Gil on the ANWR opening
An email from my father-in-law, a former Alaska oil geologist who was among the first to map Proudhoe Bay, which later became a fertile U.S. source of oil on the North Slope. After I'd sent out a note bemoaning the 51-49 Senate vote yesterday to open the Arctic Refuge to drilling. The GOP inserted the provision into a budget reconciliation procedure, meaning it cannot be filibustered. W
-----------
Hi there:
Yeah, I just happened to catch that on the radio while ago. LONG overdue. I'm just constantly amazed at the doomsday predictions of the environmental community---which has so incredibly over-hyped the dangers of exploration on the coastal plain of ANWR. And unfortunately, a large segment of the Democratic party has jumped on that band wagon in a misguided effort to attack big business. To me it has smacked of the ultimate in hypocrisy---a large segment of the elitists who have been waving flags and preaching doomsday scenarios in ANWR have never been there and haven't a clue as to what they are talking about----and are themselves huge consumers of the resources that they so vigorously oppose. If the environmental community spent more time campaigning for a national energy policy and for alternative energy sources, energy efficiency, and better transportation, and less time opposing virtually EVERY effort of industry to produce the energy resource that they consume---I would be a supporter of their cause. I have no idea of whether the ultimate discoveries will come close to the predictions----BUT I do know that the environmental consequences will be minuscule.
The hypocrisy is one of the things that bugs me most. Just take a look at any issue of the Sierra Club Bulletin or Audubon Magazine---and then look at the worldwide tours that they offer-----and how do they get there? By jet airplanes---of course, which burn large amounts of petroleum products. Some of them of course do go treking, but a lot end up in luxury hotels. They are the sort of folks who flock to Alaska every summer on their luxury tours, expecting that the quaint locals will come out of the woods to cater to their whims in the brief tourist season, and expect them to go back into hibernation for the next nine months. And you know damned well that most of those people are those who have large disposable incomes, and are among the largest consumers of resources. And I'd be willing to bet that a large percentage of them also are SUV drivers who commute large distances every day---I suspect damned few of them ride their bikes everywhere they go. The resources that make all that possible HAVE to come from somewhere---and I still contend that it is better to have them coming from a remote area of northern Alaska than from the middle of a lot of agricultural land in the Midcontinent---or how about that sort of development in the suburbs of a major metropolitan area? Did you hear about the elitists on Cape Cod who were opposing a wind generator way off shore form their beachfront properties---they're all for alternative energy, but not in my backyard. That is illustrative of the way I think a large number of the environmental community think----and unfortunately the Democratic party seems to have embraced that philosophy in a misguided effort to attack big business. I ain't happy with the Bush folks on many issues---but this is one issue on which I agree with them. I would like to see a Democratic platform that proposed a viable alternative and supported responsible development rather than pandering to the elitists who are opposed to production of resources.
Just take a look from the air sometime when you're flying back from Salt Lake City at the transportation network that funnels everything into the New York City area, or into Washington DC----the closer you get to those centers---the more concentrated the infrastructure is and the more concentrated is the urbanization. And a big percentage of that network is heavily used in the transportation of the resources inward to supply all the people who live there. Most of those resources are not produced there at home.
I shed no tears for the folks on the losing side this time. MY prediction is that exploration will happen eventually, something, or maybe nothing , will be discovered----but either way, the caribou and and the polar bear and migrating water fowl and the summer time recreationalists will continue to come and enjoy the area---and will see absolutely no effects of that exploration. It has all been a huge tempest in a teapot. I'll be glad to see it end. And hopefully the environmental community will redirect its efforts at something useful, such as national energy policy, energy efficiency, and conservation, population control, etc.
So much for my rant today. I'm sure the level of overblown rhetoric is going to escalate markedly in the weeks to come.
Cheers----Gil
-----------
Hi there:
Yeah, I just happened to catch that on the radio while ago. LONG overdue. I'm just constantly amazed at the doomsday predictions of the environmental community---which has so incredibly over-hyped the dangers of exploration on the coastal plain of ANWR. And unfortunately, a large segment of the Democratic party has jumped on that band wagon in a misguided effort to attack big business. To me it has smacked of the ultimate in hypocrisy---a large segment of the elitists who have been waving flags and preaching doomsday scenarios in ANWR have never been there and haven't a clue as to what they are talking about----and are themselves huge consumers of the resources that they so vigorously oppose. If the environmental community spent more time campaigning for a national energy policy and for alternative energy sources, energy efficiency, and better transportation, and less time opposing virtually EVERY effort of industry to produce the energy resource that they consume---I would be a supporter of their cause. I have no idea of whether the ultimate discoveries will come close to the predictions----BUT I do know that the environmental consequences will be minuscule.
The hypocrisy is one of the things that bugs me most. Just take a look at any issue of the Sierra Club Bulletin or Audubon Magazine---and then look at the worldwide tours that they offer-----and how do they get there? By jet airplanes---of course, which burn large amounts of petroleum products. Some of them of course do go treking, but a lot end up in luxury hotels. They are the sort of folks who flock to Alaska every summer on their luxury tours, expecting that the quaint locals will come out of the woods to cater to their whims in the brief tourist season, and expect them to go back into hibernation for the next nine months. And you know damned well that most of those people are those who have large disposable incomes, and are among the largest consumers of resources. And I'd be willing to bet that a large percentage of them also are SUV drivers who commute large distances every day---I suspect damned few of them ride their bikes everywhere they go. The resources that make all that possible HAVE to come from somewhere---and I still contend that it is better to have them coming from a remote area of northern Alaska than from the middle of a lot of agricultural land in the Midcontinent---or how about that sort of development in the suburbs of a major metropolitan area? Did you hear about the elitists on Cape Cod who were opposing a wind generator way off shore form their beachfront properties---they're all for alternative energy, but not in my backyard. That is illustrative of the way I think a large number of the environmental community think----and unfortunately the Democratic party seems to have embraced that philosophy in a misguided effort to attack big business. I ain't happy with the Bush folks on many issues---but this is one issue on which I agree with them. I would like to see a Democratic platform that proposed a viable alternative and supported responsible development rather than pandering to the elitists who are opposed to production of resources.
Just take a look from the air sometime when you're flying back from Salt Lake City at the transportation network that funnels everything into the New York City area, or into Washington DC----the closer you get to those centers---the more concentrated the infrastructure is and the more concentrated is the urbanization. And a big percentage of that network is heavily used in the transportation of the resources inward to supply all the people who live there. Most of those resources are not produced there at home.
I shed no tears for the folks on the losing side this time. MY prediction is that exploration will happen eventually, something, or maybe nothing , will be discovered----but either way, the caribou and and the polar bear and migrating water fowl and the summer time recreationalists will continue to come and enjoy the area---and will see absolutely no effects of that exploration. It has all been a huge tempest in a teapot. I'll be glad to see it end. And hopefully the environmental community will redirect its efforts at something useful, such as national energy policy, energy efficiency, and conservation, population control, etc.
So much for my rant today. I'm sure the level of overblown rhetoric is going to escalate markedly in the weeks to come.
Cheers----Gil
posted by Will @ 3/17/2005 02:36:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home