[at-l] ANWR

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Bob C wrote:
>I don't expect we will go to an exclusively alternative fuel economy 
>anytime soon. The immediate aim is to reduce the reliance of fossil fuel 
>for many reasons, including:

Bob -
I "almost" got very angry about this -
I called my brother and read it to him and he choked on his coffee cause he 
was laughing so hard.  He's had two heart attacks and if this had 
precipitated another one, I'd have been REALLY pissed - at you as well as 
myself.

>-- Fossil fuels are a source of greenhouse gases that contribute to global 
>warming.

Global warming - the Gore effect.  Is it real?  No one knows - and there's 
considerable recent evidence to indicate that the answer is a big negative.  
And that the Clinton administration knew about the evidence and pushed for 
the Kyoto Treaty anyway.  And NO, Bob - you don't know whether it's real 
either.  Second point - that it's not the unmitigated disaster that the 
press and others have claimed.  Do some research - in places where the data 
isn't manipulated to produce predetermined results or Chicken Little 
hysteria.  Just for information - Ginny used to work for the American 
Meteorological Society.  Global warming is a question - a theory.  But it's 
not Gospel.  Fossl fuels most certainly contribute to many negative effects, 
but blaming them for Global Warming is entirely dependent on whether Global 
Warming is real  - and that has yet to be proven.


>-- easily obtained fossil fuels are getting increasingly hard to find.

Sounds good - and it's wrong.  I had to get a recent education on the 
subject so I can't really fault you on the reasoning though.  Fact is that 
at $40 per bbl and with present technology, there are enough presently known 
oil reserves to support present rates of usage for something like 5,000 
years. But - the kicker is that those numbers include the ANWR - and the 
offshore oil that some people don't want us to tap into.


>-- too much reliance on such fuels forces us to fight wars and support
>dictators.

Two points - what wars?  The only US war in the last 150 years that can even 
vaguely be related to oil was the Gulf War.  And I'd only give you half a 
war cause there were other reasons why it was fought as well.  If you're 
gonna make blanket statements like that I'd like to see some justification 
cause there's no evidence to support it.

Second point - which specific dictators?  And what would be the "actual" 
result if we didn't support them - not theory or opinion, but reality.  This 
is a LONG discussion that, again, your blanket statement simplifies to the 
point of ridiculousness.


>Oil that is saved by using passive solar and more efficient automobiles can 
>be
>converted for use in generating the energy we need for lights, computers 
>and
>other good and bad things, thus reducing overall fossil fuel use.

Hmm - given point 2 above, "saving" energy and reducing overall fossil fuel 
usage is of questionable value.  Reducing dependence on foreign oil is 
something we can agree on - but for far different reasons.  What you haven't 
mentioned - and I'll "assume" you realize - is that reduction in foreign oil 
dependence will generate far more hatred of the US than anything else we've 
ever done.  It will negatively impact the economies of nearly every nation 
in the world in one way or another.


>BTW. I like the idea of off shore wind farms, though I question the cost. 
>Since
>ENRON persuaded governments to deregulate most electricity, production 
>decisions
>are in the hands of private companies. Now if we could just have the 
>political
>courage to keep the compamies out of our wildlife refuges....

What started this thread was an emotionally charged "alert" concerning 
clergy and Senators opposing drilling the ANWR because it's "unnecessary" - 
and this may be the one and only issue where I will ever agree with many of 
those people AND their reason.

The wind farms - yeah, cost. Until the cost of alternatively generated power 
comes down to the same level as oil/coal/nuclear - alternatives will 
continue to be low on the totem pole.  Did you know that with all the wind 
farms spread across the country, they supply less than 0.6% of present day 
power generation?  Not having that wind farm in Maine ain't gonna make a 
large difference to the total capacity - in other words, it's NOT a critical 
need. Nor is ANWR drilling at this time.

Gotta go.  Later ---

Walk softly,
Jim


************************************************************************

"To stay young requires unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old 
falsehoods"







_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.