No, that isn't what I said. I gave you two definitions from the dictionay.
1. Remaining in a pure state; uncorrupted by civilization.
2. Remaining free from dirt or decay; clean: pristine mountain snow.
Maybe you don't like clean mountain snow. Maybe you are in favor of dirt and decay. Maybe you think civilization never corrupts. Maybe you think that nothing should remain in a pure state. Maybe you do, but I don't.
I am glad there is a New York City, and a Detroit, and even a Three Mile island, all parts of civilization which make our standard of living possible. But I am also glad there are a few places that haven't yet been paved over, mowed down, and otherwise altered.
Why not go get it? You haven't offered a convincing reason not to (other than the word "pristine").
In addition to the fact that we don't need it now, there is one good reason not to drill there. The place is a wildlife refuge. We are not (yet) so desperate for oil that we need to drill in places set aside for other uses. That day will come, but it isn't here yet.
I haven't addressed you economic questions. Let me ask you this. If you want pure economics to decide the matter, do you agree that there should not be any subsidies for the drilling companies?
Too funny. You've never spent any time in the mountains, have you? What do you think is under that snow? Marble flooring and linoleum? Do plants and animals not decay? What do they do, sublimate into a fresh odor of vanilla and oleander? Does the liberal Nanny Goddess Gaia come through in the spring with a mop and bucket and scrub the mountain floors down so clean that Al Gore could eat from it?
Sigh.
And "civilization" means, essentially, humans and our artifacts.
2. Remaining free from dirt or decay; clean: pristine mountain snow.
This definition does not (can not) apply to a piece of ground.
Maybe you don't like clean mountain snow.
I love nice clean mountain snow. I love to ski, for example. What's this got to do with a piece of frozen tundra in Alaska with oil underneath it that you're afraid to let people go get?
Maybe you are in favor of dirt and decay.
This does not follow from anything I've said. What does the act of drilling underneath some ground for oil which no one can currently see have to do with "dirt and decay"? I must be missing something.
I'll ask yet another question a second time: Does land look prettier (or "more pristine", if you wish) when there is oil underneath it which no one can see?
Maybe you think that nothing should remain in a pure state.
This is the second time you've committed this elementary logical error. Yes, it's true that I question why All Land Must Remain Pristine. But the logical inverse of All Land Must Remain Pristine is not Nothing Should Remain Pristine. This is very, very simple logic here and you seem unable to grasp it.
But I am also glad there are a few places that haven't yet been paved over, mowed down, and otherwise altered.
Now we're getting somewhere. Actually, I agree with you. For example, I'm glad that there is a Yosemite National Park, because it is a beautiful place to visit, hike, camp, climb, etc.
So now start actually defending your sentiment: What's all this got to do with a godforsaken piece of frozen tundra in Alaska?
You ever been there?
What's your favorite part of it?
What's your favorite thing to do there?
I assume you've been there, after all, or you would not be so "glad" that it is there in the first place. OR, if you are "glad" that it is there (and kept "pristine"), even though you haven't been there (and never will go there), kindly explain why. Kindly explain why you are "glad" that a piece of land exists on which you will never set foot and which is good for virtually nothing. Does it give you pleasant dreams? I guess I don't get it. (This is the quasi-religious feeling on your part which I was alluding to long ago, by the way, whether you recognize this or not.)
In addition to the fact that we don't need it now,
Actually, I dispute this ongoing assertion of yours that "we don't need it now". Who says we don't need it now? Our economy depends to a large extent on oil. This is oil. Therefore we need it. Yes, now.
The place is a wildlife refuge.
That's nice. Why does that mean we can't let people get the oil out from under the ground? Is the wildlife affected by the continued presence of oil under the ground?
We are not (yet) so desperate for oil that we need to drill in places set aside for other uses. That day will come, but it isn't here yet.
How about this: instead of just accepting this on your say-so, let's let the market decide. If you are right that we "don't need" this oil, then it won't pay off for anyone to go drill there. Thus no one will go drill there, and the problem is solved.
But if someone does go drill there, because the market will support this, then I guess you were wrong. Get it yet?
I haven't addressed you economic questions.
True.
If you want pure economics to decide the matter, do you agree that there should not be any subsidies for the drilling companies?
Sure. Does this mean you're going to answer my question now?