John wrote in reply to Doug:
> >Where did the number three come from? I'm pretty sure "community of
> >arctic/subarctic ecosystems" doesn't mean two ecosystems if that's where
> >you're coming from.
>
> Come on, *think* people. The entirety of the ANWR is located
> North of the
> Arctic Circle. Exactly how many ecosystems do you expect are up there?
Sub-tundra. Tundra. Pine forest. Shoreline. Arctic mountain. Freeze-thaw
areas (OK, mostly populated by lichens, but...). Ice fields.
> Personally, I think that its rather generous of them to give the ANWR
> credit for the sub-arctic ecosystem (since they are, by definition, within
> the Arctic Circle - and presumably arctic). The ANWR is located in one of
> the most inhospitable land environments on Earth - second only to
> Antarctica and lava flows. Comparisons with the biological diversity of
> the Serengeti are simply absurd - the Serengeti contains thousands of
> species, many of them endangered, including an amazing array of large
> mammals in abundance - and is a tremendous disservice to efforts
> to protect
> the Serengeti.
No-one ever claimed they were comparing with the Serengeti in terms of
biodiversity. Uniqueness, for sure.
> If you really want me to start citing examples of diverse
> habitats in North
> American National Parks, I will - but I'd rather not expend the effort to
> prove the self-evident, unless I really have to.
OK, one piece of overly poetic and ill-advised writing, and you are missing
the point totally.
"We've got loads of forest and desert protected. Let's not bother with any
tundra. Sod the caribou!" is exactly what you're saying.
then he wrote in reply to me...
> >John, where's it say "three"?
>
> See my response to Doug.
Yes. I did. I don't see an answer to the question I asked. John, where did
it say three?
> >By the way, you are aware that the environments most susceptible
> to damage
> >are deserts and arctic tundra, because organisms are so specialised and
> >biodiversity is so low.
>
> That was never an issue, however. The issue, however, are the two claims
> made by the environmentalist side:
> -The ANWR is "America's Serengeti."
> -There is no other place in North America that protects as many differing
> habitats in a single unit.
That's your beef with this. That was a clain made on a US Government site.
The first I answered above.
The second is not as self-evident as you keep making out, most environmental
preserves protect one major habitat.
Now, to answer this point on biodiversity and fragility which according to
you was "never an issue". It's an issue because I introduced it to the
discussion. It's an issue because it's true.
> It is impossible to have an intelligent debate about this
> decision, however, when the environmentalist side continually overstates
> their case. That is why I have limited myself to debating the matter on
> these narrow grounds.
I'm not "the environmentalist side". I'm a biologist/ecologist by training,
who is trying to have a reasoned debate and have just been told that because
I'm not talking about the issue you've restricted yourself to discussing,
you won't play.
> Obviously, the decision to drill in ANWR must be made on a cost-benefit
> analysis.
That's not obvious at all. Just because there's profit to be made doesn't
mean it has to be done. It especially doesn't have to be done just yet.
There is a glut of oil on the world markets. There is overproduction
everywhere. OPEC isn't the monopoly it once was. There's cheap Russian oil
coming online over the next 2-3 years. The USA could deal directly with
russia, help fund the plants there, buy the oil cheaper than OPEC provides,
and also make money on the finance. She won't though.
