Thursday, August 28, 2008


You all realize that having been to ANWR, I now automatically win any discussion we have about whether or not we drill there. It's simple; I just say "Have you ever been there?"

  The argument is that the area that has oil, compared to the rest of ANWR is like a postage stamp on a football field.
Well, sure, but what about all of the roads, traffic, and another pipeline? And what about all those other oil leases that you guys still need to drill?

  To be honest, it probably would make little or no difference to nearly all Americans. These photos aren't even from anywhere near the section that they want to drill.
The thing that worries me is the precedent it sets. If refuges suddenly aren't refuges as soon as someone finds oil, gold or uranium, then will the same go for national parks, national monuments, state parks, and so on? (National Forest already means very little.)
  Anyone who knows me would probably have already guessed where I stand on this issue, but I thought I'd let you know anyway.
(That white lichen takes 50+ years to grow. It's what caribou eat all winter long.) You can't take fossils, plants, soil, or anything at all from this wildlife refuge. The only thing you can take is wildlife, as long as you have a hunting license. Strange, eh?

1 comment:

eped said...

GREAT! pictures.

and now I can cite a close familiar authority too, and when people say that all that logos came at the cost of oil that had to come from somewhere I can say "not me" and "yeah but he hitchhiked" and so on. (if I'm wrong don't bother correcting me)