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?
The petroleum industry has made it clear that prices are too low. Supply is high, so prices are low and domestic oil is not economical to drill. So do they shut down? No. Instead they ask for a subsidy, royalty relief.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America urged Washington to open up more areas for exploration and provide royalty relief to producers at times of low oil and gas prices.The pro-drilling ANWR site is posting articles saying that oil is too cheap. There is the answer to your question.According to U.S. government estimates, undeveloped domestic oil resources are twice as big as developed resources while undeveloped domestic gas resources are three times as big as developed resources, he said
He also urged the government to introduce a sliding scale which would cut royalty rates on oil and gas production when prices came under pressure.
The IPAA recommends cutting royalty rates to 75 percent of normal levels when oil prices fell to $12-18 a barrel or gas prices fell to $2.00-2.50 per thousand cubic feet. Royalties would fall to 50 percent of normal levels for oil prices $10-12 and gas prices of $1.50-$2.00.