Support NeoGAF

[BorkBork]

I think the comparison between ANWR and Yellowstone is pretty justified. Just because you think it's a barren wasteland doesn't mean it is one. It is along the route for caribou migration. In fact I would argue that it's probably worse to drill for oil up there than in some of the other places that are mentioned. The main problem is that if they do mess up in the arctic and have some sort of an accident up there, it's GONE. At least in Yellowstone the oil can be washed away by rain and diluted so it's not so toxic. On the tundra, there's no rain , no thawing of the permafrost, no microbes breaking the pollution down. The land is DEAD. Why do you think all the little tiny lichens are hundreds of years old? It's hard enough to survive up there without people coming up to f*ck it up.

And for what? The best estimated amount, in total, is 10.4 billion barrels of crude. Sounds like a lot doesn't it? Guess how much you guys use up each day? 20.4 million barrels a day in 2004 and RISING. The entire reserve will last you about a year and a half at BEST. (Probably could have saved more oil not going to war *cough*). That's not counting the costs of setting up all the infrastructure either. Like the article said, it's not going to stop rising gas prices and tight gas supplies. So this is all pretty much for NOTHING.

If the economic benefits were worth the environmental costs, it would be something to think about. But right now, it just doesn't make ANY sense to me. Wanna stop being held hostage by OPEC prices? START WEANING OFF THE OIL!

 

[Kobun Heat]

1. you never answered my question.

Yes I did. The answer was that it would be a tragedy to leave all that oil down there.

2. What's terrible is that it's breaking a commitment that the US government made to keep that land all 100% of it off limits.

So? It was a stupid commitment considering that much of it has a bunch of oil underneath it and not much pristine beauty to speak of on top.

The effect on the land and the animals cannot be known at this point, it may turn out to be devestating,

There's nothing to devastate.

Most importantly, this creates a precedent for any other industry that wants to use natural resources that exist inside national wildlife refuges.

Examples of those other national wildlife refuges would be?

 

[AntoneM]

Yes I did. The answer was that it would be a tragedy to leave all that oil down there.

Ok, so you answer is that it's terrible to leave sections of land alone if there is oil underneath it right?

So? It was a stupid commitment considering that much of it has a bunch of oil underneath it and not much pristine beauty to speak of on top.

Again, I'm not worried about pristine beauty.

There's nothing to devastate.

there is an entire ecosystem to damage up there

Examples of those other national wildlife refuges would be?

here is a link the ones that start with the letter A, you can go from there:
http://refuges.fws.gov/profiles/byletter.cfm

 

[Kobun Heat]

I mean ones with nothing much up top and all sorts of oil underneath. You know, the ones that are in "danger" because of this "dangerous precedent."

 

[Pimpwerx]

You can't justify it, period. In 10 years, they hope to produce 1M barrels per day. CURRENT usage is 20M barrels per year, and that number will only go up. 5% is jack shit. That's saving someone 10 cents per gallon. Yeah, that's real important when you're already paying $2.20-$3 per gallon. :rollies: Oh well, the earth will outlast us, so the damage will eventually be repaired. PEACE.

 

[videogamer]

Uh... so you're comparing an arctic tundra to Yellowstone? Am I right? It seems to me that if you have such a problem with drilling in areas that aren't being used, you should be writing AI to do something about the middle east, venezuela, mexico, russia, georgia, etc...

Since when did arctic tundra become fair game? There's a lot of biological diversity up there too. Reserves aren't just for campers and tourists who like sightseeing.

 

[AntoneM]

I mean ones with nothing much up top and all sorts of oil underneath. You know, the ones that are in "danger" because of this "dangerous precedent."

don't know, but if there is agold mine, or a bunch of coal or oil or natural gas... found on any of those reserves, this action makes it likely that some companies will come in take those valuabe resources, regardless of the fact that it's on a wildlife refuge.

 

[NWO]

What's next, tapping yellowstone for some thermo power plants? mining in Yosemite?

No next will be the drilling of offshore Florida and any other place that has a spec of oil in it in this country.

If this shit is suppose to only become available in 10 years I don't see why anybody can defend it by saying prices will go down or that it will make this country safer. Once we use up all the oil in this country WHERE THE FUCK ARE WE GOING TO GET IT.

This isn't even coming close to solving the problem and its not evening easing the current situation.

And I don't get it if this country is so low on oil that we have to dig this shit up why don't we stop all this stupid ass NASCAR shit where they just drive around in circles and waste our precious gasoline?

 

[Azih]

And I don't get it if this country is so low on oil that we have to dig this shit up why don't we stop all this stupid ass NASCAR shit where they just drive around in circles and waste our precious gasoline?

:thumbs up:

 

[PotatoeMasher]

If this shit is suppose to only become available in 10 years I don't see why anybody can defend it by saying prices will go down or that it will make this country safer.

John Kerry says 10 years

 

[Kobun Heat]

So because something takes a long time it's not worthwhile?

Having a source of an appreciable amount of domestic oil is a good thing. Why you'd want it to just stay in the ground is beyond me. The whole anti- side's argument here seems to be "it's not worth it." Worth what exactly? There's no tradeoff. We get more oil, but... there is no but. There is no other hand. Life will go on in the arctic tundra unmolested. Might some mosquitoes give their lives in the process? Indeed. But the ecosystem's not going to be thrown into turmoil.

 

[brooklyngooner]

So because something takes a long time it's not worthwhile?

Having a source of an appreciable amount of domestic oil is a good thing. Why you'd want it to just stay in the ground is beyond me. The whole anti- side's argument here seems to be "it's not worth it." Worth what exactly? There's no tradeoff. We get more oil, but... there is no but. There is no other hand. Life will go on in the arctic tundra unmolested. Might some mosquitoes give their lives in the process? Indeed. But the ecosystem's not going to be thrown into turmoil.

Oh, I see, you're an environmental biologist who can provide empirical, stastistics-backed evidence that this will have no appreciable effect on the local habitat?

 

[Kobun Heat]

Oh, I see, you're an environmental biologist who can provide empirical, stastistics-backed evidence that this will have no appreciable effect on the local habitat?

My own personal circumstances have absolutely zippo to do with whether the statement is true or not. If you want to attack the substance of the point, go right ahead.

 

[Dilbert]

Life will go on in the arctic tundra unmolested. Might some mosquitoes give their lives in the process? Indeed. But the ecosystem's not going to be thrown into turmoil.

I have heard an argument that a decrease in biological diversity has a negative impact on our probability of survival as a species. There may, in fact, be more at stake than wrecking a view appropriate for a postcard.

 

[Kobun Heat]

I have heard an argument that a decrease in biological diversity has a negative impact on our probability of survival as a species. There may, in fact, be more at stake than wrecking a view appropriate for a postcard.

That may indeed be true, but to the best of my knowledge oil drilling in ANWR will not be accompanied by "a decrease in biological diversity." The swamps and mud puddles will still be teeming with all kinds of disgusting whatevers you would never want to be close to in real life, in all their diverse harmony.

 

[Dilbert]

That may indeed be true, but to the best of my knowledge oil drilling in ANWR will not be accompanied by "a decrease in biological diversity." The swamps and mud puddles will still be teeming with all kinds of disgusting whatevers you would never want to be close to in real life, in all their diverse harmony.

I think the question posed to you was, "How can you be sure that the environment will not be significantly impacted?" Again, if this really was a close-to-zero impact issue, this WOULD be a no-brainer argument: upside with no downside is a decision anyone could make. But don't you think there must be a REASON why people have been opposed to this, other than worrying about the oh-so-cute-and-furry animals?

(Hey...I think I just figured out why Ferrio likes Alaska so much...)

 

[Kobun Heat]

But don't you think there must be a REASON why people have been opposed to this, other than worrying about the oh-so-cute-and-furry animals?

I understand the reason, I'm saying that I believe it to be in error.

 

[NLB2]

I have heard an argument that a decrease in biological diversity has a negative impact on our probability of survival as a species. There may, in fact, be more at stake than wrecking a view appropriate for a postcard.

This has got to be the largest slippery slope argument I've ever heard. Drilling in Alaska -> END OF HUMANITY!!!!

 

[moist]

But don't you think there must be a REASON why people have been opposed to this, other than worrying about the oh-so-cute-and-furry animals?

Because people that don't live here seem to have no concept of size and think that each and every part of Alaska looks like the middle of Denali national park.

Oh yeah and the Treehuggers up here will try to block any development anywhere regardless of how asinine it might be.

 

[NLB2]

I think the question posed to you was, "How can you be sure that the environment will not be significantly impacted?" Again, if this really was a close-to-zero impact issue, this WOULD be a no-brainer argument: upside with no downside is a decision anyone could make. But don't you think there must be a REASON why people have been opposed to this, other than worrying about the oh-so-cute-and-furry animals?

(Hey...I think I just figured out why Ferrio likes Alaska so much...)

I don't want to speculate on the downsides of drilling in Alaska (because I don't know them), but there are some examples of decisions with only an upside that don't really work out. Let priests get married -> less molestation. Let gays get married -> large segment of the population will have a right being held from them for no reason.

I know many people who will bash Bush or the republican party for anything they do (even before they understand the issue at hand). Is it not possible that people are making their decision too early?

 

[Hitokage]

This has got to be the largest slippery slope argument I've ever heard. Drilling in Alaska -> END OF HUMANITY!!!!

No, you don't have to go to extremes. One could quantify such things in terms of acres of crops lost or number of swordfish caught fewer than normal... you know, our food supply.

 

[NLB2]

No, you don't have to go to extremes. One could quantify such things in terms of acres of crops lost or number of swordfish caught fewer than normal... you know, our food supply.

I hear what you're saying. That wouldn't be too big of a hit to the probability of the survival of the species, though.

 

[brooklyngooner]

I understand the reason, I'm saying that I believe it to be in error.

Based on what?

 

[brooklyngooner]

But the ecosystem's not going to be thrown into turmoil.

Sarcasm aside, I am asking on what you base this sweeping statement.

 

[BlackSalad]

While they're at it they should sell BLM land in utah that is surrounded by national parks to oil companies! and perhaps even store nuclear waste there too!


er wait, DOH

 

[videogamer]

That may indeed be true, but to the best of my knowledge oil drilling in ANWR will not be accompanied by "a decrease in biological diversity."

Not necessarily, but human interference does not bode well for maintaining the ecosystem. Also, habitats might not simply revert to the old status once the rigs are taken down. Mitigation projects generally do not have the same environment as what they were designed to replace either.

The swamps and mud puddles will still be teeming with all kinds of disgusting whatevers you would never want to be close to in real life, in all their diverse harmony.

Just because YOU don't want to be close to them doesn't mean that they don't play a role in the ecosystem. The tundra wasn't built for you to decide if it is worth keeping.

Gosh, is this thread full of Madagascar periwinkle arguments or what.

 

[BorkBork]

In situations like this, the burden of proof should squarely rest on the development side, not the conservation side. Statements like "oh, nothing's going to happen" gave us DDT, the hole in the ozone layer, acid rain, and all sorts of unforseen global problems. You want to err on the side of caution on these things because if you are wrong, there's no fixing what you did.

The arctic tundra's not really a barren wasteland. Just because it doesn't have elephants and lions running around over the place doesn't mean it's has no value. Species diversity might be low, but that makes each one of them more important to the entire ecosystem. That's also why it's so fragile up there because each chain in the food link is so important. Something that might be really minor down here can be magnified in damaging effects. There are other reasons for this being a really bad idea, but I'll leave it at that for now