Oil: 1 Anwr: 0 (1 Viewer)

[Blackstart]

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.

The effect on price is expected to be negligible, something in the neighborhood of one cent per gallon in 2025.

http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/PennyaGallon20yrs1.pdf

-Adamhttp://www.house.gov/

 

[Tyke]

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

That does it for me then Adam-not justified.

Colin

 

[Katy Penland]

... 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

This thread may have been started out of concern for birds or wildlife, but not a single subsequent post even mentions birds (except for mine and Adam's immediate reply to it) nor is there any discussion how birds will be impacted.
Birds are only one victim associated with opening up a wildlife refuge, yet this thread has been aimed solely at US consumption, US politics, US oil/gas prices, US oil extraction, etc., and why US BF members aren't responding.

Don't get me wrong, I think Congress is taking a criminally negligent action by trying to open up ANWR, but I don't happen to think BirdForum is the place to be hashing this out. BirdForum is about primarily birds (except for a few other wildlife and equipment forums). Anyway, as I already said, Admin may have a different take on how the Conservation and Ethics forum is used, but as long as it says "...of birding" I think any other discussions are off-topic and, frankly, not worth the time of getting into yet another polarizing thread about the US and its heinous environmental record/practices and politics, which is exactly what this thread is doing.

I'd suggest that if you want more US BF members to participate in threads like this, how about discussing specifics of which bird species will be impacted and how, the trickle-down effect on migration, populations, habitat, etc., quote from the Environmental Impact studies that have been done, etc. I.e., the ecological -- not political -- implications. It would not only be far more interesting and less depressing for North American members, but it would also be very educational.

 

[Tyke]

"In California theres talk of imposing 30% CO2 emmision cuts on automobiles, installing solar systems in a million homes. "

Saw that on our news David-one up to Arnie & way ahead of the political cowardice in this country-but the folks there don't seem to like him anymore?

"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."

I think land area in UK which is ring fenced from development/exploitation is around 10%. This includes not only National Parks, but significant areas owned or managed by National Trust/RSPB/ County Wildlife Trusts etc. In England much of this may well be tenanted by farmers-but they are all using modern environmentally sensitive methods dictated by these Conservation Landowners.
We don't have large tracts of wilderness left in England. As you say we are increasingly over populated. But in Wales & Scotland there is wilderness left. Sadly that too is under attack just now.

Colin

 

[Edward woodwood]

if it stops the need for overseas forays for oil it might save a few thousand human lives

but it wont

so......, horrendous idea, goes without saying

http://www.gregpalast.com/

 

[walwyn]

Population densisty is interesting the UK has 8 times more people per sq kilometre (243) than the US (30). Most of which I believe are clustered around its coastline.

 

[Blackstart]

Population densisty is interesting the UK has 8 times more people per sq kilometre (243) than the US (30). Most of which I believe are clustered around its coastline.

Fascinating, but what does this have to do with oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

-Adam

 

[walwyn]

Fascinating, but what does this have to do with oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

Its a response to two contributors discussion on population and wilderness vis-avis the UK and US. In the US they have vast tracts of land that are mostly uninhabited. So whereas in the UK most of us would be concerned about the loss of a any wild space the concern is not so great in the US - there is still plenty more left.

It probably also goes a way to account for why there is such a polarisation of opinion in the US on the issue.

 

[Tyke]

Somewhat guiltily in response to Katy , and Adam's thread :-

http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/ANWR.htm

Has there actually been an EIA for the proposed drilling area?

...but I don't see how you can discuss conservation of birds without trying to understand why the habitat involved is under threat.Since threat by human action is always due to exploitation of some sort, aren't you bound to touch on social & political issues?

I have great sympathy with the irritation expressed in your second paragraph Katy-there are some very "holier than thou" attitudes in UK on conservation matters.

Colin

 

[DavidP]

Fascinating, but what does this have to do with oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

-Adam

Nothing really, but I think its interesting that people in Uk tend to castigate other governments both in US and others (Brazil etc) when they've already exploited their own country to the fullest. I wonderwhat would happen if they found a huge oil reserve under the Lake District, there's already oil develolments at Wytch farm in a fairly sensitive area. Whilst I'm not in favour of the ANWR development at least there are places in US that are preserved to a degree that is not seen in many countries, first national park in the world etc.

In the long term I think its inevitable that it will be developed, but perhaps technology would come to the rescue, offshore oil rigs that can stand the sea ice. The political pressue will only increase with increasing oil prices, imagine oil at $200 a barrel which as scarcity increases will probbaly happen, even after we've switched to other transportation technologies, oil is still going to be in wide demand for its many other uses.

 

[Blackstart]

Nothing really, but I think its interesting that people in Uk tend to castigate other governments both in US and others (Brazil etc) when they've already exploited their own country to the fullest. I wonderwhat would happen if they found a huge oil reserve under the Lake District, there's already oil develolments at Wytch farm in a fairly sensitive area. Whilst I'm not in favour of the ANWR development at least there are places in US that are preserved to a degree that is not seen in many countries, first national park in the world etc.

In the long term I think its inevitable that it will be developed, but perhaps technology would come to the rescue, offshore oil rigs that can stand the sea ice. The political pressue will only increase with increasing oil prices, imagine oil at $200 a barrel which as scarcity increases will probbaly happen, even after we've switched to other transportation technologies, oil is still going to be in wide demand for its many other uses.

Again: 3% of total US oil consumption at peak production in 2025, and a savings of a penny a gallon.

http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/PennyaGallon20yrs1.pdf

And the technology argument is specious at best.

http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/NorthSlopeTechnologyScam.pdf

Drilling in the ANWR is inevitable as long as people think its inevitable and don't do something about it. Changing one's personal petrol use is a good place to start - is lowering consumption by 3% too much to ask?

As for the US versus UK debate, it was not my intention that this thread would lead in that direction, and it is, in fact, irrelevant how much public land the US has versus the UK, how many national parks, etc. It's apples and oranges and takes attention away from the issue at hand.

-Adam

 

[walwyn]

As for the US versus UK debate, it was not my intention that this thread would lead in that direction, and it is, in fact, irrelevant how much public land the US has versus the UK, how many national parks, etc. It's apples and oranges and takes attention away from the issue at hand.

But it is inevitable that it will turn in that direction. The US members know it, and as Katy has said its why they are reticent to discuss such matters here.

You simply can't discuss this outside of the political situation in the US which is completely polarized at the moment with very little common ground between the two main parties.

In addition you have DavidP's observation:

I think its interesting that people in Uk tend to castigate other governments both in US and others (Brazil etc) when they've already exploited their own country to the fullest. I wonderwhat would happen if they found a huge oil reserve under the Lake District
​

which needs answering. What gives Europeans the right to tell others not to do something that Europeans have already done themselves?

 

[Grousemore]

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?:

I always try to avoid discussing politics, which in any event used to be prohibited on BF. This is a conservation issue which will doubtless affect migratory birds, so, to me, is relevant to the purpose of this forum.

As far as going off-topic is concerned, it is so widespread now that the Thread title and Forum name is largely irrelevant.A good example being a Thread mainly about the environment and ANWR, entitled 'Kenn Kaufman' which currently resides in the Binoculars forum!

 

[Blackstart]

What gives Europeans the right to tell others not to do something that Europeans have already done themselves?

Wouldn't these same Europeans, if they are conservationists, be just as against oil drilling of the ANWR kind in their own country? I think they would.

At any rate, I understand David's logic: "You ruined your country. Now let us ruin ours."

I may reside in Europe at the moment, but I carry a US passport. So I, for one, in this instance, am not someone from one continent telling someone from another continent what to do.

-Adam

 

[walwyn]

Wouldn't these same Europeans, if they are conservationists, be just as against oil drilling of the ANWR kind in their own country? I think they would.

Not all of them are conservationists, and as you'll know conservationists in the US are seen as liberal, leftists and best. Communist, and anti-american at worst.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=anwr

 

[DavidP]

At any rate, I understand David's logic: "You ruined your country. Now let us ruin ours."

-Adam

I'm not advocating that at all and I hope it does get saved and would vote accordingly. I was just putting forward the argument. I just think the political pressure will only increase with population projected to grow from 282 in 2000 to 419 million by 2050 http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/natprojtab01a.pdf
I believe the UK pop will also grow but thankfully not at that rate.
I agree that the respite from it will be pretty minor but at some point oil is going to get even rarer and will be useful even after we've gone for petrol cars to electric hydrogen or whatever.

I just sometimes think that the US gets portrayed as being anti environment and having lived in both sides of the atlantic I think they should get credit for some of the policies that do exist and the large tracts of land that are given over to reserves, parks etc, certainly make birding here quite enjoyable. However maybe this is a western states thing.

There was a great programme the other week where 2 canadians followed the porcupine herd of caribou to the calving grounds in ANWR, we're lucky to have such wide wilderness expanses still present allowing one of the last wild migrations to happen.

 

[walwyn]

I just sometimes think that the US gets portrayed as being anti environment and having lived in both sides of the atlantic I think they should get credit for some of the policies that do exist and the large tracts of land that are given over to reserves, parks etc, certainly make birding here quite enjoyable. However maybe this is a western states thing.

Its worth remembering that Environmental Impact Assessments were pioneered by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Though in recent years there have been complaints about it becoming politicised:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7004259/

 

[TexasFlyway]

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

Colin

O.K. How about Great Britain ?

 

[Tyke]

O.K. How about Great Britain ?

I had in mind somewhere a little less covered in concrete & people.

Anyway Wind Turbines are officially more important than wildlife here now so I think Alaska would be better.

Colin

 

[Edward woodwood]

I had in mind somewhere a little less covered in concrete & people.

Anyway Wind Turbines are officially more important than wildlife here now so I think Alaska would be better.

Colin[/QUOTE

dear me

what a one track mind you have

you after Mark's 'crown' Colin?

there's a wind farm thread for that sort of stuff

btw there's a hell of a lot of space in the Amazon still, few hours on a boat and you can be totally alone under the stars with just potoos and rum for company

Tim