There is an interesting article here: http://www.ecoworld.org/Home/Articles2.cfm?TID=360

It makes an interesting point of about how the 2000 acres is really more than that, and why the fight about drilling in ANWR is about more than just the caribou. Here is a quote from the Editors notes:

 

OK let's address this one point at a time:

1. I know it did not hurt the wildlife in TX because if it did, my family and every family I knew who hunted on almost a daily basis for both food and recreation would have known about it. The oil rigs became a normal part of the landscape. People and animals ADAPT to changes in their environment -they always have.

2. As far as migratory patterns, etc: you think an animal is stupid enough to say, "hey, this road was not here last week, now what the heck do I do to get over there?" No, they just cross the road. I have hit many many animals on TX roads, had a cousin almost killed when he swerved to miss a deer. Animals just cross roads - they don't become a permanent obstacle. YellowStone National Park has roads. Every National Park I have ever been to has roads. Does this eliminate the wildlife? Abolutely not - they adapt as God intended them to do.

3. The pollution a single oil rig puts out will get absorbed by the atmosphere, whether it's in Alsaka, Siberia, Texas, or Ecuador. The only choice is to stop drilling, and we ALL know that's not going to happen.

4. Texas politicians understand where their bread is buttered, unlike some states. Big business deserves extra breaks so they can hire thousands of employees, generate income and stimulate the economy. Texas is not hurting for population, employment, wildlife, or anything else because of oil rigs.

"You're talkin' to an Ole Boy from Texas, and I understand the oil bidness."

 

I don't disagree that animals can adapt. Some do. But we are talking about more than just animals you can hunt. We're talking about all kinds of wildlife.


Surely just because you've seen a deer cross the road you don't really believe that all animals just ignore them. Never mind the fact that most of these species have little exposure to things like trucks, drilling rigs, construction equiptment, etc. The patterns will change.

Its not going to happen as long as car companies aren't forced to improve fuel economy standards for SUVs and commercial vehicles. Each year oil rigs on Alaska's north slope put out more emissions than all of Washington, DC. Something like 70,000 tons or something. The acid rain from this has done lots of damage to the North slope. So why should we do the same to ANWR??

You are right about that one. Enron is such a great example, too.

 

Right, exactly right. And what do you think making a few roads and clearing an area for a drilling rig is going to do to that wildilfe? It will just move and make it's home nearby. Animals are not NEARLY as fragile as some bleeding heart enviros (not calling you that just generalizing) make them out to be.
Sure the patterns will CHANGE, but CHANGE in itself is not a problem from most forms of life, or they would have gone away a long time ago. Survival of the fittest, et al.
There are going for be FAR FAR fewer rigs in ANWR than there are in Alaska. Less than 2000 acres as one person quoted earlier out of 19 million acres. Pimple on an blue whale's butt.
I'm kinda tired of Enron being used as an example of corporate corruption and indicting all corporations for their stupidity and criminal actions. There are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of companies in the USA that are NOT corrupt, so let's not try to say "because Enron was bad ALL are bad." That's just ludicrous (not the Rapper.)

 

I disagree. Many may move, this is true. But what happens when the area where they used to eat and live gets smaller? Their numbers will get smaller (not as much to eat, for example).

Very true. But many species have gone away thanks to humans. You need only look at a list of extinct animals to see that this is true. Did you know that the squirrels that live on the mall in Washington, DC are actually now a different species? They have been isolated in that park for so long (because they can't cross the roads) that their inbreeding has changed them into a unique kind of squirrel.

Yes, 2000 acres is the number they claim. However, this is 2000 acres in a spiderweb fashion, so the effect is actually much greater. If it was just a 2000 acre plot, it wouldn't be quite so bad. The fact that it spreads out makes the effects so much worse, though. The surface area of a spiderweb is very small, but think of the area it can cover... Also this 2000 acres does not include things like gravel roads. Quite a larger impact that just a pimple on a whales butt.

You caught me. That was kinda low on my part. HOWEVER, the energy lobby and our man Dick has proven time and time again that secrecy and money rule the day. Why are we taking environmental risks when we should be investing in better/newer technology (frozen methane under the sea, for example)? We don't HAVE to drill there and we shouldn't be. The message shouldn't be that everything is up for grabs now. It should be that we need to conserve and find a better way. Thankfully, this still has to make it through the house on a budget. The senate and the house rarely seem to agree on these things and there still may be hope for the anti-drilling folks like me.

Also, I just want to say that I love a good debate, and I'm glad this hasn't turned into some childish flame war, like debates tend to do on forums.

 

I'm thinking what will happen is what happens to other species in other areas of the world when humans encroach (as is our right as the supreme species on the planet) - their numbers might reduce, but sometimes that STRENGTHENS the breed because the stronger survive and pass on the "strength genes" to their offspring.

I did not know that about the squirrels, but has that really harmed them? probably not - they are probably a "stronger mutation" than the previous incarnation - and that might have been God's intention, who knows?

Like I said before, every National Park in the USA has roads and trucks and cars and people on some part of it - and they do just fine, as does the wildlife. If not, the greenies might be clamoring for ALL the parks to close. The greenies in particular are just upset about this development A) because they get upset about ANY new use of wild land, and B) the person in the White House they have pegged as "Enviro Enemy Number One" and that's just because he is not in their party. If this was Wild Bill proposing this, they would be complaining MUCH less, and rationalizing the use for him. (at least all the non-kooks among them.)

Sure we should - problem is, no one can agree on WHAT technology to adopt, so the research is going into ALL of them. We spent $2 billion on the EV1 and that died. The Hydrogen solution is a good one, providing technology can be advanced to make it affordable and practical, and there are MANY MILLIONS if not billions being spent on that tack. We cannot ignore our oil needs - they are here, the present, and the immediate future. Why not take some of the burden of our dependence on the Middle East? That's what I see this as - trying to address our issues AT HOME.

I too love a good debate, so this one might go on for a while !!!

 

Indeed it may! So without further adieu, I offer my rebuttal...


First off, just because we have opposable thumbs doesn't give us the right to do anything. "With great power comes great responsibility" I heard somewhere. As for species numbers reducing... you are right. their numbers will reduce. some to the point of extinction.

Well, they are a mutation. I can't say if its stronger or not., just different. My point here was that not all animals can cross the road, as you were saying in a previous post.

Drilling for oil and pumping out tons of noxious gases into the air is much different that running a few roads through national parks. Especially considering the risk of disaster with an oil rig. DId you know that there were over 4,500 spills of toxic fluids between the years of '96 and '04 in the oild fields of Alaska? That kind of thing doesn't happen in state parks. Over 1.9 million gallons were spilled. In the Artic, the green season is much shorter so the environment takes much longer to recover.

Not true! He's enviro-enemy number one because he's:
1. Reduced funding of the EPA and DEP. (I have friends who have lost their jobs due to W).
2. Created a "Clean Skies" act that does exactly the opposite. It allows the energy companies to expand and not have to adhere to pollution regulations.
3. Created a friendly forests initiative that includes "the mechanical treatment of vegetation." READ: Cutting down trees!
4. Pulled the US out of the Kyoto treaty. Some argue this is because it would cause our energy companies to have to clean up their act and then they would have to shutdown (see point #2). I think that's garbage.

I really hate the way people always go back to Bill C. the way you hate people going back to Enron. The W vs. BC debate is a WHOLE other ball of wax that I don't even want to get started on. I'm sure we disagree so, lets stay away from that one if possible, shall we?

I agree this is a problem that needs to be addressed.
If the MPG of each and every SUV out there were raised by only 1.5 mpg, we'd save more oil each year than we'd be able to get out of ANWR. Raise is by nearly 3mpg and we wouldn't need oil from the middle east at all! The auto makers have been lobbying against regulations on fuel efficiency for SUVs and trucks and have been winning! Mercedes and BMW pay fines to the US govt because they make cars that don't even hit CAFE standards! If the law to increase efficiency passes, technology will be there. Exceptions just allow more things like the H2 to keep being made. Quick and dirty fixes, like drilling in ANWR (from which we won't even see oil for something like ten years), do nothing to help, and only increase the risk of environmental disaster. We can address our issues AT HOME by striving for conservation and efficiency.

 

viewpoint. I live in Albany... Texas. We don't complain (out loud) about the price of gas because Albany is one rich little oil town - Population 1921. We got oil all over the durn place (TX talk).

With all this oil, is our environment damaged? Nope. We are one of the most well known hunting areas in the US. People pay thousands per weekend to hunt on our ranches. A & M and many other schools have wildlife studies here.

Our financial environment is certainly great. Because of all the tax money, everything in town has been preserved immaculately. We can even go down to the old drug store and have an old fashion soda.

The world was created for man. Yes, we should be responsible... but not ****.

From the Texas Monthly's favorite small town: I agree with Lars-ss.
Tink

 

I'm not sure I quite understand why people think good hunting == no environmental damage. I can fish in just about any lake or stream, but if you want to eat that fish, look out. You gotta make sure its not chock full of Mercury, otherwise it'll kill you.

 

Find me a news story of anyone ever having died from mercury poisoning from eating a fish. It sounds like you're just one of those people who makes things up and claims the sky is falling without any facts whatsoever. You're not contributing to objective discussion.