Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Is anyone else disapointed that our government has decided to tear up one of our national
parks for oil?
http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/oped/ci_2614929
I know Id rather not have oil pumps in the middle of this
http://www.terragalleria.com/parks/np.gates-artic.html
11 Comments:
Well- I don't know if disappointed is so much the words as unsurprised. It, quite honestly, was only a matter of time. You have to remember that the majority of things that get done in this country are done so because of the influence of certain "corporations."
What I do hope, though, is that people will get so pissed about the drilling in Alaska that the popular opinion will finally turn to instilling hydrogen-cell techonology or at least ANY alternate form of fuel so that we can stop burning through Earth's oil supply. I mean- once we embrace Hydo-cell we get two benefits- better economy AND all the oil-controlling countries suddenly lose their clout and their influential power. Who knows, maybe then we will have a fair government free of oil-company influence. Who am I kidding though, right, when one bad guy leaves, another steps in.
I would agree that at least some or many of the things that get done in this country are done so because of the influence of interest groups, such as corporate interest groups, environmental interest groups, and the list goes on. I personally am glad that we're drilling in Alaska. I would go further and say that we need to drill more, build more refineries, and invest in technologies that would make it possible to efficiently refine petroleum shale. Hydrogen-cell cars are inevitable (unless you believe that petroleum can end up being a renewable fuel source). Environmentalists should realize this. It will get to the point where it will be more economical to use hydrogen-cell cars. I mean look at gas prices now! If someone told us that we could buy hydrogen for whatever would equal "a buck a gallon" many of us would jump at it, although if you were like me you would still want a V-8 under the hood. And who knows - Hydrocell companies might "run the government" instead of oil companies...
I guess my problem with all this is why are we continuing to throw money into oil, especially at the expense of our parks. If we can agree that oil has a deadline on it then why throw money into a limited market? Obviously it is a big money maker right now. But is that worth tearing up our country for. If we can assume it will run out, we are beginning to pay a lot more for it, it is horrible for the planet (and it is getting increasingly difficult to say it isn’t), and we are dependent on other countries for it; what’s the point? Maybe we should try to put some money into other options where we could be the world leaders and have other countries buy the technology from us? Maybe that business would get currupted by the dollar bill, but I think its worth a shot.
I'm not surprised. Disapointed. The tearing apart of protected land is a slap in the face. The fact that our government is run under the influence of money and not the people is insulting. But it's no shock.
Eric, why would you support maintaining an old, poluting system of energy instead of investing in cheaper, cleaner and more efficient sources of power? Why support the old and state that we need more of it when something better is around the corner and can arrive sooner if it's given better support? You state that hydrogen-cell cars will come along eventually anyway, so don't worry about. But if people don't push for it, it won't happen. Why wait until we have absolutely no choice when we can urge for it now and enjoy the the perks that go with the technology? You know, like breathing clean air. Or having beautiful or exotic places to drive to; ones that haven't been torn apart by oil drilling? Why continue to shoot ourselves in the foot? You've got a point. I want my V8 engine. But not at the price of having to clean my car off every day because of the smog.
Sorry, I know I'm using some slippery slopes to prove my point. I just don't have time to dig around the web for evidence. Overall, I just don't get it when people support something that's proven to be detrimental. Sure, the immediate pay off is okay, but shouldn't the long term effects be enough to accept some sacrifices?
I'm not surprised. Disapointed. The tearing apart of protected land is a slap in the face. The fact that our government is run under the influence of money and not the people is insulting. But it's no shock.
Eric, why would you support maintaining an old, poluting system of energy instead of investing in cheaper, cleaner and more efficient sources of power? Why support the old and state that we need more of it when something better is around the corner and can arrive sooner if it's given better support? You state that hydrogen-cell cars will come along eventually anyway, so don't worry about. But if people don't push for it, it won't happen. Why wait until we have absolutely no choice when we can urge for it now and enjoy the the perks that go with the technology? You know, like breathing clean air. Or having beautiful or exotic places to drive to; ones that haven't been torn apart by oil drilling? Why continue to shoot ourselves in the foot? You've got a point. I want my V8 engine. But not at the price of having to clean my car off every day because of the smog.
Sorry, I know I'm using some slippery slopes to prove my point. I just don't have time to dig around the web for evidence. Overall, I just don't get it when people support something that's proven to be detrimental. Sure, the immediate pay off is okay, but shouldn't the long term effects be enough to accept some sacrifices?
Let's be careful of straw man fallacies. Do people who support drilling for oil in ANWAR do so "because" they support pollution, deforestation, killing baby seals, etc? Or is it possible that they made such decisions after a rational calculus of different policy options?
Often, we get much farther in policy debates if we at least acknowledge that our opponents have good intentions. Because then instead of just yelling slowgans "You're an evil greedy corporate pollutor!" we can instead say, "Look, I see your point and we do need to increase our energy output. But can we also reduce our energy consumption? And does this short term sollution threaten our long term goals?" The second kind of debate may actually convince people. The other, well, it just makes them ignore the "lunatic fringe" to just go ahead w/ their policies.
the leaders of our country have made it very clear that they have very little concern or intention to protect the environment. The really sad part is that The world's environmental problems are very real, and as our reliance on oil and other natural resources increases we are losing sight of alternative ways to save energy that are both cheaper and more effeciant. Personally I think people are scared, scared to break away from the norm, things that have always been working for this country. Alaska is one place that remains precious and untouched by environmental degradation, it saddens me that now it will be forever changed in an incredibly destructive way. Forget about fancy cars that guzzle gas like hummers and other SUV's, if it means drilling in Alaska, I think I'll take the bus.
The United states government has already done so much to show all of us that they really don't care much about the environment and the harm that's being done to it. Come on people.. is driving fancy cars with big engines that guzzle gas really the secret to a happy life? I don't care about anything right now except the fact that one of the last good natural places that this country has is going to be changed in a detrimental way forever. There are other ways to create energy and power. My friend drove across country last summer in a truck which was converted to Vegetable oil... sounds crazy but it worked and it was cheap. we need to start thinking about alternative ways to go about our everyday lives. It is both sad and disheartning to think of the refuge being drilled for oil. Hope none of these people ever wanted there kids to see the beauty of Alaska's ANWR, i guess we can just tell them that it's not there because as a country it was decided that running our Hummers was more important.
The United states government has already done so much to show all of us that they really don't care much about the environment and the harm that's being done to it. Come on people.. is driving fancy cars with big engines that guzzle gas really the secret to a happy life? I don't care about anything right now except the fact that one of the last good natural places that this country has is going to be changed in a detrimental way forever. There are other ways to create energy and power. My friend drove across country last summer in a truck which was converted to Vegetable oil... sounds crazy but it worked and it was cheap. we need to start thinking about alternative ways to go about our everyday lives. It is both sad and disheartning to think of the refuge being drilled for oil. Hope none of these people ever wanted there kids to see the beauty of Alaska's ANWR, i guess we can just tell them that it's not there because as a country it was decided that running our Hummers was more important.
Well you raise an interesting point. Is ANWR really the last "good" place the US has? What makes a place "good"? Are our cities not good places? Perhaps they're not! The environment had to be destroyed to build the buildings, the homes, the roads. But maybe you're talkin about beauty. ANWR is beautiful, no doubt, but will it necessarily become unbeautiful because man develops it into something useful? If so, then is something as subjective as beauty to drive our development policy? The question is this: what obligations do we have to the environment? Are we supposed to protect the environment at all costs? Or are we only to protect the places that we deem pretty enough to protect? (If we're not supposed to drill in Alaska, are we allowed to drill in the Middle East or Texas because they aren't as "pretty"?) What is the criteria we should use to protect the environment? Or do we have no obligations?
We have gotten to a point where no one give a rat's ... about the environment or its resources, and that is tragic. The greed of the nations, its corporations and intstitutions, had stemmed in every single one of us, to forget that one day, environment was the food, cover, and source of life, and in away still is,but we don't know better! Today we are repaying the debt and continuing the distructive mission on the environment, who knows maybe the coming generation will be breathing hydrocarbons?!
Post a Comment
<< Home