Because in the interest of all Americans, owners of this federal land, it has been determined that the wilderness of ANWR is more important than the oil that could be found there. Polls have indicated the public supports this stance. Drilling in ANWR would be going against their wishes and against the judgment of the wildlife experts who know the science of ANWR better than anyone.
It's nice that you have chosen to insulate your house. Have you also chosen to power it with solar or wind power? If not what are your excuses? You could be a real example of non dependence on the power of big oil, what's holding you back?
As a matter of fact I have, indirectly. I live in the city so an individual wind system is not possible, and my roof is still in good shape (when replacement is necessary, PV shingles are going on). The way I’ve chosen wind power is by contributing monthly to my utility special fund that goes to their green energy program. Two city utility-owned wind turbines are in place and more turbines and other green options are being considered. Once again your assumptions are wrong.
The trouble with this argument (improving fuel efficiency by 1mpg would save more oil than ANWR could produce) is that not everyone wants to drive a Yugo.
Oh come on. Do you really have that little confidence in the intelligence of Detroit? There are many AVAILABLE and AFFORDABLE technologies that could improve fuel efficiency with no sacrifice to comfort, performance, or safety, and by much more than 1mpg. To equate a 1mpg improvement with everyone driving Yugos is simply ridiculous...and wrong.
Where are these magical tires? I will continue to submit my mantra of supply and demand.
Many consumers, when buying replacement tires after the original ones have worn out, buy tires of lower quality that are less efficient. There are no magic tires. It’s just the difference in quality of tires already on the market. And this is a perfect example of where your “free market” mantra doesn’t work. The public buy the cheaper tires because they don’t realize that for a short term gain they are paying more in the long run. If they had all the information (and use their brain) they would buy the better, more efficient tires. And let’s say the fuel savings and cost of the better tires balance out. Your beloved free market gives no incentive to buy the better tires, so instead consumers buy the cheaper tires and waste fuel for the life of the tires.
The tire example is just one of many examples where the “free market” provides no incentive to be efficient, and another example of why it should not be the only factor in determining energy use. Why aren’t efficiencies and renewables supplying more? Because they don’t have the advantage fossil fuels and nuclear have, a heavily subsidized system that has been built to accommodate fossils and nuclear. And the “free market” alone won’t (for now) encourage much use of efficiencies and renewables. But given a few incentives (see Germany: 44% increase in wind power production in one year) use can grow rapidly. Why do I put quotes around free market? Because we don’t have one. Fossil fuels and nuclear are heavily subsidized, their environmental costs aren’t factored in, and the public doesn’t have easy access to all the information. Since all these factors favor fossil fuels and nuclear it is remarkable that efficiencies and renewables have made the progress they have.
I read your Lomborg article but choose not to comment on it because it would open many other cans of worms. This thread would never end.
The fact of the matter is that we need to be developing our own natural resources rather than subsidize terrorism.
Are you doing all you reasonably can to reduce your energy usage? If not then I guess you are subsidizing terrorism. I have never said I favor obtaining our oil from the Mideast; in fact, I’ve repeatedly pointed to other options. And the energy efforts I propose supporting, efficiencies, wind, solar, biomass, cogeneration, tide/wave energy, etc., are all natural resources too. Why is it that oil is put on a podium of natural resources, while these others are ignored. I know, they have bugs to work out and need to lower their cost, but they are young industries and have made dramatic strides in recent years. If given the same amount of time and generous government subsidies that fossil fuels and nuclear have been given, efficiencies and renewables would be much more advanced and supplying a good deal of our energy.
Given any thought to that hypothetical 27 acre plot I mentioned?
Have you given much thought to my discussions of the 2,000 acres being misleading and inaccurate? Or to my discussions of how fragile the ecosystem is and how oil exploration and production could damage it? This was backed up by an older study, then during this thread another report came out also backing my argument. It was the combined effort of the USGS, USFWS, Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game, Canadian Wildlife Service, among others, and it was reviewed by independent, non-affiliated scientists.
Yes, I have. In fact I have seen a lot of the information before, as I haved lived in Alaska for 20 years, and worked in Prudhoe for 8 years. We go through this stuff all the time, and yet despite the exceptional track record of the Prudhoe field, the numbers never seem to change on the environmental side.
When they built Prudhoe there was no documentation as to what would happen, because it had never happened before. Now that they have decades of data behind them, the story remains the same from the environmental side. "Oh My God, it will ruin everything." Agreed, there have been two major problems resulting from the field. A rather large spill in Valdez, from which Prince William Sound still suffers. And yet another just north of my home where a bullet or two punched through the pipe and sprayed 285,000 gallons of crude oil across the tundra. It really is amazing just how far oil under pressure can shoot out of a hole less than a half inch in diameter. Terrible things both of them, yet unrelated to any drilling program. Both the direct result of alcohol, which causes far too many problems in the world in which we live in.
That said, in the beginning of this conversation I thought we had basically agreed that both sides of this agrument tend to provide misleading figures and examples. I believe the example was the expected jobs creation. So let me take it another step for you, lets say it takes ten times the amount of land (a total 0f 20,000 acres) to do the job up here in Alaska. Which is still a mere pittance of the 1.9 million acres in the reserve alone. Let's also inflate the figure for your state by the same amount, so now we are dealing with a total of 270 acres. Throw in whatever manning figures you want because I hadn't mentioned them. I think the figure for Alaska was 75,000; divide it by ten. So now we will create 7,500 jobs to develop the oil fields in both of our states.
Based on the questions I asked in the previous post, would you be for the development of the field? Remember, government paid for, no taxes, a check for everyone every year and all of the bragging rights about how you live in a state that pays you to live there. A yes or no will suffice, but please tell if you think the federal government should make the final decision and why.