Monday, February 14, 2005

Other enviro news

Expanded drilling in Alaska
"While most of the 22 million-acre reserve is open to oil development, its lake-pocked northeastern corner has been fenced off, dating back to the Reagan administration, because of environmental concerns. That area also is viewed as having the highest oil and gas potential within the reserve."

My question is when is enough? I suspect that since the flood gates have already opened it will only be a matter of time. On the other hand, the oil industry might show gratitude to the Administration for all the favors by leaving the untampered northeastern for the people.

"Most of the federal petroleum reserve was opened for oil drilling during the Clinton administration, although then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt fenced off 840,000 acres, including the area around Lake Teshekpuk. Norton expanded drilling in the reserve last year, but also left the northeastern section alone."

Very generous of the Interior Secretary. Gale Norton has a horrific environmental record. One of the "key players" which I hope to expose in later posts. (Though others have already done so.)

Fourth-warmest year on record

8 comments:

Lo said...

If that region is exploited, then the world's ecologically enlightened will have only, what, a few hundred million acres of pristine land to enjoy? Our total development of this continent might skyrocket all the way up to eight or even nine percent. Someday, perhaps -- some terrible, terrible day -- the US government will have to make do with owning only a quarter of the state of Alaska, instead of a third. Other States might take upon themselves the wholly regressive notion that their land is, well, their land.

To make things, worse, people (especially the poor) would enjoy lower gas prices and generally lower costs of living -- something that no true progressive or conservationist could condone. The people deserve to pay more for costly and inefficient "alternative" (euphemism for "last resort") energy sources; it's for their own good, after all.

What's more, tens of thousands of oil workers will be cruelly kicked off the unemployment rolls and into exceptionally well-paying (if dangerous) jobs. Caribou populations would prosper even more, outraging those environmentalists (who perhaps were beat up by a caribou as a child) with a personal grudge against Alaskan caribou. Native Alaskan peoples would flourish from the influx of revenue, adding to the total number of victims shoved out of the welfare line.

And as a final tragedy, the US would stop being dependent on scum regimes around the world -- yet another circumstance that must drive the enlightened to tears.

Bouncie said...

The Bush Administration has rolled back the clocks to a dependence on gas and only gas as a vehicle choice considering the "alternative" fuel progress has been dampened by cuts for the sake of its oil-friendly commitments. This alone is another example of the conservative movements talk of how in America you have the freedom of choice, yet the Administration implements controlling favors to the oil industry to reap as much profits by dousing other alternatives, and therefore, competition.

"And as a final tragedy, the US would stop being dependent on scum regimes around the world -- yet another circumstance that must drive the enlightened to tears."

I doubt those against drilling have that intention.

"The people deserve to pay more for costly and inefficient "alternative" (euphemism for "last resort") energy sources; it's for their own good, after all."

Well of course those "alternative" sources would cost more because they sit in the minority of the market. As its market expands, so too would the prices decline. And I'm not certain hybrid or fuel cell are inefficient.

Bouncie said...

The Bush Administration has rolled back the clocks to a dependence on gas and only gas as a vehicle choice considering the "alternative" fuel progress has been dampened by cuts for the sake of its oil-friendly commitments. This alone is another example of the conservative movements talk of how in America you have the freedom of choice, yet the Administration implements controlling favors to the oil industry to reap as much profits by dousing other alternatives, and therefore, competition.

"And as a final tragedy, the US would stop being dependent on scum regimes around the world -- yet another circumstance that must drive the enlightened to tears."

I doubt those against drilling have that intention.

"The people deserve to pay more for costly and inefficient "alternative" (euphemism for "last resort") energy sources; it's for their own good, after all."

Well of course those "alternative" sources would cost more because they sit in the minority of the market. As its market expands, so too would the prices decline. And I'm not certain hybrid or fuel cell are inefficient.

Bouncie said...

The Bush Administration has rolled back the clocks to a dependence on gas and only gas as a vehicle choice considering the "alternative" fuel progress has been dampened by cuts for the sake of its oil-friendly commitments. This alone is another example of the conservative movements talk of how in America you have the freedom of choice, yet the Administration implements controlling favors to the oil industry to reap as much profits by dousing other alternatives, and therefore, competition.

"And as a final tragedy, the US would stop being dependent on scum regimes around the world -- yet another circumstance that must drive the enlightened to tears."

I doubt those against drilling have that intention.

"The people deserve to pay more for costly and inefficient "alternative" (euphemism for "last resort") energy sources; it's for their own good, after all."

Well of course those "alternative" sources would cost more because they sit in the minority of the market. As its market expands, so too would the prices decline. And I'm not certain hybrid or fuel cell are inefficient.

Lo said...

The market for last resort -- oops, I mean "alternative" ;) -- energy systems can only "expand" unless people are willing to pay more for them.

Folks like yourself seem to want to FORCE people to pay more. The free market demand for such obviously isn't there.

As for those against the agenda to stop being dependent on foreign oil: it doesn't matter what their intentions are. The end result is that we are still dependent on foreign oil. The United States economy runs on cheap oil; if that sounds unacceptable, let me turn that around: prosperity will suffer if oil becomes more expensive, or, worse, we're forced via government fiat to try (ahem) alternative energy sources.

I repeat: the economy will suffer if we don't have cheap oil.

Since environmentalists are unable to convince people to pay more for energy, and cannot influence wealthy scum/oil regimes to stop selling us cheap oil, we end up with a situation in which we are dependent on foreign oil from scummy regimes. Period. Regardless of said environmentalists' *intentions*.

The most they are able to do is to suppress jobs for oil workers, economically depress Native American reservations, and protect deap oceans and valuable permafrozen, near-lifeless tundra from exploitation. Oh, sweet progress.

It is one of the main moral weaknesses of liberalism that it values "intentions" over results.

Bouncie said...

"Folks like yourself seem to want to FORCE people to pay more. The free market demand for such obviously isn't there."

Of course not. Again, one of the reasons the demand isn't there is because everytime an "alternative" has thought to been introduced, the powers that be have placed their *influence* in ways that would not exactly make it in to a childrens bedtime story.

"As for those against the agenda to stop being dependent on foreign oil: it doesn't matter what their intentions are. The end result is that we are still dependent on foreign oil. The United States economy runs on cheap oil; if that sounds unacceptable, let me turn that around: prosperity will suffer if oil becomes more expensive, or, worse, we're forced via government fiat to try (ahem) alternative energy sources.

I repeat: the economy will suffer if we don't have cheap oil."

I understand that. The idea is to slowly widdle away at something that will run out eventually. And because the said powers have no interest in thinking of the time when our dependence on an alternative is truly needed, they in fact will be creating the very economical hazards the extremist greens are doing currently. I think there is enough fault to go around.

Lo said...

>Of course not. Again, one of the reasons the demand isn't there is because everytime an "alternative" has thought to been introduced, the powers that be have placed their *influence* in ways that would not exactly make it in to a childrens bedtime story.<

That's certainly possible. But why contemplate (as I'm assuming you're doing) government enforcement of "alternatives" onto the market?

>I understand that. The idea is to slowly whittle away at something that will run out eventually.<
Indeed. But the "running out" will only happen concomitantly with rising oil prices. Introducing things onto the market before their time --- before the market decides that it's time -- is counter-productive.


>And because the said powers have no interest in thinking of the time when our dependence on an alternative is truly needed, they in fact will be creating the very economical hazards the extremist greens are doing currently. I think there is enough fault to go around.<

Only the market can decide when it will "need" some technology or resource; when oil becomes truly scarce, people (the market) will turn to alternatives because they'll be relatively cheaper.

PS What are these magical alternatives that somehow possess the same (if not superior) energy density, efficiency, and cost effectiveness of oil products? A 60-mile-per-gallon tin can on wheels, perhaps, that can reach speeds of up to 50 mph, assuming a favorable tail wind? Or a solar panel farm the size of Arizona? Nobody's using northern California, as far as I know -- we could just cover it with windmills!

Lo said...

Enviros to Alaskan Natives: Drop Dead!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/14/110729.shtml