"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> 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.
We don't seem to be on the same page, here. Whether or not the land is
classified by whatever agency as wilderness has no bearing on territory that
fits the dictionary definition of wilderness; 1 a (1) a tract or region
uncultivated and uninhabited by human beings (2): an area essentially
undisturbed by human activity together with its naturally developed life
community b : an empty or pathless area or region, or pristine; 1 : belonging
to the earliest period or state : ORIGINAL 2 a : not spoiled, corrupted, or
polluted (as by civilization) : PURE b : fresh and clean as or as if new.
There aren't very many regions in the world that can fit all of those
definitions. The designated wilderness areas that I've hiked don't. But I'm
guessing that area ANWR, native lands aside and despite USGS surveys, comes
close.
>
> 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.
No one is confused about that John. The information on this U.S. Fish and
Wildlife page gives an idea of why people want to preserve the coastal plain:
http://www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/issues1.html
> 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.
At this point I've spent several hours researching this topic on the net
including many pro development sites and the lowest number I could find was
1200-2000 acres (on several of the "conservative" sites). I can only conclude
that the 60 acres number is pure proctonumerology.
> 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.
Again I refer you to the Fish and Wild life site. Especially interesting is
the effect of the 3D seismic survey. It looks to me as if they were to
conduct a survey across the entire area it would look like a giant
checkerboard for decades. And that's just for the exploration prior to
drilling.
>
> 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.
>
John, as I said above I've spent hours researching this and the bulk of the
exaggerating was on conservitive sites that would for instance, consistently
use the 5% probability of technically recoverable oil where most of the
environmentalist sites used a median figure for the economically recoverable
oil. I'm not saying that the environmentalists don't use exaggeration, but
they sure don't have a monopoly on it.
I find your statement about corporations, especially where it concerns the
mega multi nationals to be a bit absurd.
> 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.
>From the fish and wildlife site:
"The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the largest unit in the National
Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge is America's finest example of an intact,
naturally functioning community of arctic/subarctic ecosystems. Such a broad
spectrum of diverse habitats occurring within a single protected unit is
unparalleled in North America, and perhaps in the entire circumpolar north.
When the Eisenhower Administration established the original Arctic Range in
1960, Secretary of Interior Seaton described it as: 'one of the world's great
wildlife areas. The great diversity of vegetation and topography in this
compact area, together with its relatively undisturbed condition, led to its
selection as ... one of our remaining wildlife and wilderness frontiers.'"
Must have been one of those ludicrous Republicans.
Doug
