Hi Kakki. As always, I appreciate your thoughtful and well informed reply to my somewhat emotional reflection on the election.
"kakki" wrote: > Everything I've read says the majority in Alaska want > the oil business to > provide jobs and improve their economy. Was there this > kind of opposition > when the Alaska pipeline was built back in the 60s-70s? I'm not surprised that this is favored by those who want to reap the economic advantages of such drilling. And, yes, there was this type of opposition, actually more, before the pipeline was built. Kakki said: > I know, I know, we all read different takes on it. Yes, that's true. And, of course, there are various ways to measure the ecological impact. My concern is with the local impact but also with any unforseen repercussion that are more far reaching. I said: > > It's all about oil. Iraq. Alaska. You put an oil man in> the White House and that's what you get. Kakki said: > This makes me want to scream every time I read it. I stand by my statement, although I realize it's a generalization. As for whether it was about oil when Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in the 90s, I'd say yes. There are large areas of this world where human rights violations abound as much as or more than in the Middle East, yet that is the area under our scrutiny. If there was oil under Africa, we'd be focused there. There's no oil under North Korea. Hence, the "standard" is not the same. > If, for some reason we "took over" Iraq just to get the oil, the truth is we would have far better access to the reserves there and could bring in a much higher technology to process it, thereby raising competition which would LOWER the price of oil to the entire world and LOWER the profits the oil companies make from it? That's an interesting way to look at it, but I don't think it's that simple. From what I know of Dick Cheney's oil interests, for example, the "pipeline" to and from Iraq is more convaluted. It's not a straight transaction. I believe that this is about keeping the "pipeline" to Iraq and the Middle East open and accessible. >I am not at all enthusiastic about a war in Iraq, but this "it's all about oil" thing drives me crazy. I really don't mean to drive you crazy, Kakki. I think we've talked enough in person that you know I mean that sincerely. We just disagree in our points of view on this one. > It defies the facts as I know them, is way too pat, and seems to be just a mantra for singling out that "big bad Bush oil family." Well, it's is a mantra I sing. I don't believe the Bush family is acting with honest intelligence in the best interests of the American people or the American founding principles. > I have been involved with three environmental land conservation foundations. In all three it was "evil rich Republicans" who gave tens of millions to sustain the organizations and to buy the land up for preservation. On this I think we pretty much agree. Individual Republicans have certainly been environmentally friendly. I just don't believe it's ever been a plank of the party platform. > If you have X amount of money for the environment, where would you have it go - to new technology that will help eliminate it or to using government money to buy up any open space just because the neighbors want their property values to increase, as is often the case here in California. Good question. What I would do is provide tax incentives to people to buy hybrid or electric cars. For example, I'd allow an individual to deduct the percentage of the purchase price of a hybrid car that reflects the percentage that runs on electricity. (You'd only get the deduction once every 5 years or so. You couldn't buy a new car every year and get the deduction. That defeats the purpose.) As always, you raise good points to ponder. Clearly, I don't have all the answers. If I did, I'd be president or something... lots of love Anne
