Saying this doesn't make it so. You want to keep people off a certain piece of land. This is an unusual request which should be backed up with reasons.
ANWR was designated as a wildlife refuge
Oh, I see, it's the status quo so it must be correct, and any proposed alteration must be justified.
On a similar note, slavery was "designated" as legal before the 1860s; I guess it was up to the abolitionists, really, to "justify" their position....
We've discussed risk vs. reward
Uh well not really; you've used the words and made some assertions but you haven't actually discussed them. There's a very good reason for this; the "risk", to you, is something intangible and metaphysical - to allow anyone to drill underneath this land would violate your quasi-religious feelings for the land - that's the "risk". It's very hard for me to stack up your Feelings on the subject against an economic and political analysis of the potential payoff.
It is based on facts and logic and removes the vague arguments of philosophy.
That is definitely a good thing. For one thing I certainly hope he avoids the loaded, subjective philosophical terms "pristine", "intact ecosystem", "nature in its grandest state", "harming nature", "diversity", "sustainable", etc. If it is as based on facts and logic as you say then I am sure it cannot be based on such subjective, mystical considerations, so I will definitely read it (unfortunately I'm not in a place where I can easily read PDF files at the moment; I'll get back to you).
Oil and other energy solutions can be found in numerous areas other than ANWR.
Well, good. I'm glad for it. But it also exists (UNDERNEATH THE GROUND - INVISIBLE, YOU UNDERSTAND?) in ANWR. Why not go get it?
Do I have to ask again? Okay: Does land look prettier to you when there is oil underneath it which you cannot see?
But the ecosystem that exists there is rare
"Rare"? How can an "ecosystem" be "rare"?
In one sense, I guess, all ecosystems are "rare". The ecosystem of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area is "rare" because, of course, no other ecosystem in the world is exactly like the ecosystem of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. But that cannot be what you mean....
I guess I still don't understand. Again you seem to be saying that no other frozen tundras exist in the world. This is silliness.
so the best use of the land is the wildlife refuge that it is.
See, this is another time where you're making a very strong statement, so it would be nice if you'd actually define your terms so I could evaluate it!
You make a claim that doing such-and-such (in this case, doing nothing, evidently) is "the best use" of the land. The use of "best" implies, necessarily, that you have in mind some way of evaluating Uses Of Land - Use A is "better" than Use B, and so on. Clearly you have a way of measuring this, at least in your mind, perhaps intuitively.
Can you describe it to me? Please? Apparently you have the ability to look at a swath of land and declare, "to use the land in this way is better than to use it in that way". I lack this ability, and wish to understand how you are able to make such statements, apparently without gathering any data or doing any calculations whatsoever. I can only assume that it is based on some list of (for lack of a better term) "values" which you have; you "value" certain uses of land more than others. Can you tell me, in objective terms, what these values are, and how I may assess them independently? For my education, of course.
The short term, relatively small, insecure reward of oil is not worth the risk.
It isn't? I eagerly await the calculations and graphical plots which led you to this conclusion.
I was able to read it, at least the main body (I was not able to follow the annoying blue non-functional hyperlinks within a PDF file....) So if I can summarize the main point of the article, it is not economically viable to drill for oil in ANWR. The costs are too high, the price of oil will not rise enough to make it worthwhile, etc.
I have seen this argument before, and I admit to being perplexed by it. So your real concern here, you (and the authors of the article) are telling me, is that you are afraid the oil companies won't make enough profits? In fact, you are afraid they will lose money?
But then they won't drill there in the first place. In fact as the article even says, major oil executives aren't all that excited about ANWR in the first place (putting the lie to the theory that Bush is just doing this as a sop to Big Oil...).
I have to say that I doubt your heart bleeds for the profit margins of oil companies. (Hell, not even mine does :). To stand there and argue, "ANWR shouldn't be opened to drilling because drilling there would not be profitable enough to make it worth anyone's while" just doesn't pass the giggle test.
Let's run through the scenario more slowly this time. Suppose we open ANWR. Suppose you, and the authors of the article are correct, and it's Just Not Profitable Enough for anyone to drill there.
Well then no one will drill there.
So what's the problem?
On the other hand, if someone does want to drill there, then I guess you - and the authors of the article - are wrong. Right? The proof is in the pudding. Let's find out if it's "economically viable". If you guys are right then we'll open up ANWR, and no one will come, and it will remain "pristine", so you should all be happy! So, what do you have to lose?
Unless, of course, you don't actually believe what you are saying about it being not economically viable in the first place.