Bad Week for the Environment

[Superman]

They're fanatical, Tim. I'm not a blood thrower and I accept the notion that their tactics are extreme and that they put an "extremist" tone on their message. They know that. By the time we have this discussion, they have made their point. Their less fanatical arm is working in legislatures and Congress, but not getting press. It's a multi-pronged approach. I'm not justifying it. But we are talking about it. This means they succeeded.

I also understand that drilling will occupy a small portion of ANWR. I think you understand that an oil spill would cover a LARGE portion of ANWR. And I think we both understand that, since everyone agrees that ANWR oil will not make any appreciable difference in the nation's oil supply or prices, this is all about money. It's a convenient commercial venture that is opposed by the majority of the American people. Did I mention that our president has ties to the oil industry?

[Tim Hancock]

Supe, your point about it not making a big difference is well taken and is a VALID argument. I really think the insinutation that W or his friends will make out big on the deal is not a very good argument. Making it sound like the oil companies will turn the whole place into garbage dump is also an invalid argument IMO

[Superman]

No, they won't necessarily turn it into a garbage dump. Well, let me reconsider that. I deal in the heavy construction industry, and the messes created by drilling operations are breathtaking. But no, that's not my argument. I worry about the possibility of a spill, and I also consider the impact of the drilling operations themselves on a fairly fragile ecosystem. I honestly do not believe that the forces pushing for this drilling are particularly knowledgeable about or sensitive to the ecological impact. I think they are drill/oil guys with their eye on THAT prize.

The reason I mention the fact that this decision will not impact the nation's oil supply or prices, is to re-raise the question of why it's happening. There is no question this will benefit Dubya and his friends and industry. The fact that it will not benefit the nation should raise the question of why it's so important to Dubya that he bucks popular opinion, and also why this matter has been a FULL COURT PRESS for him since the first day of his first term.

[john70t]

One could ask why the US should have restrictive enviromental laws when China is using up the the majority oil and steel and will probably start using their belching coal-burning plants again?
The worlds air and water is shared by all nations and people, so if "they" have can get wealthy by destroying "nature"(technically disproportionately chemically unbalancing the surroundings of collective existence)....why can't "we"?

[Superman]

Originally posted by john70t
One could ask why the US should have restrictive enviromental laws when China is using up the the majority oil and steel and will probably start using their belching coal-burning plants again?
The worlds air and water is shared by all nations and people, so if "they" have can get wealthy by destroying "nature"(technically disproportionately chemically unbalancing the surroundings of collective existence)....why can't "we"?

Right you are, John. And since the diplomatic solution is for snivelling liberal wimps, I say we CRUSH THEM with our military muscle, as soon as we're finished with Iraq.

[bryanthompson]

We should just send Carter to china... he'll do a lot of good there.

[bryanthompson]

you didn't answer john's question, either, supe.

[Moneyguy1]

Simple answer:

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Although, three lefts do........

[bryanthompson]

No, that's a cliche not an answer. I want an answer to his question, because it is a good one.

[stevepaa]

just as good as this question?

if he jumps off the cliff, why can't we.

So we should change our instinct to care for the environment to follow the worst case offender?

Is that where you were going?

[bryanthompson]

I'm not trying to speak for John here, but his question basically asks why the rest of the world (especially China) isn't held to the same standards as we are. We've put more money into cleaning up our environment than anyone else, yet we are made out to be the bad guys. Why aren't other countries held to the same standards?

[stevepaa]

On that, I think we agree that we should try to get others to follow our lead, but sometimes I suspect the price to get them to leap frog from where they are to where they need to be is absurd, and so there are concessions to be made. After all, we have a significant time span of being industrialized and they are just starting. But maybe we can offer small jumps to them in the interest of the global enivronment.

[Tim Hancock]

How exactly does W benefit here? How do his "oil business" friends benefit? Why would W want to go after small amounts of difficult to refine oil up north? The left claims W went to war in Iraq for oil, if that is true why would he care about the "insignificant" oil up north. I am getting so confused!

[stevepaa]

Tim,
Who does benefit from drilling in ANWR? I can't figure that out.

[Moneyguy1]

Bryant:

The question has no quantitative answer. The answer is one of degree and of "doing the right thing." That cannot be measured except in relative terms, so it becomes a moral/ethical issue. If your neighbor, in an area without zoning laws, wishes to collect junk cars, what are your alternatives? Should you match him car for car?

Some questions are simply rhetorical.

Most POVs are simply observations and not fact.

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Tim,
Who does benefit from drilling in ANWR? I can't figure that out.

Good point

[john70t]

Sorry briant, but the question was a little tounge-in-cheek and perhaps a reflection on US values.

The correct answer(according to moi) is to skip oil and current building methods as old technology and create highly efficient mass transit for ourselves and them. The industrialization process of China in the long run will probably be more than the planets filtering systems can handle, and if the one-child policy every changes there will be a mass migration(perhaps through force) from the area. Mexico city and Beijin are already running out of water. Of course they will be wealthy so anywhere poor and rural to be developed will do. And just think of how much Yosemite real estate will go for. Nothing is sacred in times of economic "war".
On the other hand, having China build so fast might ruin it's long-term infrastructure and create gridlock and need western goods and tech to restructure(kinda like giving every beijinite a 50's Cadillac or giving a fat baby all the sugared sweets in the cupboard at once to teach it a lesson).
However some societys thrive in unstructured excess and afterways the cupboards will be very, very bare.

[Superman]

Giving kids a huge bag of candy to teach them a lesson......doesn't work. BTDT.

And Bryan, I think maybe you have challenged me before to go back and answer a specific question and I may have ran out of time or maybe (like in this case) it was a rhetorical question but okay. I'm happy to answer any question.

My first blush is like like bob. Two wrongs do not make a right. You didn't want to consider that to be an answer, but it is. Why don't you just steal from other people? Others do it.

But what we're hoping for is that stealing subsides or is eliminated. We'd like China to be more environmentally responsible. In order to bring that about, we will (hopefully) be drawing China into discussions in which China and other nations can discuss nation-behavior in the context of a world community. I know this is a lot more complicated than NASCAR or the Iraq War, but that's how progress is actually made. diplomacy. Neanderthals don't understand this concept, but mature humans do. In the minds of the folks who are enjoying the Iraq situation and who regard liberals as wimps, a synonym for Diplomacy would be "forgiveness." I disagree. I thing a better synonym would be "discussion."

Better yet: "discussion that brings pressure."

[john70t]

This gets theoretical but:
Isn't the advancement of tools one of the primary things archeologists use to determine the development of humankinds progress?

(haha got ya on that evolution thing if you answered).

If so, why are alternatives to petroleum still being attacked and suppressed?
For example if you try and find biodiesel information on Wickpedia.com, you'll find it has been erased and the heading ominously has 9-11 commision/national security references. Ummmm......?? oh nevermind. Not even worth it.
There have been efficiency drive systems for many decades that get close to 100mpg -hydraulic recovery for one- yet "battery technology" and "under research" is still the common excuse. 20mpg? Alternative? Gimme a break!

If it ever becomes a competition and boils down to basic will and manpower-the US will lose. We've already lost the technological edge in buisness. No, let me rephrase that. It's already been given away.

[JSDSKI]

This is getting kind of weird - but I had no problem going here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel