Political Crossfire Forums

[GTTofAK]

Sostratos wrote: Drilling in ANWR is a form of extreme stupidity. It will not even help us with our oil situation. It will take ten years for the operations up there to become functional so we start getting oil from those 2000 acres in 2015. At its best ANWR will only produce 875,000 barrels a day compared to our need of 83.5 million barrels right now. And the needed amount of oil is expected to rise to 120 million by then with the US needing 35 million barrels a day. And also ANWR will only be producing those 875,000 barrels a day around 2025. So is drilling in ANWR a solution. No it only continues to destroy the environment. And it will only lower gas prices by fifty cents for a short time.

Those are complete hack numbers and you know it. Estimates put ANWRs production at 1,000,000 barrels per day and the us uses approximately 20 million barrels a day. Where the @$#%& did you get 875,000 and 83.5? Furthermore the most time consuming part of this project would be the construction of a pipeline. The Alaska Pipeline took three years to build in 1977 and had to cover a longer more difficult route to be built. So I ask you again, where the hell did you get that 10 years estimate. I've heard about exaggeration to make your point but this is just stupid. Exaggeration is one thing but bumping numbers by over 400% come on.

[DMG2FUN]

JDnCoke wrote: This is typical short-termist logic for you.
Short term? Or do you mean in the life time of a tree hugger? The simple fact is tree huggers think of themselves over others.
JDnCoke wrote: Whats the point in finding a permanent and logic solution to our energy problems, with all the research thats been done?
Where are they at? Why have they not been introduced into the economy? Because they cost to much and cannot compete with our current energy sources without government intervention. Tree huggers cannot figure this simple logic out.
JDnCoke wrote: Nah too sensible, lets live on the edge and use all our available resources up while at the same time dooming the planet to catastrophic climatic change.
Sensible is not a tree hugger word.
Give us some examples of tree hugger programs that work without government support or mandated use by passing laws to force people to use them.

[JDnCoke]

Tell ya what, lets hand control over to ExxonMobil, I don't mind swimming drinking, eating and sleeping oil, how about you?

[DMG2FUN]

JDnCoke wrote: Tell ya what, lets hand control over to ExxonMobil, I don't mind swimming drinking, eating and sleeping oil, how about you?
So how are you using the internet? Do you refuse to use electricity produced by energy sources that cause pollution? Nuke, oil fired, coal fired, or water powered?
Do you drive electric cars that require a recharge from polluting energy sources?
Do you only purchase food produced only by animal force?
Do you heat and cool your home or do you live in a unheated or hot home?
Do you take hot showers or baths? Or do you wash yourself in a creek out back of the home?

[Freeyourmind]

DMG2FUN wrote: JDnCoke wrote: Tell ya what, lets hand control over to ExxonMobil, I don't mind swimming drinking, eating and sleeping oil, how about you?
So how are you using the internet? Do you refuse to use electricity produced by energy sources that cause pollution? Nuke, oil fired, coal fired, or water powered?
Do you drive electric cars that require a recharge from polluting energy sources?
Do you only purchase food produced only by animal force?
Do you heat and cool your home or do you live in a unheated or hot home?
Do you take hot showers or baths? Or do you wash yourself in a creek out back of the home?

Oh for ***** sake! Oil and coal are not the only sources of energy that can generate electricity. My house is a case in point.

I've installed roof solar panels on my house and it is so efficient that I actually have an energy credit ie I produce a surplus of electricity from the solar panels that I put back into the energy grid. I haven't paid a power bill since I installed it. Yes it was expensive, but I don't pay electricty bills so over time it will pay itself off and I don't add to the pollution.

The government and oil companies have got everyone so scared that alternative energy sources are inefficient and expensive. Of course thay are going to say this when their major source of income ie selling oil and gas to us could be under threat.

Wake up!!!!!

[GTTofAK]

Freeyourmind wrote: DMG2FUN wrote: JDnCoke wrote: Tell ya what, lets hand control over to ExxonMobil, I don't mind swimming drinking, eating and sleeping oil, how about you?
So how are you using the internet? Do you refuse to use electricity produced by energy sources that cause pollution? Nuke, oil fired, coal fired, or water powered?
Do you drive electric cars that require a recharge from polluting energy sources?
Do you only purchase food produced only by animal force?
Do you heat and cool your home or do you live in a unheated or hot home?
Do you take hot showers or baths? Or do you wash yourself in a creek out back of the home?

Oh for ***** sake! Oil and coal are not the only sources of energy that can generate electricity. My house is a case in point.

I've installed roof solar panels on my house and it is so efficient that I actually have an energy credit ie I produce a surplus of electricity from the solar panels that I put back into the energy grid. I haven't paid a power bill since I installed it. Yes it was expensive, but I don't pay electricty bills so over time it will pay itself off and I don't add to the pollution.

The government and oil companies have got everyone so scared that alternative energy sources are inefficient and expensive. Of course thay are going to say this when their major source of income ie selling oil and gas to us could be under threat.

Wake up!!!!!

Too bad those solar panels took more energy to build than they will ever produce. Face it you robbed from Peter to pay Paul. :dance:

[ieatfood]

The one thing that peeves me off about environmentalists is that they seem to make claims that everyone just takes for granted.

One such claim is--don't drill in ANWR because you will kill all the moose.

And I say: so what? Who cares about the ANWR moose? Does anyone live there? No. Does anyone work there? No. Does anyone play there? Not really. In reality, ANWR is simply a huge wasteland with some moose and birds and stuff. Why should I care about the extinction of a few moose? I live here in the contiguous U.S. What are a few moose in Alaska gonna do for me? Why is everyone so riled up over these stupid moose? What benefit do we as a country get by saving those damn moose? Somone please tell me. If you convince me, a person living in some random city, lets say Los Angeles, that somehow it is in my interest to save those moose, then I will by all means oppose the drilling. Otherwise, I could care less. Drill Away!!

[Sostratos]

I always check my facts and where did you get yours from the Bush administration. I did not just make those numbers up they have been determined in research by environmental scientist. Also ANWR only contains 10 billion barrels and that is around the amount used by the United States in little over a year. We are running out of fossil fuels and unless we concentrate on alternative fuel sources. And I am not saying that the U.S. alone uses 83.5 million a day that is the amount used by the whole world.

[DMG2FUN]

Freeyourmind wrote: Oh for ***** sake! Oil and coal are not the only sources of energy that can generate electricity. My house is a case in point.
What tax breaks did you get for doing this? So beside what others claim about your solar bs how long before the tax break you get is paid back to the American tax payer?
All of this other energy source bs does not come cheap. Somebody else pays for it.
Not one tree hugger has produced a alternate energy source on their own. They either get tax breaks or government grants to do it.
Now the car manufactures all developed the auto industry on their own. The gasoline provided by the oil companies was develop on their own. They got no tax breaks or government grants to produce oil.
Freeyourmind wrote: The government and oil companies have got everyone so scared that alternative energy sources are inefficient and expensive.
They are when compared to present energy sources. Take away all of the government breaks and you alternate sources are more costly.
The only thing that is going to make Americans use alternate energy sources is cheap cost.
So tree huggers if you want alternate energy sources to compete with a gallon of gas then develop them on your own!

[Freeyourmind]

ieatfood wrote: The one thing that peeves me off about environmentalists is that they seem to make claims that everyone just takes for granted.

One such claim is--don't drill in ANWR because you will kill all the moose.

And I say: so what? Who cares about the ANWR moose? Does anyone live there? No. Does anyone work there? No. Does anyone play there? Not really. In reality, ANWR is simply a huge wasteland with some moose and birds and stuff. Why should I care about the extinction of a few moose? I live here in the contiguous U.S. What are a few moose in Alaska gonna do for me? Why is everyone so riled up over these stupid moose? What benefit do we as a country get by saving those damn moose? Somone please tell me. If you convince me, a person living in some random city, lets say Los Angeles, that somehow it is in my interest to save those moose, then I will by all means oppose the drilling. Otherwise, I could care less. Drill Away!!


So your philosophy is, damn everyone else, as long as I can drive my gas guzzling, over polluting SUV I'm going to rape a pillage the environment to get what I want. No wonder the rest of the world hates America.

[ieatfood]

Freeyourmind wrote:

So your philosophy is, damn everyone else, as long as I can drive my gas guzzling, over polluting SUV I'm going to rape a pillage the environment to get what I want. No wonder the rest of the world hates America.

No, my philosophy is not damn everyone else. My philosophy is damn the moose living in the Alaskan wildlife refuge. And I don't see what SUV's have to do with the moose in alaska--you are changing the subject!! I am not for raping and pillaging the environment that people live in, becuase no one lives in ANWR--the environment in ANWR doesnt affect anyone except for those moose. So all I want you to tell me is why I should care about those moose? You obviously cannot tell me. But I am wondering if someone else can. Is your care for these particular moose based on some sort of logical reasoning? If so, please let me in on it.

I don't see what international opinion has to do with moose in ANWR.

[MasterChefD]

I see no problem drilling in ANWR. It's not that I don't care about the moose, I think it's actually reindeer, because I believe we shouldn't upset animals' habitats drastically unless we have no other choice, it's that the drilling in ANWR will hardly affect the reindeer and some studies have shown that it might even be to their advantage. In addition, it will provide some stable jobs and reduce our dependence on OPEC oil a bit. As long as we invest in alternative energy research as well, ANWR is fair game to me.

[ieatfood]

MasterChefD wrote: I believe we shouldn't upset animals' habitats drastically unless we have no other choice

My question is why? What is so sacred about animals' habitats that we can't disturb them? From my point of view, as long as humans aren't being adversely affected who cares? Maybe from an animal right's point of view you could argue that animals have a moral "right" to live without human intervention. But I don't think so. I eat chickens all the time. I have the right to kill chickens--why not moose or reindeer or whatever?

[MasterChefD]

ieatfood wrote: From my point of view, as long as humans aren't being adversely affected who cares? Why bother them for no good reason if they don't bother us? You're going to wipe out an entire species just so you can make some extra money? Do you value life? Why not destroy the Amazon? You could make a lot of money AND paper! Why not kill all the tigers and pandas? Their skins makes pretty clothing for the rich and famous! Why not wipe out all the rhinoceroses? Chinese people use it to make their medicine! Why not kill all the elephants? Ivory is soooo cool! Do you see where this is heading? We shouldn't exterminate a species for vanity or greed.

ieatfood wrote: I eat chickens all the time. I have the right to kill chickens--why not moose or reindeer or whatever? I have no problem with you killing chickens, or moose, or reindeer for food. While we shouldn't exterminate a species for vanity or greed, we certainly shouldn't exterminate a species for fun, and we definitely shouldn't exterminate a species just because we can.

If you want to, we can continue in the the proper forum.

[ieatfood]

MasterChefD wrote: Why bother them for no good reason if they don't bother us? You're going to wipe out an entire species just so you can make some extra money? Do you value life? Why not destroy the Amazon? You could make a lot of money AND paper! Why not kill all the tigers and pandas? Their skins makes pretty clothing for the rich and famous! Why not wipe out all the rhinoceroses? Chinese people use it to make their medicine! Why not kill all the elephants? Ivory is soooo cool! Do you see where this is heading? We shouldn't exterminate a species for vanity or greed.

You've just contradicted your own point. The reason we don't wanna cause the amazon, the tigers, the rhinos, the elephants, etc to go extinct is because they all have legitimate uses for humans. It's the same reason why we don't wanna overfish--the fish actually serve a useful purpose for humans (sushi is tasty!!) The moose living in ANWR have no useful purpose for humans.

MasterChefD wrote: I have no problem with you killing chickens, or moose, or reindeer for food. While we shouldn't exterminate a species for vanity or greed, we certainly shouldn't exterminate a species for fun, and we definitely shouldn't exterminate a species just because we can.

Well if we can exterminate animals to feed ourselves, then why can't we exterminate animals to provide jobs so people can feed their families and oil so people can heat their homes and power their appliances? In either case, you're killing animals for the gain of humans. You do it in the case of chickens, why not in the case of moose?

[GTTofAK]

Sostratos wrote: I always check my facts and where did you get yours from the Bush administration. I did not just make those numbers up they have been determined in research by environmental scientist. Also ANWR only contains 10 billion barrels and that is around the amount used by the United States in little over a year. We are running out of fossil fuels and unless we concentrate on alternative fuel sources. And I am not saying that the U.S. alone uses 83.5 million a day that is the amount used by the whole world.

OK do you know what an environmental scientist is? For the most part they are eco wackos who specialize in conservation and ecology and I loath every time I have had the displeasure of meeting one. Most are bureaucrats who specialize in assuring that projects and businesses stay within EPA guidlines. In no way is an enviormental scientist at all qualified to make such claims.

The fields of expertise that are qualified would be.

Geoscientists

[MasterChefD]

ieatfood wrote: You've just contradicted your own point. Nope. "We shouldn't exterminate a species for vanity or greed." That still stands.

ieatfood wrote: Well if we can exterminate animals to feed ourselves, then why can't we exterminate animals to provide jobs so people can feed their families and oil so people can heat their homes and power their appliances? In either case, you're killing animals for the gain of humans. You do it in the case of chickens, why not in the case of moose? You can kill some animals, not species. I completely understand how some people need to poach tiger hides or elephant tusks to support their family. Anyway, I was referring to:
ieatfood wrote: I have the right to kill chickens--why not moose or reindeer or whatever? You made it sound like (maybe not intentionally) you would have nothing against people killing whatever animal so unlucky enough to cross their path because it's their "right" to kill. That's why I said, "we definitely shouldn't exterminate a species just because we can".

We have share a fundamental difference: You view animals purely as resource. I don't.

Alrighty then, that's all I'm going to talking regarding the treatment of animals in this thread. We can talk about it in the "Animal Rights" forum if you'd like.

[ieatfood]

MasterChefD wrote: ieatfood wrote: You've just contradicted your own point. Nope. "We shouldn't exterminate a species for vanity or greed." That still stands.

actually, your original point was that "we shouldn't exterminate a species because certain species have legitimate uses for mankind" (and you then proceeded to cite many examples of endangered species whic have legitimate uses for mankind). And killing moose in ANWR would not be for "vanity or greed." It would be to provide jobs so people can make a living and to provide energy which we need to live.

MasterChefD wrote: You can kill some animals, not species. I completely understand how some people need to poach tiger hides or elephant tusks to support their family.

So let me get this straight...someone can kill off rare tigers and elephants to support their family but Alaskan oil workers can't kill off moose to support their families?

MasterChefD wrote: Anyway, I was referring to:
ieatfood wrote: I have the right to kill chickens--why not moose or reindeer or whatever? You made it sound like (maybe not intentionally) you would have nothing against people killing whatever animal so unlucky enough to cross their path because it's their "right" to kill. That's why I said, "we definitely shouldn't exterminate a species just because we can".

No, I never said that it would be alright to kill an animal just for the hell of it. But if killing an animal results in creating jobs and improving living standards, then kill away!

MasterChefD wrote: We have share a fundamental difference: You view animals purely as resource. I don't.

That you're right about. But if you don't view animals as a resource, then what are they?? Do you view them as equal partners in life? As lesser partners? But you're right--that's an animal right's question. But I can't imagine that a person who kills animals every day just because they enjoy the taste (you could easily be a vegetarian but you choose to eat meat simply because it tastes good) really sees animals as partners. BTw, the fact that you kill animals just to satisfy your taste buds--isnt that the very definition of "greed and vanity" that you rile against?

[GTTofAK]

This argument is stupid. Moose and caribou aren't endangered. There is no risk of them going extinct.

[DMG2FUN]

Come on tree huggers tell us how you surf the internet using just earth friendly sources of energy

Wait a minute are tree huggers using other sources of energy to surf the internet?