Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
MooseAndSquirrel Member
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 Posts: 2036 | TRs | Pics
|
Thank you to our representatives who listened, and especially those who crossed party lines to vote no.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Captain Trips Member
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 Posts: 437 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Captain Trips
Member
|
Fri Mar 21, 2003 11:28 am
cracks in the armor !
|
|
|
We're making dents in the Republican strangle-hold !
Fight The Power !
|
Back to top |
|
|
Backpacker Joe Blind Hiker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics Location: Cle Elum |
Oh please, all you nay sayers claimed that the first pipe line would destroy Alaska! All the typical bad news crowd said how the caribou would be destroyed because of it. There are MORE caribou today than before the damn thing went in!
We need to be more self reliant. ANWR will be used for that self reliance.
Why not let the people in alaska decide? Hmm, it's there bloody state!
Damn feds ONCE AGAIN over stepping their authority by not recognizing the 10th amendment!
"Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
This is a states rights issue as much as it is anything. The people of Alaska WANT to open ANWR.
So do I.
TB
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
|
Back to top |
|
|
MCaver Founder
Joined: 14 Dec 2001 Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
|
|
MCaver
Founder
|
Sat Mar 22, 2003 10:32 am
|
|
|
Funny, BPJ. I didn't hear you complaining about the Article X when Ashcroft said he'd prosecute Oregon if they passed an assisted suicide initiaive, or Nevada if they passed a legal marijuana initiative, or California if they passed a zero emissions initiative. Selective memory, or do you support him on those issues?
As far as being more self-reliant, the first step should be to increase minimum fuel efficiency standards, particuarly for so-called "light trucks" like SUVs. The studies I've seen have showed that meager increases in fuel efficiency would do more to lower our dependency on foreign oil than drilling in ANWR. Conservation is good policy and good for the environment, but this administration only seems interested in digging up the same amount from somewhere else. If all efforts to conserve were made and we still had a large dependecy on foreign energy sources, then I might be for something like ANWR, but I just don't see it as the right course of action. We should be looking at ways of getting off fossil fuels anyway, not just digging for more and calling it good.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Backpacker Joe Blind Hiker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics Location: Cle Elum |
Have ANY of those topics been posted to this board? How could you hear me say jack outside of this board?
I support states rights! If I dont agree with what's going on in my state, I can work to change it or move to a state that follows more of my ideoligy!
Why should be be "off" of fossil fuels? What are we going to be "on" if we get away from fossil fuels?
Look, this is mute, the WORLD depends on oil, period. That isnt going to change in our life time. Even if everyone started now, we'd never see it.
Alaska wants to open ANWR, it's their state, let them.
TB
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
|
Back to top |
|
|
MCaver Founder
Joined: 14 Dec 2001 Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
|
|
MCaver
Founder
|
Sat Mar 22, 2003 11:47 am
|
|
|
Backpacker Joe wrote: | Have ANY of those topics been posted to this board? |
I have mentioned these topics several times in other threads, in response to your own posts if I remember correctly.
Backpacker Joe wrote: | Why should be be "off" of fossil fuels? What are we going to be "on" if we get away from fossil fuels? [T]he WORLD depends on oil, period. That isnt going to change in our life time. Even if everyone started now, we'd never see it. |
I disagree. We could have significant replacement of the oil/coal based power grid with wind, solar and geothermal power in a matter of a decade or so. The latest advancements in electric and fuel cell cars show that the technology is progressing for transportation as well. Saying should rely on oil because we already do or the whole world does is defeatist, IMO. And that still doesn't address the question of conservation that I raised.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Backpacker Joe Blind Hiker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics Location: Cle Elum |
The conservation issue to moot too. Conservation is a naturally evolving thing. Even SUV's get better fuel mileage than cars and trucks did 10-25 years ago! That ofcourse doesnt consider ALL the other vehicles that are getting way better mileage than the average car did then.
My Volkswagen jetta gets 55+ MPG on average. My toyota land cruiser gets over 30MPG. Jeep is bringing in next year a turbo diesel Liberty that will average 30mpg.
Seems to me the conservation is happening, just not as fast as you would like.
If you think we have the technology yet, or will have in the next ten years to replace oil, or n. gas, with solar or wind your wrong! It's n o where near ready.
TB
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
|
Back to top |
|
|
polarbear- Guest
|
|
polarbear-
Guest
|
Sat Mar 22, 2003 1:25 pm
|
|
|
Quote: | We could have significant replacement of the oil/coal based power grid with wind, solar and geothermal power in a matter of a decade or so. |
I guess the key word is could, but I tend to agree with Top Secret Agent Pittsburgh on that one.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sore Feet Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 6304 | TRs | Pics Location: Out There, Somewhere |
My take is this:
A - ANWR was set aside specificly to leave the land as is. Opening such a protected area could set a precident for opening other protected areas, such as designated wildernesses or national parks, to the same such acts (think the Everglades).
B - As said before, there are plenty of other ways to ease this country's dependance on oil (fuel cells, higher emissions standards, better milage for bigger vehicles, etc).
C - Most studies of ANWR concluded that there is roughtly enough oil to sustain the US as it is today for a 6 month period, but even if drilling were to commence today, it wouldn't reach the market for 10 years.
I agree with BPJ on the states rights issue, but I can see the reasoning in letting the government make the decision here, since ANWR is administered at a national level. I'm happy with the outcome, none the less.
|
Back to top |
|
|
MooseAndSquirrel Member
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 Posts: 2036 | TRs | Pics
|
As Sore Feet said, ANWR was set aside so that actions like oil drilling wouldn't be allowed. To me that is the crux of the situation and why environmental-minded folks are up in arms about potential drilling there. Look at what was allowed to happen in Yosemite Nat'l Pk. years ago in the Hetch Hetchy Valley, when the federal government allowed the building of a dam & subsequent reservoir in a national park ! A growing San Francisco needed more water so political wheeling & dealing was done to get the dam built in the 1910's. In the mid-60's only a much-regretted compromise by opponents to locating a dam in Grand Canyon N.P. prevented it and another Lake Powell to flood that part of the Grand Canyon (they wouldn't fight a dam being built in Glen Canyon instead). I think the argument that today's SUVs get better mileage than comparable ( or many of the) vehicles of the recent past is a weak one. Imagine what the average national mpg would be if you eliminate half of the SUVs. Our unfathomable obsession with bigger & bigger truck-like vehicles disturbs me. What happened to the "greener" direction we were going as a nation? Remember also when there was at least an attempt to have bumpers on cars (albeit 5mph ones)- but that's another issue!
|
Back to top |
|
|
|