I just got done paying my state income taxes. Have you paid yours yet? Oh, that’s right, Alaska doesn’t have a state income tax. And for some reason I didn’t get any dividend from the state from our harvesting of natural resources. Oh, that’s right, that only happens in Alaska. Asking for sympathy because you can’t develop a tiny corner of your state is pretty silly when you already benefit far more from your natural resources than any other state.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t all National Parks and Wildlife Refuges treated the same? Numerous states have areas that the majority of Americans prefer to preserve in their natural condition; Alaska is not alone. Is there some reason you can justify being treated differently? And does it really make sense to build your economic foundation on a resource that will be depleted in a few decades?
I'm certain that office job you have is self supporting, and doesn't rely on any resource production to sustain it.
Actually, my job (and most in Nebraska) is to some extent dependent on the farm economy. And with commodity prices being in the toilet for several years, my job is not secure. But I’m not going to suggest to farmers (my family included) to rip out their terraces and grassed waterways, or double their fertilizer use, or plow up marginal land just to increase production. Why? Because these practices are not sustainable and after a short term bonus we would pay both economically and environmentally. Drilling ANWR might help you keep your (Alaskafan) job until you retire, but what about the next generation? What happens when the oil is gone?
Alaskanfan...glad to hear you're a long-time Husker fan. We probably have more in common than either of us realize.
Alaska is the largest state in the U.S. in land area, 3rd smallest in population, and the least densely populated. Approximately 67 percent of Alaska's population and jobs, and almost 100 percent of the land, is non-urban. About 92 percent of Alaska's roads are rural. Federally owned lands amount to 66 percent of the state's land area.
NEBRASKA
The Rural Context For Transportation Consultations
Nebraska is the 15th largest state in the U.S. in land area, 14th smallest in population, and 9th least densely populated. Approximately 60 percent of Nebraska's population and jobs, and just under 100 percent of the land, is non-urban. About 97 percent of its roads are rural. Federally owned lands are not a major factor; they amount to less than one and a half percent of the state's land area.
Nebraska:Federally owned lands are not a major factor; they amount to less than one and a half percent of the state's land area.
Alaska:Federally owned lands amount to 66 percent of the state's land area.
Geography QuickFacts Alaska USA Land area, square miles 571,951This must be at low tide, because of the extreme tides and shoreline area (more than the rest of the U.S. combined) Alaska increases in size by one third at extreme low tide(about 2-1/2 times the total land area of your state) this is a concept I would not expect anyone from Nebraska to understand.
Nebraska Land area: 76,878 sq mi.
So we have over four of your states total land area owned by the government. Why all of the interest in 2,000 arces?
Why are you so opposed to less than a one percent reduction of the state owned lands in Alaska? Is it because your government owns little of your home state?
Why are you opposed to energy development in my state? Are you really that concerned about the environment? If you are that concerned about the environment why is it only concern about the environment of the U.S. I guess the rest of the world doesn't matter.
I would suggest that you initiate energy harvesting in your state. If harvesting wind or solar power is such a lucrative industry as indicated by your post #67 I am totally amazed that it is not more popular than growing oats or corn in your state. I guess it's that old supply and demand thing.
I just got done paying my state income taxes. Have you paid yours yet? Oh, that’s right, Alaska doesn’t have a state income tax. And for some reason I didn’t get any dividend from the state from our harvesting of natural resources. Oh, that’s right, that only happens in Alaska. Now we come to the true reason for the envy of Alaskans exhibted in your posts.(I notice that you fail to mention Alaska's constitutional law regarding mineral rights). Are you envious of our state laws? You could move here, we even allow people from Nebraska to immigrate (only because their state has the best college football program in the nation), but then you would be subject to the same financial stranglehold you propose to put me under. Why does it bother you that we expect industry to pay our state for the natural resources that they take from our state?
Why are you holding my states economy hostage to your ideal of energy development and environmental activism?
What does it matter to you that we have negotiated with the industries that exploit our natural resources a program here in Alaska that actually pays people to live here? What does it matter that we have to heat our houses at the minimum of 10 months of the year, or are you just jealous that we negotiated a financially agreeable position with the oil companies?
It would make sense by your logic to make all of my state federal lands and deprive anyone from living here. Alaska could become the wilderness area for the entire U.S.
And does it really make sense to build your economic foundation on a resource that will be depleted in a few decades?
We could try farming,(something you can relate with) however with the short growing season (two to three months) I personally doubt the results would be financially rewarding.
With the market trend of oil prices and the distinct possibilty of $60.00 per barrel oil, drilling ANWR makes more sense now more than it makes when gasoline is $5.00 per gallon and production is still 5 years in the future at which time ANWR will not be perceived by anyone as such a "pristine wilderness".
At least we elected politicians, who knew that the oil resources was in fact limited and took steps to ensure a long term viable future. The permanent fund was set up to do just that, ensure that Alaska had a financial future. The Permanent Fund checks were an afterthought, several years after the fund was started.
I sort of feel sorry for you down there, that the people serving you didn't have the same foresight. But let me ask about that. Say the same oil resource (10% of current demand) was available in your state requiring the same land allocation in proportion to the size of your state which I calculate to be about 232 acres. Yet from that small area of land you could fund your entire state government, eliminate state taxes and provide each man women and child a check of approx. $1,000 every year just in time for the holidays. Do you think the local would go for it? Do you think the politicians would go for it? More importantly, would you, or should we save that little patch of land because it still has the same weeds on it that the buffalo used to graze on? I suppose that it would be better if the land had already been developed, rather than on public land. Of course, then the owner of the property would have to be compenstated for his property rights, and that is another topic of discussion.
Another quick point on another post you made. You mentioned just how little space all those roads took up. I guess you didn't want to mention that the reason that the roads were actually there were to facilitate DEVELOPMENT of the farming community, which we all depend on. Yet without that infrastucture of roads very few of the farms would be viable. I imagine we could say the same about the railroads, those tracks just take up so little space yet the purpose they serve far out weighs the virgin land it cut through.
And a question that I should have asked regarding developing that 27 acres. Should the fed have any say on what Nebraska does with that pittance of land, given the benefit it will provide?