sbp

http://www.detnews.com/2003/editoria...a15-269794.htm

The sharp rise in gasoline prices in recent weeks had led to the usual paranoia in certain quarters about a conspiracy on the part of Big Oil to bilk the little guy. Well, there may be a conspiracy afoot. But it's less likely to consist of corporate executives ganging up on the public than of environmental lobbyists who have been openly colluding for decades to block oil exploration, development and refining, one reason dependence on foreign oil has climbed dramatically despite decades of chatter about energy independence.

If radical Greens get their way, blackouts would soon become regular events and our living standards would quickly regress to the level of, say, North Korea. The Bush administration is making a renewed effort to push an energy bill through Congress that, among other things, would open a relatively small part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. But the very thought enrages Greens. In their view, Man is an intruder on Nature — indeed, a cancer on the Earth — and should be banished from such supposed Edens.

Indeed, the wildlife refuge idea sprang not from the brow of government but from a wide variety of private conservation groups, many dating to the mid- to late-19th century. The Audubon Society, for example, which dates back to 1886, was a leader in the sanctuary movement in an effort to protect dwindling numbers of songbirds. The government didn't get into the act until 1903, when — ironically — Audubon pushed Teddy Roosevelt to allow Audubon to take over Pelican Island, a government-owned spit of land off the coast of Florida.

Audubon's goal was to protect brown pelicans, egrets and other showy birds from poachers who were making a tidy fortune selling feathers to women's hat makers. It was even willing to pay for "game wardens" to patrol the island.

Roosevelt refused to sell, however. Instead he turned Pelican Island into the first national wildlife refuge. The federal refuge system, whose centennial is being observed this year, has since grown to 540 preserves covering 95 million acres.

Yet not everybody views this as an unalloyed good. Audubon itself, in a recent article in its magazine, complained that 200 of the federal refuges don't even have on-site staff and that most of the rest are drastically underfunded. R.J. Smith, a former Audubon chapter president in New Jersey who now runs the Washington-based Center for Private Conservation, argues that wildlife might even have been better off if the conservation movement had been mostly left to private hands.

"Government bureaucrats don't make the best stewards of the land," Mr. Smith avers.

Moreover, clashes like that over ANWR might have been averted. The Audubon Society, after all, has occasionally resorted to a mixed-use policy on its own sanctuaries. For example, it allowed oil drilling and production at both its 26,000-acre Paul J. Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary in Louisiana and its 897-acre Bernard W. Baker Sanctuary in Michigan. This raised badly needed funds for other projects and helped pay for first-class management of the reserves themselves.

Mike Boyce, resident manager of the Baker Sanctuary north of Battle Creek, Mich., home to 11 nesting pairs of Greater Sandhill Cranes (and stopover point for thousands of cranes during the fall migration) notes that oil production ended in the 1970s. But by requiring that slant drilling be done from adjacent land and imposing seasonal limits on the activity, the effect on wildlife was negligible.

So herewith a modest proposal: Auction off a portion of ANWR, as well as other federal or state lands that might contain energy resources, to Audubon and other responsible environmental outfits. If they want to maintain the land in so-called pristine condition, fine. At least they would be putting their money where their mouth is.

But they would have a high incentive to permit some drilling, which would have some salutary effects: Americans would gain access to billions of barrels of oil, the flora and fauna would benefit from caring management — and it wouldn't cost taxpayers a cent. And we would spared further tiresome debate over a tiny tract of land in a place that few Americans will ever see.

----------
Sounds good to me.

Ladogaboy

Boo on that one.

Regardless of whether or not we rape the wilderness in order to get more oil, we are still going to run out of petroleum eventually. We might as well get used to that now and adjust as soon as possible. There is no need to disrupt that habitat for something as transient as fossil fuels.

__________________
It is not enough to merely touch the face of god; you also must open your eyes so that you may see your palm.

Airencracken

What about Thermal Depolymerization? I haven't heard anything about that since the discovery article that Infinite nothing brought to my attention.

__________________
"I remember my first orgasm, I just wish someone was there to share it with me..."11-05-2003 05:33 AM - Topane
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, & the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opiate of the masses. - Karl Marx
Hell is other people - Jean-Paul Sartre

sbp

Come now Ladogaboy, you know energy extraction can be done in environmental responsible ways.

This is a win-win-win situation for all involved.

When you get down to it there is really no good reason not to get the energy.

Ladogaboy

Okay, so even if they can send thousands of men and tons of equipment into a wilderness preserve without disrupting the wildlife, they still have to set up a means of transport out. And even if they can find an environmentally safe way to transport the oil through miles of that wilderness without making a huge impact, it still gets shipped somewhere to be refined. Once it is refined, it is then consumed, pollutes the atmosphere, and eventually rains harse chemicals down on the preserve anyway.


I fail to see what the squirrels get out of this.


And also, if you can't go through the winter without needed some sort of fossil fuel to heat your home, maybe you should consider moving to a warmer climate.

bbrian

My wife takes Taekwondo with a guy that owns his own oil reclamation business. He goes all around Oklahoma, Arkanasas, Kanasas, Missourri, Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado cleaning up oil spills. He is a milionare because he says every oil company literally spills hundreds-thousands of gallons of oil a day. He claims that at the average site he can contain all but 5-10% of a spill. A small spill to him is 200 gallons. 10% of that is 20 barrels of oil that he can't clean up.

This happens DAILY.. In the past 10 years he has been in business not a SINGLE day has gone by that they aren't out cleaning up an oil spill. He says it isn't all over the news because it is all within EPA guidlines and as long as the cleanup starts and is finished within a certain timeframe and enough of the oil is cleaned up then there's nothing illegal.

His only comment about it (he won't say a whole lot) is that he's glad it isn't in his back yard.

Ponca City, OK has one of Conoco-Phillips' gasoline refineries. Ponca City also has a Carbon Black plant which processes waste from the gasoline refinery to make carbon black which is used to make car tires. Both compainies' refineries have been creating huge problems for the south side of town. Go to google and search for ("Ponca City" sludge). The only reason I'm not linking directly to anything is so that you can see the huge amount of information that google returns on the subject.

You'll find some pretty pictures of the sludge that makes it's way into the Arkansas river, which feeds into the Mississippi. People that live in the south end of town have had their basements FILL with sludge. How would you like to have THAT in your house? The EPA has been out ther and some of it has been cleaned up. However it has already contaminated the water around there and you can't dig more than a few feet into the ground without finding sludge.

My point in all of this? Don't let the government fool you that there's anything environmentally friendly about the EPA standards or anything to do with fossil fuels. The EPA is persuaded by Oil Companies just like the rest of the government it.

Also notice that the sanctuary in the story that decided to allow oil exploration on their lands did so because of the money that they got. In other words, they were bought out. I'd like to know if they were offered the same amount of money from someone else if they would have taken it over the oil companies' offer.

sbp

It is not possible for everyone to move into a climate that is warm all year around. Anyways even those in warm climates need energy.

Putting locks on perfectly viable energy sources well...that doesn't make sense. But then again for many greenies out there its not about making sense, its about hysteria.

We are already seeing the damage of not developing energy sources that is being created-in short a crisis is looming. And this will only worsen. Folks will not enjoy increasing blackouts caused by NIMBYism and greenie intransigence.

A prime example of NIMBYism is Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy putting the brakes on a project that would produce wind energy. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/22...nd_farm+.shtml
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily...3/a14op070.htm

Yes, it seems silly to not get the energy when its just sitting there, especially when its in a desolate area. And the money from the sale of ANWR can be used for the children.

bbrian

You're right, but you can say that because it isn't in your back yard. There are better areas than Nantucket sound to put up wind farms. An example is western Oklahoma. They are installing a HUGE wind farm out there. Is there opposition? Not that I'm aware of, because there's not much out there but farms and a wind farm won't be in the way of farmers.

There are benefits to having a wind farm in Nantucket sound, but there are also draw backs. Lots of tourists go out there because of the natural beauty and wild life. The wind farms will take away from that. Will tourists go to Nantucket sound to look at a wind farm? I doubt it. Now they will have cheap power (not that they are having power problems to begin with), but the downturn in tourism will mean they won't be better off. The Republican party is against alternative sources of energy. They just like to bring up the wind farms in Nantucket sound because some big-name democrats are against it too.

I think the only hysteria is from the Republican party wanting to open up oil exploration to bring in more money for the oil companies. During the California rolling blackouts there was available power that could be sent to CA, but CA didn't want to pay the premiums for it.

If the government spent half the time supporting alternative fuels as they do supporting oil, we wouldn't be dependant on foreign oil. I'd be willing to bet we wouldn't be dependant on oil at all. However, as long as oil companies are lobbying government, that won't happen.

bbrian

I re-read your original post.. You've GOT to be kidding me:

Wildlife Refuges don't have onsite staff? Uh YEAH, it's a refuge. Wildlife doesn't need tour guides, handicapped parking, or other ameneties that people need. In a refuge there shouldn't be ANY buildings.. it is supposed to be an UNTOUCHED PROTECTED area for wildlife to go to. It amazes me that 340 refuges DO have on-site staff. That's a waste of money.


Yup, again if it's a refuge not many people should be seeing it or it defeats the purpose.

All of this coming from a columnist in Detroit who has probably never been to any of the areas he's talking about. He's acustomed to seeing industrial complexes, pollution, and no wildlife. He's not worried about his backyard because it is has already been raped by industry.

Ladogaboy

There are a lot of other viable energy sources as well, but people have just stopped looking. The oil reserves are going to run out regardless of whether we use the oil on refuges or not, so why not just come to terms with that fact and get it over with. Damn, it's like trying to tear a baby from the womb sometimes. It can't stay there forever, but it doesn't want to come out.

Oh, and bbrian:

bbrian

thanks