At 11:02 PM 5/2/01 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>When we get down to it, I'm willing to bet that Bush will try to find a
way to
>carve up the magnificently sculpted canyons in southern Utah that Clinton set
>aside, and that is quite a contrast.
You're talking about Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, I
presume? And by carving up, I presume that you mean permitting mining on
the currently preserved grounds of the Monument?
If so, I have US$20 right here that says that you're on. Actually, for
terms of the bet, I am willing to make it either 20 2005 US dollars or 20
2009 US dollars. Just let me know - the entire Brin List can be my
witness.
>> And where has the "ANWR would only provide one (or two or three or
>> whatever) month's oil supply" factoid come from? There hasn't been any
>> oil exploration in ANWR, so how can anyone estimate the reserves?
>
>I thought that those were interior department figures. Dan?
There has, in fact, been some preliminary exploration done by the US
Geological Survey in the ANWR.
>> And ANWR is roughly the size of the state of Pennsylvania. Imagine an
>> oil rig in Pennsylvania. Does that ruin the state of Pennsylvania? In
>> fact, the main ecological problem from drilling in ANWR would not be in
>> ANWR, but in Prince William Sound, where the oil tankers ship.
>
>That would make the reserve about one half of one percent of the total land
>mass of the U.S. One tenth of one percent of North America. Three
hundredths
>of a percent of the worlds total land mass. In one of the most remote
>locations on the globe. Is it really asking so much that we preserve such a
>small fraction of the globe so that our children and theirs can witness
>pristine wilderness? Even if there is 10 years worth of oil there, what is
>its significance in the long run?
You're wrong on so many counts here, Doug, I hardly know where to start......
1) *NOBODY* is arguing for oil exploration in the entire Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. Indeed, I've seen one figure that suggests that the
entrie area slated for exploration would consist of @60 acres. (1 acre <~
1 sq km) We are talking aBout a tiny slice of a huge reserve.
2) You're attempt to portray the ANWR as practically the only 0.03% of the
world's landmass that the world is currently preserving is ludicrous, and
will not be dignified with further comment.
3) The ANWR is a *WILDLIFE REFUGE*, and as such, was *never intended* to
preserve pristine wilderness. Wildlife Refuges are administered by the US
Fish and Wild Service, and are intended to preserve habitat space for large
veterbrates. "Pristine Wilderness" is preserved by designated "US
Wilderness Areas", of which the ANWR is not. Slightly below "pristine
wilderness" is the comprehensive protection of natural environments,
conducted under any of the myriad designations administered by the National
Park Service. National Wildlife Refuges exist as a status below that of a
National Park (and above that of a US Forest Service Area, and a Bureau of
Land Management area.)
For the record, huge chunks of the State of Alaska are already preserved by
the Wilderness designation or as a National Park Service area. To give
you an idea of how much of Alaska is already preserved by our Parks System,
and thus preserved ad aeternam, see this map here:
http://165.83.219.77/parksearch/state/state.cfm?statevar=ak
Meanwhile, there are currently 105 million acres that are preserved as
"pristine wilderness" in the US Wilderness system. Of those, 58 million
acres are in the State of Alaska, and will remain forever "untouched by the
hand of man." (As an interesting aside, US Officials maintaining the
Wilderness System are not even allowed to use mechanized equipment will
within the Wilderness area, thus no chain saws for the clearing of trails
and no trail markers.)
For more on the US WIlderness System:
http://www.wilderness.net/nwps/default.cfm
Here is a map of the entire system:
http://www.wilderness.net/nwps/map.cfm
The purpose of a Refuge, on the other hand, is to"permit the use of any
area within the System for any purpose, including but not limited to
hunting, fishing, public recreation and accommodations, and access whenever
he determines that such uses are compatible with the major purposes for
which such areas were established."
For more on National Wildlife Refuges:
http://refuges.fws.gov/
You can also find the homepage of the ANWR itself here:
http://www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/arctic.html
You can read this nugget there: The Arctic Refuge's primary mandate: to
protect the wildlife and habitats of this area for the benefit of people
now and in the future.
Additionally, here is a map of the Refuge:
http://www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/maps1.html
>I thought you were from Alaska! But you don't know that massive herds of
>Caribou gather on the coastal plain in the summer to bear and nurture their
>young? According to the Interior Department "The 1002 area [coastal
plain] is
>the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge for wildlife and
>is the center of wildlife activity." The coast is the most important
denning
>area for polar bears in the U.S. Musk Oxen, wiped out in the 19th century
>have been reintroduced there and are thriving. The area has been dubbed "the
>American Serengeti" because of the profusion of wildlife there. Arbitrary my
>ass.
Any competent biologist who would seriously compare the biodiversity of the
North Slope to that of the Serengeti oughta be servely chastised. At any
rate, there is little evidence that oil exploration elsewhere on the North
Slope has severly disrupted the wildlife there, and little reason to
beleive that 60 acres would threaten these species.
>You're such a nabob of negativity! 8^) In fact I'd like to believe that one
>of the (unlooked for) consequences of Bush's designer energy crisis just
might
>be technologies that help us move away from total dependence on fossil fuels
>for energy production. But I _am_ an optimist.
I'm an optimist as well, and I'd like to believe that in my lifetime, we
will see fuel cells become our dominant source of energy. It could happen.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"The point of living in a Republic after all, is that we do not live by
majority rule. We live by laws and a variety of institutions designed
to check each other." -Andrew Sullivan 01/29/01
