I especially like your bit on adaptation. I'm sure that the, "FUCK THEM" quote came with much thought and research. Perhaps you could share with us, in depth, your knowledge of adaptation and evolution. I'm sure that you could give everyone here quite an education on the subject.

I also like your quote for citizens who care about legitimate concerns over the environment in the use of "tree huggers." This is also very insightful due to the abundance of trees on The Artic.

The careful use of the "slippery slope" argument was also well placed and gracefully used, as I'm sure that most who do care for the environment also wish to take us back to the time before the wheel.

joe, how about an " update " on this topic.
you should have even more insite, now that your living there???

ANWR oil would cut U.S. need slightly

ENERGY REPORT: Study requested by Murkowski is hailed by environmentalists.

By Liz Ruskin
Anchorage Daily News

(Published: March 13, 2002)
Washington -- It has been Sen. Frank Murkowski's (Republican-Alaska) main argument: Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling will reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and make the country less beholden to countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Now environmentalists are trumpeting a new report that they say proves him wrong. Ironically, they note, the document was produced at the request of Murkowski.

The report, written by the U.S. Department of Energy, predicts that by 2020, if ANWR is not drilled, 62 percent of the oil consumed in the United States will be imported.

If ANWR is tapped, the report says, dependence would drop to 60 percent.

That's an insignificant difference, said Pete Rafle, a spokesman for The Wilderness Society.

"We think it really puts a fine point on the argument that we've been making all along, that Senator Murkowski's claims about the impact of Arctic refuge oil have been wildly inflated," Rafle said.

The U.S. Senate is in the midst of what is expected to be several weeks of debate on the energy bill, which includes Murkowski's proposal to open the refuge. Although Murkowski and the Bush administration say developing ANWR will boost the economy and create jobs, this report is one of several that say the impact of oil from the refuge would not be great on a world scale.

A Murkowski aide said the important point is that the report predicts a decrease in dependence in foreign sources if ANWR is developed.

"I guess it's better than going (from) 62 to 64 percent," said energy aide Dan Kish.

If you take the maximum estimate for the amount of oil in the refuge, dependence on foreign oil would drop to 57 percent, he said, citing the same report.

Rafle, though, said the high estimate is extremely unlikely -- a 1-in-20 possibility, according to previous government estimates on which the recent energy report relies.

Even the median estimate of ANWR oil, the one that would reduce imports to 60 percent from 62 percent, doesn't tell the whole story, Rafle said. It assumes that every barrel of technically recoverable oil would be produced, Rafle said, regardless of cost. If only the barrels that could be produced economically are considered, the impact of ANWR oil would hardly register, he said.

"We think it's remarkable that the study, even with it using numbers we think are much larger than the likely yield of the refuge, still shows that it barely makes a dent in our dependence on foreign oil," Rafle said.

The study's authors said the report stems from a request that Murkowski made in December to evaluate several energy proposals.

Kish, the Murkowski aide, didn't dispute the findings but noted that the same agency has called ANWR the country's best onshore prospect.

As for the projected 2 percentage-point drop in foreign oil dependence, "We don't look at it that way," Kish said.

ANWR would boost domestic production by 14 percent, he said. "And that's at the median level."

It would also increase revenues to the state by boosting the amount of oil that goes through the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, he said.

Senators spent much of Tuesday's energy debate arguing about stricter fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. Murkowski said his proposal to open the refuge would be among the last amendments that Republicans offer for the bill.

Also Tuesday, he and Sen. Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., won approval of an amendment that could provide $120 million over seven years to rural communities with high energy costs, and $5 million a year for the Alaska Power-Cost Equalization Program. The money would still have to be appropriated through a separate bill.

ANWR and Peas

March 15, 2002

By PAUL KRUGMAN

"On Wednesday the Senate voted down a proposal by John Kerry
and John McCain to raise mileage standards on automobiles.
The outcome came as no surprise, but what does it mean?

"Was it yet another victory for special interests at the
expense of the national interest?

"No, it was much worse than that.

"What prevailed Wednesday
was an alliance between conservatives who hate the very
idea of conservation, on one side, and union leaders trying
to demonstrate their influence by making politicians jump.
It's the same alliance that, last summer, led the House to
support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR) by a surprisingly large margin.

"About ANWR: The Times recently had an eye-opening article
confirming something I had been hearing myself, that oil
companies are not behind the push for drilling there -
indeed, they are notably unexcited by the prospect. Studies
by the U.S. Geological Survey suggest why: Arctic oil is so
expensive to get at that it's barely worth extracting at
current market prices. For energy companies it's the rest
of the Bush energy plan, which would give them about $35
billion in tax breaks and subsidies, that really matters.

"But then why are the Bush administration and its allies so
vehement about ANWR? Pay no attention to rhetoric about
national security; the Kerry-McCain proposal would save
about three times as much oil per year as ANWR would
deliver even in its brief period of peak production.

"The real reason conservatives want to drill in ANWR is the
same reason they want to keep snowmobiles roaring through
Yellowstone: sheer symbolism. Forcing rangers to wear
respirators won't make much difference to snowmobile sales
- but it makes the tree-huggers furious, and that's what's
appealing about it. The same is true about Arctic drilling;
as one very moderate environmentalist told me, the reason
the Bush administration pursues high-profile
anti-environmental policies is not that they please special
interests but that they are "red meat for the right." (The
real special-interest payoffs come via less showy policies,
like the way the administration is undermining enforcement
of the Clean Air Act.)

"And what about the Teamsters union, which threw its support
behind the Bush plan? It claimed to be motivated by the
700,000 jobs ANWR drilling would supposedly create. One
suspects that the union's leadership knows that this figure
is at least 10 times too high. But the union's members
don't know that; so by making common cause with the anti-
environmental right the leaders can seem to be bringing
home the bacon.

"The debate over fuel efficiency played out according to the
same script. Conservative opponents of higher mileage
standards followed closely the guidelines laid down by Ed
Gillespie, the top Republican operative turned Enron
lobbyist, in a memo last April. He proposed selling the
administration's drill-and-burn energy plan by painting
conservationists as "eat your peas" types, who want to take
away our creature comforts. Sure enough, opponents
portrayed a modest proposal, which would have set a
36-mile-per-gallon standard 13 years from now, as an
immediate threat to the American way of life. Trent Lott
displayed a photo of a tiny 70-mile-per-gallon European
compact and declared, "I don't want every American to have
to drive this car."

"And senators who are indifferent to the air pollution that
kills thousands of Americans each year got all weepy at the
prospect - rejected by serious analysts - that making cars
more efficient would lead to more traffic fatalities.

"The surprise, though, is that this dishonest
anti-conservationism got crucial support from the United
Auto Workers. There's no good reason to think that higher
efficiency standards would actually cost any automobile
worker jobs; certainly fighting a modest mileage increase
phased over 15 years shouldn't be a priority for the
union's members. But as with the Teamsters and ANWR
drilling, fighting conservation gave the union's leadership
an opportunity to look powerful; the appearance, not the
reality, was what mattered.

"You may find it hard to believe that such crucial decisions
are driven by such petty concerns, that an alliance between
showboating union leaders and "drive 100 and freeze a
Yankee" conservatives could do so much damage to our
nation's future. But if that's what you think, you do not
know with how little wisdom the world is governed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/15/opinion/15KRUG.html?ex=1017215326&ei=1
&en=6d8e7f3d5d50bfce

This is as stupid as the question of if we cannot cut taxes with a 3 trillion dollar surplus, when can we?

I love how both sides of these issues are as hypocritical as Bill Clinton talking about monogamy.

If the lawmakers can keep themselves in a gridlock status, the good thing is that we have not lost any more freedoms, or had any new taxes levied.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cramer:
If we cannot drill for oil in a remote and desolate place like anwr, then where can we?

---

How about the NPR (national petrolium reserve) ->thats what its there for..... (actually there are three new pads and more exploration going on this summer in NPR, I just saw the public notice at BLM the other day).

Hypocracy and misinformation, so true, so true.....

Its likely that this has just been a shell game, they didn't get ANWR open, but its likely that more places in the lower 48 will be opened in trade. ANWR was just more pork-barreling by Alaska's senators. BP/ARCO nor any other oil company was pushing to open it, primarily civilian and lobbiest who want a larger permanent fund check (see: payoff)

Why wait for the asteroid???? Once we're out of oil everything will be fucked. It may take generations, but it'll happen. Since we're not taking steps towards significant conservation, and new energy source research just isn't far enough along (plus our I believe the current admin just cut research funds for alt energy), we're screwed. Even with a new energy source, that won't help that absolutly everything in developed nations depends on oil (not just transportation and power). Anyone use a computer? anyone eat beef? anyone wear materials other than cotton,leather & wool? (all impossible w/out oil) Our whole society is petrolium dependent, and there is no real substitue, at least for now............

But hey, why be concerned, it'll all work out right????

Chicken Little.

Most people dont realize we may someday run out. They have more important things on their minds like making that nail and hair appointment. lol