Steven P. BarrettENERGY SUFFICIENCY AND ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNITY ARE WORTH MORE THAN A.N.W.R.: DRILL IT! (LINK)
July 8th 2008 21:23
Steven Barrett
For the most part, I greatly respect the National Audubon Society. It’s track record for saving rare species of birds and their natural habitats is exemplary. My wife and I are fond of exotic birds and we greatly appreciate what Audubon and other organizations like it are doing to preserve as much nature as (reasonably) possible.
When it comes to ANWR, this is where I digress.
Let’s preserve as much nature as we can, but let’s not forget that preserving mankind is our primary objective. Until man came along and messed things up so badly in the Garden of Eden, nature had everything all to itself. If we were to just listen only to the evolutionists and followed their dictums in favor of that old “survival of the fittest” nonsense (used only to defend one racial group, or economic class of people’s or nation’s claim against another) – and weren’t around to be able to save some of the weaker species who knows what life would be like? Certainly not as enriched.
Let’s not sell the mental capacity of mankind short when it comes to demonstrating responsible stewardship. We’re quite capable of doing so, and in sharp contrast to an extreme subset of Christian “dominionists,” most of us know where to draw a line or at least call “foul” if we see something that’s out of balance between man and nature.
After all – how much soy or exotic mahagony DO we need when we can clearly see what such large scale destruction of the former millions of square miles worth of rain forests has done to the ecological makeup of Central and South America, particularly Brazil?
Here's a question for all my (more insistent) environmentally conscious friends, "How much Tofu does the world need?"
On the other hand, I can fully understand where a Brazilian or anybody else depending on what he make to feed his family from changing what what he sees as an otherwise unusable rain forest.
This is where groups like Audubon and the Natural Defense Resources Council work wonders in achieving some victories on behalf of both man and nature. (Even they’ll agree nature needs man to help it survive, notwithstanding what thousands of years worth of our blunders and plundering have done to nature.)
It’s hard for this (otherwise social/religious) conservative to feel overly sympathetic towards those in the dominionist camp who believe we should exploit whatever the earth has to offer now and forevermore. Some of these folks believe that since God could call all of us home -- or rapture those “true believers” – (geez, and sigh!) -- there’s no use in conservation. Such is the "let the good times roll" mentality of contemporary Roundheads.Of course they’re forgetting that playing God is God’s perogative, not man’s – especially when it comes to demonstrating good stewardship.
Nor is it easy for this (fiscally liberal) social conservative to find much to cheer in the notion that a patch of tundra – underneath which lies a treasure trove of necessary oil reserves – remains so precious that it's "untouchable" for drilling oil. What's so urgent about preserving this worthless topsoil for generations to come -- and for what?
In its message today to Audubon’s “Action Alert” the Society is asking its members and supporters to call their Congressional Representatives urging them to take a stand against the Bush Administration’s desire to allow drilling the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), using an old warhorse of arguing points of the conservationist lobbies, i.e. the notion that we won’t see any oil for a decade nor any downward change in pump prices.
Who knows what the price of gas will be a decade from now. Who knew a year ago it’d be hovering a dime over four bucks today? Oil prices dropped eight bucks last night. Not that I’m calling for us to start dancing in the street singing “Happy Days Are Here Again,” but the psychological effect of a rise in supply indeed does wonders. Doesn’t it?
Giving a green light for drilling a useless, and I mean utterly useless piece of tundra -- save for some migratory reindeer -- would send an enormous psychological message across the globe to all our friends, foes and economic competitors -- who could easily and overnight turn into foes when push comes to shove -- the United States is going to protect her interests come frozen hells or whatever. The same goes for off-shore drilling.
Just look at our prospective economic foes, China, eager to start drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and making good use of the Panama Canal (which it now owns through one of its puppet “companies”) and India. The latter has the fastest growing and largest middle class in the world -- and we’re still asleep and worried about reindeer breeding grounds.
Look around the world and see how the other capitalist nations (save for the extra sensitive European Union nations) treat their environments -- or how they don’t treat them with respect.
I agree with conservationists that measures to tighten up our homes, establish offshore windmill farms (particularly off Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard, a-hem) and look for ways to stretch the present supply of oil reserves we have now will do wonders. But just think of what we can accomplish by both drilling in ANWR, off our shores and conserving more existing energy resources?
For the sake of bringing up a “symbolic example,” some of you might remember, or have learned about how your parents, grandparents and great grandparents used to save the fat from cooking bacon and other fatty foods, pour them into an old coffee can and drop them off at the nearest WWII conservation station. That grease was somehow converted into material used to make explosive material for our naval and field artillery shells. Now I’m not urging that we save our cooking grease for making shells, bombs, etc. But don’t we read about some locals pouring used cooking oil in their cars?
If we can do that, and loosen up on our notions of what’s so “precious” in the eyes of Washington Beltway enviro-lobbyists eyes -- just think of how much more we can accomplish.
Far better to envision such realistic dreams than to even think about the prospect of people freezing in their homes due to exorbitant costs, oil cut-offs, and the loss of our economic independence.
It’s either the inconvenciencing of a relatively small number of migratory reindeer or the economic future of the greatest nation on the planet. Not even a worthy dispute.
For the most part, I greatly respect the National Audubon Society. It’s track record for saving rare species of birds and their natural habitats is exemplary. My wife and I are fond of exotic birds and we greatly appreciate what Audubon and other organizations like it are doing to preserve as much nature as (reasonably) possible.
ANWR: This, or energy independence?
When it comes to ANWR, this is where I digress.
Let’s preserve as much nature as we can, but let’s not forget that preserving mankind is our primary objective. Until man came along and messed things up so badly in the Garden of Eden, nature had everything all to itself. If we were to just listen only to the evolutionists and followed their dictums in favor of that old “survival of the fittest” nonsense (used only to defend one racial group, or economic class of people’s or nation’s claim against another) – and weren’t around to be able to save some of the weaker species who knows what life would be like? Certainly not as enriched.
Let’s not sell the mental capacity of mankind short when it comes to demonstrating responsible stewardship. We’re quite capable of doing so, and in sharp contrast to an extreme subset of Christian “dominionists,” most of us know where to draw a line or at least call “foul” if we see something that’s out of balance between man and nature.
After all – how much soy or exotic mahagony DO we need when we can clearly see what such large scale destruction of the former millions of square miles worth of rain forests has done to the ecological makeup of Central and South America, particularly Brazil?
Here's a question for all my (more insistent) environmentally conscious friends, "How much Tofu does the world need?"
On the other hand, I can fully understand where a Brazilian or anybody else depending on what he make to feed his family from changing what what he sees as an otherwise unusable rain forest.
This is where groups like Audubon and the Natural Defense Resources Council work wonders in achieving some victories on behalf of both man and nature. (Even they’ll agree nature needs man to help it survive, notwithstanding what thousands of years worth of our blunders and plundering have done to nature.)
It’s hard for this (otherwise social/religious) conservative to feel overly sympathetic towards those in the dominionist camp who believe we should exploit whatever the earth has to offer now and forevermore. Some of these folks believe that since God could call all of us home -- or rapture those “true believers” – (geez, and sigh!) -- there’s no use in conservation. Such is the "let the good times roll" mentality of contemporary Roundheads.Of course they’re forgetting that playing God is God’s perogative, not man’s – especially when it comes to demonstrating good stewardship.
Nor is it easy for this (fiscally liberal) social conservative to find much to cheer in the notion that a patch of tundra – underneath which lies a treasure trove of necessary oil reserves – remains so precious that it's "untouchable" for drilling oil. What's so urgent about preserving this worthless topsoil for generations to come -- and for what?
In its message today to Audubon’s “Action Alert” the Society is asking its members and supporters to call their Congressional Representatives urging them to take a stand against the Bush Administration’s desire to allow drilling the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), using an old warhorse of arguing points of the conservationist lobbies, i.e. the notion that we won’t see any oil for a decade nor any downward change in pump prices.
Who knows what the price of gas will be a decade from now. Who knew a year ago it’d be hovering a dime over four bucks today? Oil prices dropped eight bucks last night. Not that I’m calling for us to start dancing in the street singing “Happy Days Are Here Again,” but the psychological effect of a rise in supply indeed does wonders. Doesn’t it?
Giving a green light for drilling a useless, and I mean utterly useless piece of tundra -- save for some migratory reindeer -- would send an enormous psychological message across the globe to all our friends, foes and economic competitors -- who could easily and overnight turn into foes when push comes to shove -- the United States is going to protect her interests come frozen hells or whatever. The same goes for off-shore drilling.
Just look at our prospective economic foes, China, eager to start drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and making good use of the Panama Canal (which it now owns through one of its puppet “companies”) and India. The latter has the fastest growing and largest middle class in the world -- and we’re still asleep and worried about reindeer breeding grounds.
Look around the world and see how the other capitalist nations (save for the extra sensitive European Union nations) treat their environments -- or how they don’t treat them with respect.
Sea Windmills -- Imagine These Off Martha's Vineyard!
I agree with conservationists that measures to tighten up our homes, establish offshore windmill farms (particularly off Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard, a-hem) and look for ways to stretch the present supply of oil reserves we have now will do wonders. But just think of what we can accomplish by both drilling in ANWR, off our shores and conserving more existing energy resources?
For the sake of bringing up a “symbolic example,” some of you might remember, or have learned about how your parents, grandparents and great grandparents used to save the fat from cooking bacon and other fatty foods, pour them into an old coffee can and drop them off at the nearest WWII conservation station. That grease was somehow converted into material used to make explosive material for our naval and field artillery shells. Now I’m not urging that we save our cooking grease for making shells, bombs, etc. But don’t we read about some locals pouring used cooking oil in their cars?
If we can do that, and loosen up on our notions of what’s so “precious” in the eyes of Washington Beltway enviro-lobbyists eyes -- just think of how much more we can accomplish.
Far better to envision such realistic dreams than to even think about the prospect of people freezing in their homes due to exorbitant costs, oil cut-offs, and the loss of our economic independence.
It’s either the inconvenciencing of a relatively small number of migratory reindeer or the economic future of the greatest nation on the planet. Not even a worthy dispute.
| 63 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
As for the prices coming down before we actually have any of the new oil in hand... well, it could happen. Much of the price increases are based on speculation. Investors bought shares in oil futures because they expected the price to increase, and their buying made it happen. Repeatedly! If, knowing that a new source was going to become available in a few years, the investors kept raising the prices, they'd have to be crazy. It may not bring the price down in a week or a month, but it would have to slow the rise and eventually, as the time drew near for using our own oil, the prices would drop. No investor or speculator wants to lose his shirt. Their motive is profit and having our own supply would change their position dramatically as their future profits vansih before their eyes.
Comment by Anonymous
Hopefully one of his Democratic counterparts, Deval Patrick, has both the vision and the guts to take on the hoity-toities down on the Vineyard and Nantucket to get a windmill farm off Buzzard's Bay -- a virtual windtunnel.
Guess who some of those hoity-toities are: very well-off libs who can afford to put 50-60 bucks worth of King Abdullah's black gold in their Volvo, Benz or BMW SUVs -- not to mention a couple of MA senators living in the same vicinity, and from what I understand ... they're about as warm to the windmill farm in their precious eyesights as Maine water is before June. Brrrrrrrrr.
I'd like to know this: If Hugo Chavez cuts off even Ted's neph Joe's Citizen's Oil Energy Company that's done wonders for the poor in this state meet their heating oil needs -- and we don't have any Plan B because it'll upset Rudolph's breeding dating plans up in ANWR -- how are the libs going to explain THAT?