At 09:44 PM 5/10/01 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>Everything I read about the area in question describes it as a pristine
>wilderness. I don't think an area requires permission from the U.S. to be a
>wilderness. In fact every reference I can find on the subject confirms that
>wilderness in one form or the other has existed for at least a week or two
>longer than The U.S.
Well, I disagree completely with this - I think that the designation is
*everything* here. In my humble opinion, if the proposal was to drill on
some "Bureau of Land Mangement" Area - this issue would not be on anyone's
radar screen.
Well, let me clarify that. A small group of liberal environmentalists
who've never met an oil rig that they've liked, would still be opposing it
- but in the minds of the public, this would be a non-issue. It is only
because this "National Wildlife Refuge" label is on the land that it raises
peoples emotions - in large part, I think, because people immediately
confuse NWR with National Park, and do not understand the differences in
Federal land use restrictions.
>Besides that you went on for three paragraphs or more and cited several
>websites with your primary theme being that the ANWR was not a wilderness.
>You didn't claim that the coastal plain, or area 1002 as it is also known,
>wasn't a wilderness, you said the preserve wasn't. And, in fact, >40% of the
>ANWR _is_ officially designated wilderness.
A minor oversight on my part, and one that is completely irrelevant to my
arguments. I believe that you've already gone on record as saying that
these sorts of oversights should just be overlooked.
>If you don't have time to check the veracity of your arguments, especially in
>a post that you make it a point to tell a person how wrong they are, you
ought
>to keep that argument to yourself until you do have the time.
Well, I had heard the 60 acres statistic enough (and heard it enough in
contexts where it was not disputed by other liberal environmentalists) that
I did not consider it a point of contention. And given the previous
standards of "truth" used in discussions here (i.e. I can't cite National
Review, Heritage, Cato, etc. - but apparently *can* cite liberal propaganda
websites), its just not worth my effort right now.
>> But, I just have to repost this funny "fact" from the web site that you
>> posted:
>> "Fact: No matter how well done, oil development will industrialize a
>> unique, wild area that is the biological heart of the refuge."
>>
>> In other words, no matter what anybody else has to say, we're not
listening.
>
>That's just a statement of fact, John. If you cover 12,000 acres (not 60,
>Interior Department estimate*) of a previously pristine area with oil
drilling
>infrastructure - roads, airstrips, barracks, platforms etc. spread over
>hundreds of miles of the preserve, you have industrialized it.
Actually, the airstrip is already there (as are power lines), at an Indian
Village in the Refuge.
Secondly, this figure seems grossly inflated. Sort of like if you run a
road or a pipeline through one acre of land, then the entire acre is
"industrialized."
Thirdly, the legislation I have been following in the news has talked about
restricting all roads to being "ice roads" - which seems of minimal impact
to me.
>Personally,
>I'll take the word of an individual or group of individuals that have little
>or nothing material to gain over giant, greedy, power mongering corporations
>that have everything to gain anyway.
Corporations that make our - and your - life possible, no less. Moreover,
you seem remarkably trusting of these so-called selfless environmentalists,
who yet seem prone to gross exaggeration in defence of their points.
Consider, one of the "Facts" on their website says that "The ANWR is
America's Serengeti."
This comparison is so ludicrous it just makes me cringe. Comparing the
biodiversity of arctic tundra with that of central Africa is a no-contest -
and hardly bolsters my confidence in their objectivity.
The truth of the matter is that there are no endangered species in this
area, and no pressing environmental problem. After years of drilling just
down the coast at Prudhoe Bay (on a scale far more extensive than that
imagined for this location), there is scant evidence that major
environmental harm has been done to the Alaskan ecosystem, nearby
wilderness areas, or regional biodiversity.
The truth of the matter is that a group of people who would not develop a
single square foot of addition land if they had their way are exploiting
the general population's misconceptions of what a "National Wildlife
Refuge" is to score political points on Republicans.
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
