By the way ....have you read the Lovin's report "A Fool's Gold"? Why don't you give it a try then come back and give me an economic justification for drilling in ANWR.
Presumably not, since I think you'd be cited for taking property not belonging to you.
If the tree was in your back yard, and you decided you needed its fuel, I'd have no objection of course.
The Mona Lisa has a few BTUs in the canvas. Should we burn that too?
So now this frozen tundra has value/worth comparable to a piece of art? But why? This is what I keep asking you. Can't you answer?
I feel sorry for you that you see no value in the beauty of wilderness, nature in it's grandest state.
Another non-answer. You're not telling me why you see "value" of keeping this land human-free, you're just "feeling sorry" for me that I don't. That's no answer.
By the way, nothing I have said here implies that I "see no value in the beauty of wilderness". I see plenty of value in the beauty of wilderness. I love the wilderness as much as the next guy. I just think that if there's oil underneath the ground, it's reasonable to go get it. There is value in oil, too. Can there be no middle ground here between appreciating the beauty of nature and understanding the practical benefit of getting its resources where they exist? Why not both?
I'll ask you what I've asked so many other ANWR-worshippers: Does land look prettier when there is oil underneath it which you can't see?
By the way ....have you read the Lovin's report "A Fool's Gold"?
No.
Gold"? Why don't you give it a try then come back and give me an economic justification for drilling in ANWR.
Maybe I will sometime, after you answer the questions in my posts above, of course.