Senate Defeats Effort To Open The Arctic Refuge To Oil Drilling

FYI.

<p>

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.

<p>

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?

<p>

Yes, this is a photo forum. But, you don't make such unsubstantiated

statements, THEN try and cut off debate. Too late, buster!

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.

<p>

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.<P>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.

<p>

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.

Glad you recognize [and appreciate] intelligent advocacy, Ellis.

Surely you're not one of the urban nuts who thinks we ought to all

move BACK into the cities, are you? Man, I couldn't target practice

off my deck if that happened. Then, again, maybe I could!

<p>

I was responding to David, who made his statement then tried to

change the subject.

Personally, I would *love* my SUV to run on hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel

is a wonderful alternative to gasoline. Yeah, hydrogen bleeds out,

but you just fill it back up again. A full tank would bleed out in a

week or so. Most people use their vehicles more frequently than that.

<p>

Thus, no more oil drilling, the "energy" companies stay in business

producing truly clean energy, and everybody goes home happy. Except

Sadam....

OH PULLUEEZZZ!!

<p>

ok, for all the "anti-oil, there is a huge global (republican)

conspriacy to destroy all things natural and good" photographers:

<p>

1) film is made from plastic

2) plastic is made from oil

<p>

therefore: shooting sheet film means you must be a selfish, oil

consuming bigot who can't wait to invade Iraq and hates all creatures!

<p>

BECAUSE: if you were not an oil consuming bigot who hated nature, you

would assuredly be using a digital camera, which uses 1% of the

petroleum product compared with sheet film. Not to mention all the

awfull chemicals one needs to develop said film.

<p>

can we PLEASE not have this debate on this forum???? pretty please?

I is always funny how many of the people who demonize oil and SUVs,

are still driving vehicles with internal combustion engines. If you

really feel that strongly about oil and the environment, why are you

driving at all? Surely if you gave up your car it would help end

sprawl and the crowded freeways and help the ozone layer. Think about

it, the money that you save from not buying $5.00 a gallon gas could

be better spent on getting yourself some much needed therapy.

There are just too many people packed together in the big cities,

and what bothers me the most about living in a big city is that in

some of the neighborhoods I've lived in, you can go weeks, months,

even years without seeing your neighbors.

<p>

Neighborhoods in the big city are becoming less than

neighborhoods and seem more like parking lots these days. Gangs,

drugs, violence, urban blight, carjacking, we all know about these

problems, the thing that saddens me the most that I see everywhere are

the endless numbers of kids going arund aimlessly who don't seem like

they're being raised by anybody.

<p>

I'm sensitive to this obviously since I have a 4yr old son, and

6yr old daughter, and I see teenagers to 5yr olds coming and going

with nobody to look after them. I've seen this in poor neighborhoods

and in affluent areas, to me it doesn't make any difference where the

parents are, the big city is no place for kids in any neighborhood to

be wandering around alone.

<p>

We need to do something about this issue and the other issues

that have been raised so that we can hand over a better legacy to our

kids.

For starters, They are only talking about maybe 2% of the oil we need

coming out of that area. Second oil is priced on the world market so

prices most likely would not be that affected and lastly I'd be more

than happy to pay more for gas if it meant saving the one state we

have left that's still in pretty much a wild state. I feel I owe it

to my children and there children.

Lively debate.

<p>

Could I challenge you to bring your LFs up to the area? I think you

might enjoy the photo experience, Spring, Summer, Fall or Winter.

Visit both ends of the cultural debate on this issue (Arctic Village

versus Kaktovik) and chronicle your cultural and environmental

adventures. You could drop a few bucks into their economy and get a

realistic view of the issues. You would afford credence to you

viewpoint (either side) by being able to say, "I been there!" "I seen

�em!"

Bring your experiences home and champion your cause through

photographic lectures or a fine art show. You are an LF photographer.

Make a difference!

<p>

Or...stay where you're at and philosophize on how many angels can

dance on the head of a pin, having knowledge of neither.

<p>

You find will one thing that Alaskan's do have in common is we are, at

once, both amused and unamused by the views of Outsiders who think our

lives are just like theirs. We enjoy educating them by showing them

our state.

<p>

Now...are we back on the LF track?

I hate arguing politics, especially here - but you started it.<BR>

<BR>

For a country boy (by that I do not mean just "not in the city", as

in - midwest agribusiness, no land NOT plowed, "country" - )

I also grew up, and have spent a large part of my adult life in

fairly remote areas of the west (the places you come to on vacation

from whatever mega-lopolis...). In my 50 years I have seen first-hand

the damage (and waste) caused by development and commercialization.

<BR>

I have also heard all the arguments against industrial development

of "sensitive areas". and I do not disagree with most of those

arguments. <BR>

BUT - (you knew there was going to be a BUT.. didn't you!) -<BR>

<BR>

More damage is done in one summer by tourists, photogs, hikers,

bikers, et al. - to the wilderness areas of the mountain west than

could be done in the ANWL in a decade. (and don't even get me started

on snow mobiles, ski resorts, etc.,etc.)<BR>

The wilderness and high country areas of the lower 48 hold an

immensely more diverse (and in sheer numbers of wildlife and foliage,

exponentially greater), varied and fragile biosystem than you will

find on the tundra! <BR>

Yet, how many of you do those things every year? <BR>

Do the posters in L.A., think about the Colorado River when they turn

on that lawn sprinkler? (or why the City of L.A. really needs to

pressure Congress to divert even more water - from the Columbia

River, 1800 miles away?)Do they think about the death of the Salmon

Runs on the Columbia when they order that grilled Salmon at Upscale

Restaurant-of-the-day?<BR>

Do they think about the damage to the environment, air and water

pollution, done every day by their city - by its very existence?

Do you in NY, Boston, Houston, Denver? <BR>

No, because its too close to home. We can't come to grips with the

fact that we are part of the problem. We poison our backyards, yet

scream when someone wants to extract oil from a remote (and in terms

of bio-culture - a desert) area. <BR>

When I worked in New England, there were mass-protests against a

power plant being built in NH. Bostonians (who's demand for ever-

increasing power production was the reason for the plant construction

in the first place)formed an army of protesters - key among them,

Jane Fonda - called the Clam Shell Alliance. Not many from N.H. -<BR>

The locals produced posters and bumper-stickers with a statement that

pretty much sums up my feelings about the ANWL issue -<BR>

"Let the Bastards freeze in the dark!"

Thank goodness. Keep up the good work, Senate.

<p>

As to our long term strategic benefit with respect to energy, if there

is oil in the area, it would behoove us to leave it there until such

time as it might really be needed.

If you're a country boy then maybe you can answer a question I've

always been meaning to ask somebody. If someone finally decides to

leave the big city, where do you go?

<p>

I've been to a few place out of the country, but I mean here in the

states, is there a place to go to where they're not doing the things

they do in the big city? Do those kinds of places really/still exist?

<p>

I'm a city boy so I'd like to know, if one ever decides to leave

the big city, where do you go where they don't have some degree of the

problems you've mentioned? I don't mean living like a 'mountain man',

I mean a community, where you can raise your kids, and give them an

education.

Sal said: "I believe that we'd all be better off were unleaded

regular priced nearer $5.00/gal"

<p>

Hey Sal. You've got to be the posterboy for "Driving a Yugo"!!!!!

<p>

Why, I bet you even wish your TAXES were higher too, right?

Johnathan,<BR>

Check yer email.

I don't know if this is really the right forum for this discussion,

but I'm going to chime in anyway.<br><br>

I live in Maryland and work in DC. Gasoline here ranges from around

$1.60 to just under $2.00 per gallon. I usally buy in Maryland,

where the tax on gasoline is one of the highest in the nation.

Unfortunately I drive 65 miles one-way to my job, so I shell out

around $50/week to keep gas in my Honda. I'm not complaining; just

telling you where I'm coming from.<br><br>

Oh, and I'm a moderate, so...<br><br>

First to all you unltra-right-wing types, get off it. You are being

manipulated by the oil companies, who are trying to convince you that

we NEED to drill. Have you ever asked yourself why they feel we NEED

to drill? Do you really believe that they have the country's best

interest in mind? Has it ever occurred to any of you that the name

of the game is PROFIT? Now, I'm not some anti-capitalist, but I do

recognize that oil companies have NEVER had my best interest in mind

when striking out on a new venture.<br><br>

I would also say to those of you who are only regurgitating what

you've read/seen/heard in the press to gather more information about

the subject. Yes, it's ONLY 2000 out of millions of acres, but the

significance of those 2000 acres is much greater than the Limbaugh's

and Liddy's of the world would have you believe. First, those 2000

acres need not be contiguous. In fact, when totaling the area taken

by a pipeline, only the ACTUAL FOOTPRINT of the pipeline need be

considered, so if it is perched upon "legs" with "feet" of only a

square foot or two, one could have miles and miles of pipeline and

still could count it as only an acre of land. Obviously the impact

would be much greater than that acre. Second, the 2000 acres

referenced make up the entire western shoreline of the reserve,

approximately 25 miles in length.<br><br>

Now for all the left-wing, bleeding hearts out there: Didn't we hear

this same argument vis a vis drilling for oil and natural gas in the

Gulf of Mexico? And has anyone given any thought to what the

alternative to drilling in ANWAR would/will be? Will there now be

more wells in the Southwest? Or in the gulf? Did you know that the

BLM has already allowed exploration to begin right outside Arches

National Park? I know, I know, that's a lot of questions, but one

has to ask whether it's smarter to move drilling to areas in the

lower 48 that are MUCH MORE HIGHLY utilized in favor of "saving" an

area that's rarely even seen by human eyes. I would also advise you

to gather more information than just what's provided by Greenpeace,

the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy. While I agree that these

organizations have a purpose, I would also say that if we had

listened to them in the mid-50s, much of the southwestern US would

not have water right now. Sometimes sacrifice is required in the

name of progress.<br><br>

The success of the Senate is not and should not be measured by

whether or not a proposal is passed or defeated; its success is

measured by the fact that there is debate at all.

<i>"Sometimes sacrifice is required in the name of progress."</i> -

Please define 'progress'.<br>Is having more consumer goods than you

have time to use progress?<br>Is being able to get clinically obese on

cheap junk food progress?<br>Is driving everywhere and then having to

use your free time and pay to use a gym in order to keep fit

progress?<br>Is having leisure time, but nowhere pleasant to spend it

progress?<br>Is having cheap 'gas', but having to commute 50 miles to

work progress?<br>Is having a world economy that relies on an

ever-increasing human population progress<br>Is the exploitation of

80% of the world's inhabitants by the other 20%, progress?<br>Is the

destruction of the diversity of human culture progress?<p>And before

you accuse me of being an unrealistic left-wing do-gooder: I want to

see a more responsible attitude to the environment for purely selfish

reasons. I don't want to spend the rest of my life looking at a

cheaply built brick and concrete jungle, listening to the roar of

traffic, breathing polluted air and eating tasteless food, thanks very

much.<br>Besides, that constant haze of pollution really fucks up the

quality of light in my photographs.