Save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

[butterfly]

Go to here and add your name to the list of people opposing drilling in the ANWR.

Basically, the deal is this -- it's not worth it to drill in the Arctic, even if you support the oil industry. There just isn't enough there to justify the destruction that would be caused.

The Bush Administration and its oil industry allies want to send a message that they can drill for oil wherever and whenever they want to - even if it means targeting a place as striking, pristine and irreplaceable as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

They don't care about putting America on a genuine path to energy independence. If they did, they'd support efforts to increase energy conservation and to create clean, renewable sources of energy that no terrorist can sabotage and no foreign government can seize.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's 19 million acres comprise one of the last places on earth where an intact expanse of arctic and sub arctic lands remains protected.

Drilling in the Arctic Refuge can't make even a small dent in meeting America's energy needs. U.S. Geological Survey scientists estimate that there is very likely only enough oil to supply America's needs for six months. And oil companies admit that, even that, won't be available for at least 10 years.

An irreplaceable natural treasure, the Arctic Refuge is home to caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, golden eagles, snow geese and more. Millions of other birds use the Arctic Refuge to nest and as a critical staging area on their migratory journeys.

Of course, the Arctic Refuge supports more than wildlife. For a thousand generations, the Gwich'in people of Northeast Alaska and Northwest Canada have depended on it and lived in harmony with it. To them, the Arctic Coastal Plain is sacred ground.

More info at twistedchick's journal (here)

Comments

[ngaio]

I'm doing a clean up on internet security and trackability and this reply is the only post which comes up if I Google my email address. If it's possible for you could you do me a favour and delete my reply? As I made the post through Open ID I don't seem to have the ability to delete it myself. Thanks

[butterfly]

Sure thing! It should be deleted now.

[ngaio]

Thank you!

[bluecove.livejournal.com]

I don't want to start a fight, especially in someone else's LJ. But, when I saw this I just had to respond to some of the things you're saying.

Basically, the deal is this -- it's not worth it to drill in the Arctic, even if you support the oil industry. There just isn't enough there to justify the destruction that would be caused.

Actually, we don't know for certain how much oil is there until we actually drill for it. However, best estimates put it just under the amount we're getting from Prudhoe Bay now. And drilling methods have improved greatly over the years... in fact, an ANWR facility would actually leave a fairly small "footprint" on the land.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's 19 million acres comprise one of the last places on earth where an intact expanse of arctic and sub arctic lands remains protected.

Yes, but only 1.5 million acres of that -- called the "1002" area and set along the coastal plain -- were marked for exploration. Yes, you read that right: when ANWR was created, the 1002 area was set aside, by Congress, for possible oil exploration. It's only 8% of ANWR; the other 92% already has protected status. We couldn't drill anywhere else even if we wanted to (which we don't, because 1002 is where the oil is).

Drilling in the Arctic Refuge can't make even a small dent in meeting America's energy needs. U.S. Geological Survey scientists estimate that there is very likely only enough oil to supply America's needs for six months.

The six month claim is very misleading. Estimates put the mean average of recoverable oil at 10.4 million barrels. That would double Alaska's current output, and it's a hell of a lot of oil we wouldn't have to buy from OPEC. At the very least, it would help to keep oil prices down for some time to come.

They don't care about putting America on a genuine path to energy independence. If they did, they'd support efforts to increase energy conservation and to create clean, renewable sources of energy that no terrorist can sabotage and no foreign government can seize.

Energy conservation is good, but it doesn't work as a long-term strategy, because our energy needs aren't static -- they're constantly increasing. Other sources of energy ARE under development, but it takes many years to make them viable, and some never do pan out. Of course, the cleanest and cheapest form of energy is nuclear, but no one wants to see more plants built. That leaves oil, and we're buying more than half our supply from overseas. Wouldn't it be prudent to get whatever we can from our own shores, especially if doing so wouldn't damage the environment in any significant way?

For reading, I recommend this website:
http://www.anwr.org/

and, especially, this article, which has lots of facts:
http://www.anwr.org/archives/1002_is_where_the_oils_at.php

[bluecove.livejournal.com]

typo, make that 10.4 billion barrels of oil

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Like you say, not something that people want to argue about. I have read information, on both sides, and I remain firm in my opinion.

[bluecove.livejournal.com]

Truthfully, I don't understand why anyone would want to stop us from drilling there. However, I respect your right to your opinion. Peace.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

It's about nature and my feelings about the place of mankind and all sorts of stuff that's just the way I was raised and what I decided for myself that I wanted to support. Like you, I can't imagine feeling any other way about it. It's really hard to look outside something that deeply embedded in who I am.

But I respect you much, and I'm certain that your reasons are valid and quality. Definite peace.