Oil: 1 Anwr: 0 (2 Viewers)

[Blackstart]

Oil: 1 ANWR: 0

The US Senate voted yesterday to open a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for oil drilling (the legislation, by the way, was buried in a budget bill).

Articles here:

http://www.savearcticrefuge.org/sections/pr110305.html

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2005/2005-11-03-10.asp

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/politics/04spend.html

To see how your esteemed public servant voted:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00303

Time to rev up that SUV and celebrate!

-Adam

 

[Jane Turner]

That's dreadful news Adam.

 

[Blackstart]

It is dreadful, indeed.

The US House of Representatives will vote next week on the budget, so I suppose there is one last glimmer of hope left.

-Adam

 

[Jane Turner]

I wouldn't hold your breath. Using fossil fuels is bad enough - but desecrating a natural refuge to do it is outrageous.

 

[Grousemore]

I read the following in one of your links:-

Drilling in the wildlife refuge is a priority for President Bush, who says it would increase the supply of oil and gas. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said Thursday's action took the nation "one more giant step toward the possibility of oil exploration and development on a tiny sliver of Alaska's coastal plain."

I know how long will it remain a tiny sliver if large quantities of oil are found!

 

[Jane Turner]

Of course if enough fossil fuels are burned there is every chance that it will cease to be tundra anyway

 

[Grousemore]

Adam's first link contains a 'TAKE ACTION' link for those Americans wanting to register their opposition.

https://secure2.convio.net/dow/site...akeACall&JServSessionIdr001=tr8qbbu5w1.app13a

 

[Dimitris]

Can't we have a petition on this?PlEaseeeee!(were's David?)....

 

[Blackstart]

Lots of good info here:

http://www.wilderness.org/OurIssues/Arctic/index.cfm?TopLevel=Home

Including a page on the "sliver":

http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/2000AcreHoax200510.pdf

-Adam

 

[Tyke]

Lots of good info here:

http://www.wilderness.org/OurIssues/Arctic/index.cfm?TopLevel=Home

Including a page on the "sliver":

http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/2000AcreHoax200510.pdf

-Adam

Thanks Adam-its all horrendous.

Couldn't supress a wry smile on reading the methodology for measuring the "footprint" though-Ignore roads & other infrastructure.Ignore spaces between direct footprints which constitute wildlife exclusion & disturbance zones.etc etc.
This is a tried & tested confidence trick in the energy industry it seems.
By this method you could reduce the size of any forest area by 75% on paper ,by calculating only the surface area of the tree trunk cross sections!

Colin

 

[Grousemore]

I really thought this news would generate more reaction, particularly from American Members.

Apathy?...or thank goodness we'll have another source of oil soon?

Probably more like, let's not discuss serious issues on Birdforum, thus avoiding the inevitable backlash.

 

[Keith Reeder]

I share your surprise and disappoinment, Grousemore - however I've only just looked at it myself, simply because the title didn't have an immediate resonance for me.

Blackstart, is it worth editing/renaming the thread title to something like "Bush to turn Alaska into giant oil refinery - do something about it or kiss it goodbye", or somesuch?

 

[Blackstart]

I really thought this news would generate more reaction, particularly from American Members.

Apathy?...or thank goodness we'll have another source of oil soon?

Probably more like, let's not discuss serious issues on Birdforum, thus avoiding the inevitable backlash.

Perhaps it's not apathy, but the fact that the environment has become a partisan issue in the US. One generally knows how one's representative will vote, simply based on his/her party affiliation. That being said, there are a number of Republican representatives who are apparently prepared to vote against the current budget bill containing the ANWR legislation. Whether the number of them is big enough to have an impact, though, remains to be seen.

All US representatives, irrespective of party, should be encouraged to vote against this legislation. Those who don't know who represents them can find out here:

http://www.house.gov/

-Adam

 

[Katy Penland]

As one of the US members here, part of the reason I don't respond to most of the posts here on BF that have to do with US politics and non-birding conservation/ethics issues is simply because I'm either already involved in other forums that deal specifically with them, have already done something about the issue at hand, or don't feel that it's appropriate for discussion here. I'm speaking for myself now, not as a moderator, and Admin may have another take on this, but my understanding is that this forum is for discussing the conservation and ethics of birding, as the forum description itself reads, not every environmental issue that comes down the pike. But maybe that's just me and I'm reading it wrong. :h?:

 

[Blackstart]

To reduce this topic to one of politics is problematic. It is a conservation topic, and a global one at that.

The title of this forum reads "Conservation and Ethics". That is why I posted the thread here. Perhaps the subtitle needs to be more specific, as I have no idea what is meant by the "conservation of birding".

If you are suggesting that this particular forum is no place to post about the conservation of wildlife habitat, I kindly ask you to point me to a more proper one within BirdForum. Or are you suggesting that BirdForum in general is no place to bring up issues affecting the conservation of wildlife habitat, something that should be near and dear to the hearts of all birders?

-Adam

 

[TexasFlyway]

I really thought this news would generate more reaction, particularly from American Members.

Apathy?...or thank goodness we'll have another source of oil soon?

Probably more like, let's not discuss serious issues on Birdforum, thus avoiding the inevitable backlash.

Apathy? No. I think there have been vigirous debates on this issue over a score of years in this country, and now it has come down to voting time.

Fear of ..."inevitable backlash?" From whom? The members of this forum? Are they going to say nasty things and hurt our feelings? Please, it's just rhetoric.

Perhaps we actually know what is going on here, know who are representatives are, know how we stand and are content with letting the political process work without having further discussions.

 

[Jaeger01]

I really thought this news would generate more reaction, particularly from American Members.

Apathy?...or thank goodness we'll have another source of oil soon?

Probably more like, let's not discuss serious issues on Birdforum, thus avoiding the inevitable backlash.

I felt I had done and doing what I could already. Besides, I don't think the "shrubbies" have a chance in "h..l" of winning again in the next 8 years after the next election if he lasts that long. So we'll have a more environmental friendly administration before any drilling takes place (that's about 5 years away no matter how you look at it and they say 10 years away).

Jaeger near Chicago

 

[Tyke]

To reduce this topic to one of politics is problematic. It is a conservation topic, and a global one at that.

-Adam

I know how you feel Adam, but politics is inevitable. Just a few minutes Googling shows how complex an issue this is , if you accept for a moment, that economics & politics is involved.:-

Support for drilling includes the Teamsters, and local Inuit populations because of jobs.
There is considerable disagreement on the habitat value of the Northern Slope.
Audubon Society ( an objector) compromised by allowing drilling-for royalties-in their own reserves.
The economic imperatives for the US on fuel security are increasing-as for UK
The price of oil is rising-so economically recoverable reserves are too.

etc. etc.

I'm not condoning it-quite the oppposite. I just wonder what proportion of the USA's massive consumption of oil & gas the ANWR resource actually represents when you get down to it, and whether the trade off is justified.

Can't we have just one place on the planet that's left for wildlife alone, without exploitation-or tourists!

It's a rhetorical question though-today's tv news included a report that the Galapagos has been opened to mass tourism!

Oil-tourism-logging-palm oil-whatever. We will destroy all our wildlife habitats eventually, because someone, somewhere will have an economic interest in so doing.And if we're honest-that includes all of us in some way or another.

Colin

 

[DavidP]

I really thought this news would generate more reaction, particularly from American Members.

Apathy?...or thank goodness we'll have another source of oil soon?

Probably more like, let's not discuss serious issues on Birdforum, thus avoiding the inevitable backlash.

I hope that they manage to avoid doing this but I wonder in the long term whether thats an option. After all at some point in the not too far future oil is going to be far more expensive than it already is with the rise of demand in the emerging industrial powers.
I also think its easy and convenient to paint the US as the bad guy in all enviromental issues which undoubtably it is in some areas notably energy consumption. However not all is gloom and doom. Travelling back and forth from the US to UK a lot I see far more hybrid cars on California freeways than on UK ones (I believe the sales figures for last year were 62,000 Toyota prius's in US, 5,000 in UK). In California theres talk of imposing 30% CO2 emmision cuts on automobiles, installing solar systems in a million homes.

I also am immensely impressed by the land area given over the public land, parks, forests etc here. In California it amounts I believe to about 30% of the land are as parks, forests, deserts etc. A lot of that is due to geography and history but still that amounts to the land area of England largely available to wildlife. By contrast the Uk appears over populated and devoid of any large natural areas left alone, even the national parks are by and large managed farmed landscapes.

 

[Blackstart]

I just wonder what proportion of the USA's massive consumption of oil & gas the ANWR resource actually represents when you get down to it, and whether the trade off is justified.

3% in 2025 is the estimate. Hardly energy independence for the US (an excuse being used to drill) by any stretch of the imagination.

Certainly, a 3% increase in automobile fuel efficiency (or reduction in petrol use) is the more desirable option.

-Adam