Should evironmentalists back off opposing drilling in Anwar and refinery construction so?

Question

that we can reduce our dependance on foreign oil.

As long as we do it cleanly.

Answer 1

Why not put the same money that would be put into drilling ANWAR into building renewable energy sources that are closer to major population centers. It would still reduce dependence on foreign sources, it would protect wilderness, it would begin the process of decentralizing energy production, it would give more power to local distributors, it would give local economies more control.

If money is going to be spent on creating new equipment to extract energy, why not spend it in ways that are more efficient, more cost effective, will last longer, will be more sustainable, and will give more control to local economies instead of huge multinational corporations or the federal government?

Answer 2

Environmentalists will not back off but we should do it anyway.  Sadly there are too many people that want to see downfall of the US and will use their environmental agenda to cripple the economy and make the US dependent on other countries.

People are rallying behind environmental groups because it is trendy and not because they have the facts.  It's the clever leading the blind.

Answer 3

YES!

Answer 4

This is like the Alaskan Oil Reserves in America.  It's the last wilderness we have.  Drilling would destroy it.  People talk like it would run the country for hundreds of years, but the reality is 18 months.  75% of the world's known oil reserves are in the Middle East.  The remaining 25% is scattered around the Globe, mostly in protected preserves.  In my opinion the few months fuel that would be gained by drilling and destroying the last natural habitats on the planet would not justify it.  We have alternatives to petroleum and we have had for some time.  The reasons we continue to use it in the USA are political.  Scapegoating every problem anyone has onto the environmentalists makes no more sense than blaming the jews, the arabs or the blacks.  It would be nice to discuss this type of issue on a little higher plane.

Anyone who thinks we could just switch over to nuclear like throwing a switch and all of the problems and worries would vanish knows nothing about nuclear.

Answer 5

Those who oppose it should be required to walk every where they go, should be baned from using any Elec. that is not from 'their ' renewable sources"

Their homes should inspected, anything that is made of paper that is not 'recycled' should be removed.  Any think that is made of plastic, vinyl or other oil based products should be removed.

Let them sit in the cold, dark, and wipe their butts on a pine comb a while then see if they don't change their tune.

Answer 6

These answers are so true.  The same thing with Nuclear power plants, the most efficient and cheapest form of energy.

   We have plenty of oil in the ground but can't drill.  We need more refineries but cant  build.  Yes the environmentalists are our public enemy.  they lobby congress etc. and we all suffer.

Answer 7

How will increasing refinery capacity decrease our dependence on foreign oil?

The whole "environmentalists prevent refineries from being built" excuse was pretty much dispelled when oil execs testified in Congress last year that they have no interest in building more refineries.

Answer 8

They should but I'm not holding my breath.  They geneally worry more about upsetting caribou in Alaska than upsetting camels in Saudi Arabia.

Answer 9

No

It's called a wildlife preserve for a reason.

As long as we can do it cleanly is a big if.  There is nothing clean about oil, drilling, transport, storage, burning.  Do you mean clean, like what Texaco did to the environment of Ecuador?  They dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste and oil into the jungle.  Or do you mean clean like the Exxon Valdez accident and all the other oil spills?

We need to end our oil dependence in general.

Alternative energy will boost our economy, not harm it.

The investment in alternative energy would bring much greater benefits, ecologically and economically.  Oil is killing our economy and environment,.

Hidden costs of oil are estimated as high as $800 billion annually.  This includes huge tax credits and subsidies to the oil industry that are larger than those for alternative energy by almost an order of magnitude.

Nuclear is not a good choice.  Here is why.

Big subsidies - larger than other alternatives

No liability for nuclear companies in the event of a catastrophic accident

Huge supply of water needed for cooling

Dangerous and costly transportation of waste

Huge costs of dismantling reactors when their useful life if over.

Does not provide energy independence as we import 95% of nuclear fuel, with Russia as a future supplier.

Argonne National Lab says an airliner crashing into a reactor could cause a complete meltdown, even if the containment building isn't breached.

Good terrorist target,eh?

"Water is the nuclear industry’s Achilles’ heel,” said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power. “You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants.” He added: “This is becoming a crisis.”

http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/07/...

Link to The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy"