JDG wrote:
I wrote:
So what would be the point in tapping the ANWR?
I'm not sure where this question comes from. I personally don't
have particularly strong feelings either way about drilling in
ANWR.
I apologize for a poorly worded question. I didn't mean it as a comment
on your politics but in reference to the economics you were discussing in
your previous post. ANWR oil is often touted as one means to lessen our
dependance on Middle East oil. You said "the displaced oil [from wind
power] is likely to be expensively produced oil from marginal fields in
developed countries like the US." ANWR may or may not be marginal, but
its location surely makes it more expensive.
If one wanted to make the case for drilling in ANWR, however, the
case would be this:
-The oil in ANWR is currently more valuable than ever.
-A whopping 57 million acres of Alaska are already preserved as
designated wilderness areas, forever closed to development. This
means not just closed to mining and oil drilling, but closed to all
roads, all human structures, and even most forms of human machinery!
This land area amounts to over 15% of the land area for the entire
State. Indeed, 57 million acres is larger than the land area in 40
other States!
-As such, there is not a critical need for the preservation of
representative Alaskan ecosystems as designated wilderness. The
people of Alaska are overwhelmingly in favor of drilling for oil in
this area, and given the federal interest that has already been met
by designating over 15% of their State as federal wilderness, to me,
that opinion counts for something. Moreover, the land area in
question is already protected as a National Wildlife Refuge, the
drilling that occurs there will have to be managed concurrent with
the level of protection of the Wildlife Refuge. So, while drilling
will naturally mean that the area won't have the highest level of
protection as wilderness, it also won't mean that the area will be
completely paved over by oil drilling either as if the land area
were, say, completely unprotected BLM Land. As near as I can tell,
no one is talking about decertifying the ANWR as a Wildlife
Refuge.
Thus, if I were forced to cast a vote, I'd vote for drilling in ANWR
(particularly if I could convince the Republicans to make a trade by
voting for the establishment of Maine North Woods National Park in
exchange.) And if a Democrat were elected President and made ANWR
a National Monument instead, it wouldn't bother me too much either.
Perhaps the thing that bothers me most about the issue, is the
completely disproportionate attention it has received, relative to
its significance.
Yes it's a political football. But I would cast a nay vote because I see
no benefit to the country other than making a few Alaskans a few bucks for
a few decades and I think that pristine wilderness is rare and valuable no
matter how much of it we already have. It could also be argued that
leaving it as an emergency reserve would be prudent.
I like the Maine North Woods Park too though.
--
Doug
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
