell me if you want oil drills there

this is from a series of photographs that were on display in Washington DC until Bush took them down and replaced them with photos of himself. (no joke).

Here's a sample



Here's a link to the series

http://wwbphoto.com/Photo20-167AuroraBorealis.html

Look at these and tell me that it's worth messing this up so we can drive H2's and Ford Expeditions. And not something that gets better mileage.

[KFC]

13. No oil there

The drilling will be on the coastal plain. And it will be drilled when the price of oil rises high enough - guaranteed. The higher the price, the more recoverable oil.

http://geology.usgs.gov/connections/fws/resources/oil&gas_assessment.htm

[maggrwaggr]

15. Well I, for one, will fight it as long as possible

Business are like children. They do exactly as much as you let them get away with.

It's our job to set the boundaries. "No, you can't play over there. You hit, you sit. You break that, you get put on restriction. The garden and the toilet are off limits."

[0007]

21. Those photos are breathtaking, thank you.

.....and Ted Stevens doesn't think there is anything beautiful about ANWAR.

http://wwbphoto.com/Photo20-167AuroraBorealis.html

[0007]

11. Buy the book. "I Hate Republicans Reader"

You'll soon have 'em all converted, if not they'll leave you alone for sure. One great book.

[salin]

12. The thing is - that ANWR is a bandaid - even if she is correct

(which I don't think that she is.) It will take years to get at the oil, at great expense (and undoubtedly with huge tax subsidies as is the case with this administraton and oil companies) but will deliver very little oil.

Meanwhile it is used as the "solution" to our oil dependency (which it isn't, given it would produce a relatively small amount of oil compared to our current consumption.) Thus serving as a safety valve for building steam (concern over dependence on foreign oil.)

Ask instead what she thinks todays scenario would be had we continued on the course started by Jimmy Carter back in the late 70s of serious investment in R&D (through incentives to companies) for development of alternative fuel sources. These initiatives were rolled back almost immediately by Reagan. What would we be looking at had we spent 25 years with serious investment in innovations in alternative/renewable fuels? Probably a very different landscape. This administrations policies invest very little in long-term strategies for weaning us off of our oil dependency - and ANWR, through symbolic investment and a symbolic win over environmentalists (which is a big part of the why the fight from the admin and oil companies), only serves to divert attention and priorities.

[maggrwaggr]

14. yes, we're being lied to about AWR

and that's what galls me the most.

It's a miniscule amount of oil as far as oil dependency goes, it's just money to the oil companies.

They keep telling us it's about "dependency" when in fact it's nothing but little kids who just can't wait to get in the cookie jar.

We have to keep their hands out of the cookie jar.

I don't care how many times they grab for it, or how many stories they invent to rationalize their hunger for it.

[Dissenting_Prole]

19. also, it's about elasticity

maggrwaggr wrote:
"It's a miniscule amount of oil as far as oil dependency goes, it's just money to the oil companies."

Why is a miniscule amount of oil so important?

Oil that is in the Middle East takes 4-6 weeks to get to you. Oil that is in Africa takes two weeks. Alaskan oil would just days away from your gas tank.

When Global Oil Peak becomes reality, there will be interuptions in the system. At the same time there is no elasticity in the system. Remember the blackouts last August when the electrical system got pushed beyond it's limits? There is no room for interuption in America's oil supply. Alaska will be a quick remedy for that.

Barry Silverthorn
Documentary Producer
The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream

[gulliver]

20. What about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?

Geez. It is at its highest level ever and is scheduled to go higher. It contains 53 days worth of oil now -- already pumped. That seems like a lot of elasticity.

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/02/tl_spr592.html

[Bridget Burke]

22. A quick remedy? A bandaid on a hemorrhage.....

What happens when that oil is gone, too? Serious conservation efforts & the search for alternate energy sources will help us in the long run.

Besides, doesn't much of Alaska's oil already go to Japan or China?

[maggrwaggr]

24. folks, it's all about money!

It hasn't a damn thing to do with energy dependency! The fact that you're even talking about it means that their propaganda has has been effective!

Yes, the oil goes to japan or wherever. Just like our trees do!

[maggrwaggr]

16. you could chop up the Mona Lisa into little pieces and sell them on e-Bay

you'd make a lot of money. But you shouldn't. Why?

Well if you can't answer that, you're a sorry case.

[w4rma]

23. IMHO, we should leave the oil there for when we *really* need the oil.

National security.