edela_rothman Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 FYI. <p> For those who have helped in this effort, keep up the good work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_boulware Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psychophoto Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik_asgeirsson Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alec1 Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 "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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal_santamaura Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_kadillak6 Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psychophoto Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alec1 Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_c._miller Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 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.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_gould Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_williams3 Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan brewer Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed_candland1 Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per_volquartz1 Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 Is it a bit hot in here tonight or is it just me??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bird Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_oulman Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 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!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil_poulsen1 Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan brewer Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alec1 Posted April 18, 2002 Share Posted April 18, 2002 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_oulman Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 Johnathan,<BR>Check yer email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chad_jarvis1 Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_andrews Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 <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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now