We should look into developing new forms of fuel, because in 80 or so years this planet's gonna be tapped out. And if that doesn't concern you, then think on our current Meast prediciment.
Drill fast
Drill often
Drill for America!
Oh, I guess that's why 75% of Alaskans WANT the drilling, including the native Inuits. Hmmmmm.
New fuels, eh? Find something that delivers the same bang for the buck as hydrocarbons, and rule the world.
I'm thinking....
Every time your mommy drives you to school, "some big oil buddies of Bush get rich."
You DO stand something to gain from drilling in Alaska -- less dependency on the Middle East for our oil. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Might help solve some foreign policy negatives.
And how will 'Alaska suffer' from the billions of dollars of revenue that will make its way out of the ground? I'd say Alaska will do anything BUT suffer if we start gettin' the oil outta the ground.
Do you think the oil workers and lumberjacks think of themselves as 'suffering' for having good jobs?
Hey -- oil executives make money when people drive cars. Get over it. It's a fact of life. 99% of Americans think that driving their own car is preferable to walking, biking, and hiking your way around the Earth. The fact that you don't like someone making money on that truth says more about you than it does about those evil Bush-friends.
Living in Orange County, California, when I was a kid I could see probably 45-50 oil wells within 3 or 4 miles of my house. Somehow we managed to survive. Somehow, people went about their business, birds flew, squirrels dug, and things worked out just fine. In the process, that oil helped develop Orange County.
Oil isn't all bad, KTE. And those that deliver oil aren't evil incarnate. They're people looking to support their families, which is more productive than living in a tree to protest logging for 2 years.
Should we buy oil from Saddam until the "Clean Fuel" is developed?
Do you know the Actual percentage of Land that will be used?
Do you have any facts or do you regularly state your opinion as fact with no backing?
I've been hearing this from you people on the left for 30 years. All the predictions from 1970 (Club of Rome, Daniel Yergin, Earth Day supporters, etc) predicted $60/barrel oil by 1990 and exhaustion of oil supplies by 2005. Solar power, wind power etc (in most cases) are not viable without huge subsidies by government (tax money). What "new forms of fuel" do you propose, burning wood? Or, how about whale oil. Go back to school and figure out some new lies.
The second argument is that we'd be better off pursuing alternative energy sources. Here's a newsflash for you - we have. The reason that those sources haven't panned out is because the technological advancements in the petroleum industry kept the cost of oil cheap relative to the costs of the alternative energy sources.
Thirty years ago they said that the worlds oil reserves would be depleted by the turn of the century. Today we have more proven reserves than we did 20 years ago. How? Simple - technology constantly improves on our methods for discovering and extracting oil. Expected developments in extracting oil from shale alone could double proven reserves within the next 10 years.
Twenty years ago experts predicted that solar power would be price competitive with other forms of energy. In a sense they were right - the cost of solar power per killowat hour has dropped dramatically. The second part of their predictions was wrong. In order to predict that solar power would be price competitive, the experts assumed massive increases in the cost of fossil fuels. They were simply wrong - the cost of fossil fuels today are cheaper in real dollars than they were in the 1970s.
As long as oil and other fossil fuels continue to be the most efficient and inexpensive source of fuel we should and will continue to exploit it. When they becomes too costly to extract, we will naturally, and through market forces, develop alternatives. To try and force the market to accept alternatives now when they are not needed will hurt the economy and will ultimately fail.
80 years? By who's estimate? Paul Ehrlich?
Perhaps you mean there are 80 years of KNOWN RESERVES. Of course, there were 80 years of known reserves 80 years ago.
It appears you are assigning a negative motive...care to back it up with facts?
Conservation is a great conservative principle. It has been perverted by leftist, politically motivated -- anti-human, Eco-envirnmentalism. No conservative turns away from conservationist discoveries in alternative fuels and energy uses. When they make economic sense, they rally to them. When they are politically correct government planning, they shun them for the falures they will become (say Jimmy Carter three times, under your breath).
Conservatives merely want the nation to control its energy destiny, not external forces. Envirnmentalists seem to want an externally driven, unavoidable, energy train wreck simply to help their anti-human development agenda. Which side are you on in that choice?
With all the prudent (another conservative virtue) controls and concerns, drill the ANWR areas the local inhabitants (not the outside tribe that got left out and is siding with enviro-whackos to get a piece of the pie) want to develope. Do it sensibly and take the bounty for our nation's people
Not all agree:
The world has more oil not less
The Origin of Methane (and Oil) in the Crust of the Earth
Thomas Gold
U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1570, The Future of Energy Gases, 1993
HAHA!! Alaskans are some of the most ardent advocates for drilling. It will improve their way of life and have minimal adverse effect on the environment.
Typical of lefties to mourn over a wilderness that they and few others will never even visit and at the same time hold back local citizens from improving their way of life.
Like nuclear power plants, right?
I think your full of crap with the 80 year figure but you're right. We don need alternate energy.
NUCLEAR REACTORS need to dot the land. Then we'll be fine. So tell you're enviro-whacko buds to quit whining about atomic energy.
I know nothing about you, but I do have a suggestion. You say it will take ten years to develop the fields, and we should be looking a alternative methods of power. In that ten years, you or some one you know of, could well have time to earn a Doctorate in Chemical engineering or soome other related field. With that knowledge, you might well be able to find that alternative. Think of the benefits you could provide to all mankind.
You tree hugger wo want to preserve the 'pristine' nature of alaska should go live there and live in it...