The sound of a shoe dropping. OT political

[riverman]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051019/sc_nm/energy_congress_alaska_dc

--riverman
(gee, we never saw THAT coming...)

[Lazarus Cooke]

In article >, Jonathan Cook
> wrote:

> riverman > wrote:
>
> > (gee, we never saw THAT coming...)
>
> Realistically, there is _no_ way that humanity is not going
> to drill and extract every known (and potential) large oil
> reserve, eventually. The only exceptions occur in "worse"
> scenarios like WW3, some other unwelcome, massive "die-off",
> or some other end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it scenario.
>
> Thus, I see only two reasonable positions: drill it now and
> get the ecological damage over so that it can start to heal,
> or oppose drilling simply because we should save it until
> we _really_ need it.
>
> My position is the latter.
>
It's like slavery, isn't it? It may not be nice but it's happening,
it's always going to happen, so we might as well be among those who
benefit from it.

(Though I note your conclusion)

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

[JakBQuik]

"Republican leaders decided to attach the Alaska drilling plan to budget
legislation because under Senate rules the giant spending bill cannot be
filibustered."

Yeah, right. Sneaky *******s. In forty five years that oil will have been
precious, but now it will just be gone. Really good planning. I'm amazed
that there isn't more outrage at the fact that all the gas price raises are
merely funding big oil's bottom line.

[Wolfgang]

"Lazarus Cooke" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >, Jonathan Cook
> > wrote:
>
>> riverman > wrote:
>>
>> > (gee, we never saw THAT coming...)
>>
>> Realistically, there is _no_ way that humanity is not going
>> to drill and extract every known (and potential) large oil
>> reserve, eventually. The only exceptions occur in "worse"
>> scenarios like WW3, some other unwelcome, massive "die-off",
>> or some other end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it scenario.
>>
>> Thus, I see only two reasonable positions: drill it now and
>> get the ecological damage over so that it can start to heal,
>> or oppose drilling simply because we should save it until
>> we _really_ need it.
>>
>> My position is the latter.
>>
> It's like slavery, isn't it? It may not be nice but it's happening,
> it's always going to happen, so we might as well be among those who
> benefit from it.

Rumor has it there are still some trees we missed......might as well get
them before they fall over and rot. And then there's all that dirty topsoil
lying around. The salmon are doomed......what's the point of delaying the
inevitable? Um......oh yeah, lions, tigers, bears, and crocodiles*....pfft.

> (Though I note your conclusion)

The conclusion, not surprisingly......well, to some of us, anyway.....is the
end.

Wolfgang
*see David Quammen's "Monster of God", for example.

[vincent p. norris]

>Realistically, there is _no_ way that humanity is not going
>to drill and extract every known (and potential) large oil
>reserve, eventually.

"Opening ANWR is sound public policy that would serve the country well
many years into the future," said Pete Domenici, the Republican
chairman of the committee. The oil produced from the wildlife refuge
"would provide some cushion" for U.S. supplies, he said."

I understand there 's only enough oil there to supply our needs for 18
months. People who say there's enough for "many years" are playing a
semantic trick. One can make a single box of corn flakes last for
years, too, if he eats only one flake per week.

I also understand there's so little oil there (in relation to our
daily consumption) that several of the "seven sisters" don't even
intend to get involved. The real reason for opening that field is
that it *really* "opens the door" to drilling anywhere and everywhere.
If ANWR can be drilled, no place will be sacred.

vince

[rw]

vincent p. norris wrote:
>>Realistically, there is _no_ way that humanity is not going
>>to drill and extract every known (and potential) large oil
>>reserve, eventually.
>
>
> "Opening ANWR is sound public policy that would serve the country well
> many years into the future," said Pete Domenici, the Republican
> chairman of the committee. The oil produced from the wildlife refuge
> "would provide some cushion" for U.S. supplies, he said."
>
> I understand there 's only enough oil there to supply our needs for 18
> months. People who say there's enough for "many years" are playing a
> semantic trick. One can make a single box of corn flakes last for
> years, too, if he eats only one flake per week.
>
> I also understand there's so little oil there (in relation to our
> daily consumption) that several of the "seven sisters" don't even
> intend to get involved. The real reason for opening that field is
> that it *really* "opens the door" to drilling anywhere and everywhere.
> If ANWR can be drilled, no place will be sacred.

The oil from ANWR will be exported, probably to China and Japan.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.