Originally Posted By plpeters70 Food for thought: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080424/sc_afp/canadaarcticclimateenvironment" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20...ironment</a> <<Arctic sea ice is melting "significantly faster" than predicted and is approaching a point of no return, conservation group the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) warned in a new study. The volumes of the Greenland Ice Sheet and ice in the Arctic Ocean were estimated at 2.9 million and 4.4 million cubic metres respectively in September 2007 -- the lowest ever levels recorded, the organization said Wednesday.>> Another good reason why we should think twice before drilling up Alaska...
Originally Posted By utahjosh I have repeatedly said we need to take care of this planet. Because I believe that in this specific case we should get some oil from Alaska, I'm being made out to be a reckless, uncaring religious freak.
Originally Posted By DAR How did a discussion about the economy turn into a religious bashing fest by the usual suspescts around here?
Originally Posted By utahjosh <And destroying the Alaskan wilderness in the name of big oil is not the way to go, at least imho.> I'm not in favor of "destroying the Alaskan wilderness in the name of big oil." I am in favor of drilling a small part of that vast area for oil to help our economy while we work on better alternatives for energy. I would hope that our "oil drilling" is more eco-friendly than ever. See the difference?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "I would hope that our "oil drilling" is more eco-friendly than ever. See the difference?" I see the difference, but I think you're under-estimating just how disruptive digging for oil would be to the Alaskan environment. Not to mention what could happen if there's an oil spill up there again. They still haven't yet fully recovered from the one in the 1980s
Originally Posted By utahjosh tiggertoo, your comments are so all over the place and barely interrelated that I can barely keep up. <Then you are either evading my comments, or I mistook your knowledge of LDS doctrine to be deeper than it is. Either way, read Joseph Fielding Smith and that should give you a better idea as to where I was going. > You want me to go read every talk or sermon or book written by JFS? I'm not ignorant to the LDS doctrines, I just have no clue why you are brining that up here. <<That was a big jump in topics. What's your point?>> Nah...it's not so big. But then, if you didn’t <understand my first comment, this one surely would have lost you. > I gess yu r smurtur then me. Your leap here was just odd. I said we need to generally take care of the planet. Liken I generally watch my eating habits, i'm generally a nice person, and a general store carries generally all the everyday items. You began talking about the way God takes care of mankind and then applying your twisted understanding of His love and concern to the way I treat the earth? It just was very very odd. <Which comes first, josh? When faced with obedience to God’s commandments and your political or economic agenda, which comes first?> In this matter I don't believe there is a conflict. Wanna start another thread on that topic? Go ahead.
Originally Posted By Mr X Yes. My question to Josh would be, how much do you really know about the situation in Alaska? You pretty much state in a glib fashion "let's just drill it", and then when questioned you come back with "well, I'm only talking about drilling a tiny part of it"... So, can you tell me about the oil situation in Alaska? How much is "a small part"? And what impact, based on your research, will that have on the ecosystem? Do you know?
Originally Posted By utahjosh <How did a discussion about the economy turn into a religious bashing fest by the usual suspescts around here?? Well, I did mention my believe that the Earth was made for Man. And that I believe it's our responsibility to take care of the earth. Somehow that meant to many others that I believe that earth is man's play-toy to be abused and raped. And then people started talking about the afterlife, how God treats his children, and other things.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Somehow that meant to many others that I believe that earth is man's play-toy to be abused and raped.*** Josh, go back and re-read, and be fair. You mentioned first "tap it! The earth was made for man!" or something similar. That's why people got upset. It was only later that you wrote "and that I believe it's out responsibility to take care of the earth". Which seemed convenient, considering what you wrote at first. In any case, the phrase "tap it!" is not consistent with one who cares for and wants to be careful with the planet. But I think you know that. Please, PLEASE don't disappoint me here and go around trying to re-write what is here in black and white. I know you're a young guy (soon to be married! congrats!), with a lot of great stuff to say and a lot of great ideas and an incredible enthusiasm. Please don't tarnish that by being a BS artist on this thread. You said it. Own it. And explain what you meant, OR acknowledge that you might be wrong. You can stand by what you said, or not. Either way it's all here in black and white (unless it's in red and then nobody will know what the heck you said lol).
Originally Posted By utahjosh <So, can you tell me about the oil situation in Alaska? How much is "a small part"? And what impact, based on your research, will that have on the ecosystem?> I'm not going to write a research paper for you, but I'll just say it's not as bad as most green activists think, and worse that I probably am guessing.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I'm not going to write a research paper for you, but I'll just say it's not as bad as most green activists think, and worse that I probably am guessing.*** In other words, you have not a single clue. And yet you are assuming it's not as bad as some say, and wondering if it might be worse than you guess. Dude, that is pretty pathetic. And yet you confidently say "tap it! the earth is made for man!", and then get mad when some people question you on such an incredibly inappropriate statement?
Originally Posted By utahjosh Wrong, Mr. X. I do have a single clue about it. I don't have all the knowledge on the matter, and I doubt you do, too. Calm down, dude.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Why we should drill in Alaska: 1. The proceeds from drilling could dramatically lower the price of oil, leading to another economic boom. 2. It would lessen our dependence on foreign oil, especially in the Middle East. 3. Drilling could easily be done without disrupting the refuge or damaging the environment. 4. It would dramatically help the economy and the people of Alaska. 5. The drilling and land development would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Why we shouldn't drill: 1. It takes the focus off the real cause of the oil shortage -- our excessive consumption. 2. A beautiful wildlife refuge would be disturbed by humans once again, with animal lives changed in the process. 3. The drilling may not yield much of anything. 4. The reserve can be saved as a last resort decades from now when we've exhausted other supplies. I'm still for #1
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh There's 19 million acres in Anwr. Drilling would affect less than one percent of the land.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v..._rDkwGnU</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < 1. The proceeds from drilling could dramatically lower the price of oil, leading to another economic boom. 2. It would lessen our dependence on foreign oil, especially in the Middle East. 3. Drilling could easily be done without disrupting the refuge or damaging the environment.> Not sure about your 4 and 5 under the "should" but the first two are definitely wrong, and 3 is arguably wrong, depending who you listen to. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/</a> "Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department." Not 50 cents a gallon, note. 50 cents a barrel. "But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market." Note that this is from 2004, and even with an oilman administration and a GOP congress until 2007 we still didn't open this - indicating further, I think, that there's just not that much THERE there.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh We didn't open it because Democrats in Congress fought it tooth and nail. Bottom line is that the environmental impact would be minimal, and there would be economic benefits.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Bottom line is the environmental impact would be considerable for the area involved (and its non-human species), and the economic benefits would be minimal. This is ultimately why it didn't pass, also. Remember the Democrats didn't control a thing till 2007 - the Republicans could have passed it if they'd wanted to and the Democrats couldn't have done a thing about it.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<tiggertoo, your comments are so all over the place and barely interrelated that I can barely keep up.>> Not at all. I’ll stop by the LDS Institution of Religion at Stanford next week to fill in those blanks you seem to need filled. I still go in there every once in a while to read; they have a fantastic LDS/Christian library. <<You want me to go read every talk or sermon or book written by JFS? I'm not ignorant to the LDS doctrines, I just have no clue why you are brining that up here.>> Because it’s directly pertinent the question of what our relation is to God and His Earth. Remember, it was YOU who said that the Earth was made for Man; but there is so much more to the relationship than that. You know that at least. Joseph Fielding Smith discusses this relationship in depth, and it is far different from the Cristiano-Republicanism we see today; ergo my diatribe. <<I gess yu r smurtur then me.>> How infantile. It’s reactions like these that make Mormons seem so defensive about there religion. <<You began talking about the way God takes care of mankind and then applying your twisted understanding of His love and concern to the way I treat the earth? It just was very very odd.>> Which again shows me that you are evading the issue, or ignorant of LDS doctrine. I hope/ suspect its the former. Frankly, there is nothing “odd†about it whatsoever. Our relationship as “Children of God†to Heavenly Father and His Earth is directly related to how God is training Mankind to be stewards of their charges in their post-Earthly existence. That is why how we care for the Earth is pertinent to the tenets of LDS I alluded to. You can say it’s odd, but it should be perfectly clear where I was going. <<In this matter I don't believe there is a conflict. Wanna start another thread on that topic? Go ahead.>> Only because you backpedaled when your original comment was challenged. To be fair, I think you’ve done a okay job at reconciling your position, but is harming the environment to save Americans a little money really worth it? Or should we suck it in knowing that we screwed up as a species by putting some much of our economy in the hands of big oil? Perhaps this is God’s way of smacking us around a bit. Ultimately, I don’t see the benefit of drilling in Alaska when really the investment should be going toward normalizing alternative fuels. Until then, we tighten the belt and suck it in. It isn’t worth potentially destroying a pristine environment because it happens to be the most convenient means of temporarily saving us a few bucks.
