FYI.
For those who have helped in this effort, keep up the good work!
FYI.
For those who have helped in this effort, keep up the good work!
For those you contributed to this effort.....you're out of your mind! Check the local gas prices. Ready to buy a Vespa,with snow tires, or get on your 12-speed bike? I am presently doing a major portfolio on urban sprawl...I hate it. For those who have supported this blockage of drilling on 1% of the ANWAR...you're nuts....but Sadam loves you! Remember this nonsense when the middle east blows up and the oil flow stops. Geeezzze!
Seems like much of the problem is urban sprawl -- that and lack of good public transportation in these sprawling urban cancers. (you think Denver is bad? have you ben to Houston lately? Or Atlanta?
Whatever your take on this, one can hardly deny the fact that 640,000 acres is hardly a negligable impact by any scale. Yes, I know the Gov. only quoted 2,000 acres affected, but they didn't bother to count roads that would be built, and most land cleared. Apparently, it only counts if there's a concrete directly on top of it, hence the misleading figure. Gas prices suck, (as does urban sprawl, for that matter) no doubt about it, but I do believe there are better ways to work our way to a better situation than screwing up some of the last pristine wilderness for a finite amount of fossil fuel.
Besides, this is a photography forum, not a political debate...
If you think gas prices are bad here, take a trip to Iceland sometime. Gas there hovers around $4-5 a gallon after currency and metric/english conversions. I believe the rest of Europe has much higher gas prices than here, as well.
"Land cleared"? There's NOTHING there to be cleared. Those pretty pics shown by Greenpeace are NOT of the area where drilling will take place. And, in case you haven't noticed lately, neither the wildlife nor environment have suffered because of the North Slope activities. This is no difference. You may want to be dependent on Sadam, or those nuts in Venezuela, but I want some alternatives. And I DON'T want to go back to bicycles. 640,000 acres. What kind of nut came up with that figure - Tom "Puff" Daschile?
Yes, this is a photo forum. But, you don't make such unsubstantiated statements, THEN try and cut off debate. Too late, buster!
Alec
Those of us who contributed to this are not out of our minds. I filled up yesterday at $1.63/gal. here in Los Angeles. My vehicle achieves 35-37 mpg, and I believe that we'd all be better off were unleaded regular priced nearer $5.00/gal. That would put a large dent in urban sprawl and reduce the number of single-occupant 6,000 lb. SUVs (Stupid Useless Vehicles) that clog our freeways and fill the air with smog.
By the way, anyone who thinks drilling in ANWR would have a positive effect on anything is mistaken. An honest root cause analysis shows that urban sprawl, high gasoline prices and smog are all traceable to too much population. Until that is addressed, all "supply- increasing" actions will be outrun and futile.
Quoting Russ Limbaugh or (equally brain dead but from the other side of the political spectrum) Amy Goodman always adds more heat than light to any conversation.
And exactly who tried to "cut off debate", Alec?
While this is a photographic forum that should be devoid of this political rhetoric, there are several important points that I feel need to be made parallel on this subject of interest to the landscape photographer. 1) After trying for 20 years, WE STILL DO NOT HAVE AN ENERGY POLICY. Without it and the intelligent diversification to phase in alternative fuels and other forms of clean burning energy, we will continue to be held hostage by the Middle East. 2) Irrespective of your political persuasion, the economy is driven by energy consumption in the industrial and private sector. 3) We have as a nation been continuing to restrict use of fuel oil and encourage the use of natural gas that is vastly less polluting. 4) In a free economy, you cannot legislate or by any other means force a consumer to spend less of their disposable income on huge SUV's that get horrific miles per gallon. Inefficiency is what eventually illicits engineering or design improvements. Because of cheap energy, Detroit gave us what we wanted. Gas guzzling civilian tanks that places the priority on horsepower and speed versus fuel eficiency. From my perspective, the only way that the big auto makers will change course and get back to valuing the utilization of energy is when American consumers have to reach into their wallet for a "C" note for a tank of gas. And it will be here sooner than you think. As far as Alaska goes, I wish I could find all of the loonies that said the world would end when the Trans Alaska Pipeline went into service in the late 1970's. How the Caribou would cease to exist and it would create an environmental fiasco the likes of which civilized man had never seen. Well guess what, the caribou herds are the largest we have ever seen. The only spill recorded was from a mentally deranged person that shot the pipeline with his rifle. Fortunately, it was immediately located and cleaned up. Whenever I find a person that spouts this type of rhetoric, I ask them if they would put their money where their mouth is - Would they refrain from all forms of hydrocarbon energy indefinately to start to curb our insatiable appetite for oil (no auto, plane or bus travel)? The answer is always a resounding NO because it is our standard of living. We would rather ignore the situation than face the music.
Regarding natural resources, it is always good sense to intelligently exploit these in a balanced mode considering the environment. Ironically, the native Alaskans are a majority in favor of exloitation that unfortunately, will not happen for some time to come. Look at the bright side. Prior to 1974 and the oil embargo, thermal pane windows and pink insulation were not very popular. Shortly thereafter, they spawned entire corporations in fever pitch to conserve energy. We are about primed to go into another cycle of conservation as the good old USA continues to escalate our dependence upon foreign oil.
I apologize if my position seems off the wall. I made reference to that figure because it came up several times in some research I recently did. If it's wrong, so be it, I apologize. I don't want to be dependent on anyone, Saddam included, but I also don't want to see delicate ecosystems put at the potential of risk so my neighbor can afford to drive his SUV a little cheaper. My point was just that there are better ways to solve dependence on foreign oil and the energy crisis in general than drilling in the ANWR. That's all- I don't want a debate.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks