Help Preserve the Arctic Refuge

Dillinger

Guerrilla Ontologist
Joined
Sep 19, 2000
Posts
26,152
http://www.savebiogems.org/
http://www.savebiogems.org/arctic
http://www.savebiogems.org/arctic/takeaction.asp?step=2&item=1123

Recently Redford sent out the email message below urging Americans to tell their senators, via this website, to vote for fuel efficiency and against drilling in the Arctic. And he asked us to enlist BioGems Defenders to circulate the message as well.

http://www.savebiogems.org/redford.asp

Dear Friend,

Last fall, in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, I asked for your help in turning back repeated attempts by the Bush administration and pro-oil senators to rush through an energy bill that would have opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling under the pretext of national security. Hundreds of thousands of us deluged the U.S. Senate with messages opposing this blatant attempt by the oil lobby to use our national tragedy as an opportunity to advance their own narrow interests. We succeeded because of our collective action. Our voices were heard.

Your voices are needed once again. Please, take one minute to speak out at http://www.biogems.org/arctic on NRDC's Biogems Website.

This week, the Senate begins debate on a far-reaching bill that will determine whether America's energy policies will save or destroy our natural heritage. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has introduced legislation that would protect the Arctic Refuge and reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil by making our cars and trucks more fuel efficient. But the Bush administration and a powerful pro-oil block of senators are pulling out all stops and continuing to aggressively push an energy plan that is patently not in the public interest, vowing to pass amendments that would open the Arctic Refuge to drilling and block new fuel-efficiency standards.

Because we possess a paltry 3 percent of the world's oil reserves but consume 25 percent of the world's oil supply, we can never drill our way to energy independence. If we raise the fuel-economy standards for new cars and light trucks to 40 miles per gallon over the next ten years, we could save 15 times more oil than the Arctic Refuge is likely to produce over the next half century. By the year 2012, fuel efficiency would be saving us nearly two million barrels of oil a day -- more than all the oil we imported from Saudi Arabia last year. As an added benefit, we'd be cutting millions of tons of global warming pollution and smog-forming air pollution.

Only the oil giants could argue that despoiling the Arctic Refuge makes more sense than this cheaper, cleaner, more self-reliant path of fuel efficiency. Don't let the U.S. Senate cave in to their pressure! These will be the most important environmental votes your senators cast all year. Tell them to vote NO to Arctic drilling and YES to increased fuel efficiency.

Your voice is now more critical than ever. Go to http://www.savebiogems.org/arctic and send an email or fax to your senators. And if you want to do more to help our cause, please forward this message to as many people as you can.

If we speak with one voice we can preserve our natural heritage AND make America more energy independent. We can make a tremendous difference in stopping this arrogant attack on our public lands. Raising fuel-efficiency standards will lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Drilling in the spectacular and pristine Arctic Refuge will not. The facts bear this out. It's that simple.

Robert Redford

National Resources Defense Council
http://www.nrdc.org/
 
Why is it that millionaire actors/celebrities know so much more than us commoners? The government began passing laws mandating corporate fuel standards in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil in the 1970s,now 30 years later their going to pass more laws to raise the standards again....Pass a law, solve a problem........While their at it I want the following laws passed..... Cure for cancer....Hell why not pass one law that mandates scientists find a cure for all diseases by 2010! Then they can pass a law to end poverty,racism..well you get the idea..........Why not be up front and raise the gas tax.........By 75cents or more?Use the money for state of the art mass transit.Mandating that CAFE standards go up is nothing more than a TAX via the backdoor......:rolleyes:
 
Isn't that the guy whose claim to expertise on ecology resides in the fact that he starred in "Three Days of the Condor?"
 
PS for the youngsters...

It wasn't about the fawking bird.
 
SINthysist said:
Isn't that the guy whose claim to expertise on ecology resides in the fact that he starred in "Three Days of the Condor?"
Yea thats him....:rolleyes:
 
i hate robert redford as an actor but he is dead right in what he says ... cars in britain are amazingly more efficient then american ones because of our high cost in fuel where in america because of your low cost in fuel efficiency just isn't a selling point at all


im not saying you should raise the cost of your fuel but you sure shouldn't start ruining the beautiful landscape of alaska


it makes me want to cry to think that could happen just for the sake of driving gas guzzling cars *sigh* its not as though you need too even our cars in the uk dont lack performance compared to US cars
 
Dillinger said:
[BThis week, the Senate begins debate on a far-reaching bill that will determine whether America's energy policies will save or destroy our natural heritage. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has introduced legislation that would protect the Arctic Refuge and reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil by making our cars and trucks more fuel efficient. But the Bush administration and a powerful pro-oil block of senators are pulling out all stops and continuing to aggressively push an energy plan that is patently not in the public interest, vowing to pass amendments that would open the Arctic Refuge to drilling and block new fuel-efficiency standards.
Only the oil giants could argue that despoiling the Arctic Refuge makes more sense than this cheaper, cleaner, more self-reliant path of fuel efficiency. Don't let the U.S. Senate cave in to their pressure! These will be the most important environmental votes your senators cast all year. Tell them to vote NO to Arctic drilling and YES to increased fuel efficiency.

If we speak with one voice we can preserve our natural heritage AND make America more energy independent. We can make a tremendous difference in stopping this arrogant attack on our public lands. Raising fuel-efficiency standards will lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Drilling in the spectacular and pristine Arctic Refuge will not. The facts bear this out. It's that simple.

[/B]

To me, it's the difference between long term and short term thinking. More fuel efficient vehicles is a long term solution to an ongoing problem.

Drilling in Alaska is short term thinking, it's the finger in the dyke mentality. Eventually, you still have to fix the problem, and in the meantime you've caused far more damage.
 
lisa sometimes calls me a tree hugger but i dont think it takes a serious environmentalist to see that drilling for oil in previously protected regions is wrong


its taken billion of years for alaska to become the beautiful region it is ... is it really worth destroying for the sake of oil
 
Big oil decides what kind of energy sources are going to be used. Everyone has heard rumors about alternate power sources for vehicles, carberatours that get almost 100 miles to the gallon, and Big Oil squashing that for profit.

This is a fact. Before Bush is out of office British Petroleum and Arco will be laying pipeline through ANWR. It will be too late save it.

Why does Big Oil get away with this? First of all, if you went somewhere today, how did you get there? If you have to go to the store, how do you get there? If you live in the State of California, how many times has your state squashed the building of nuclear power plants in favor of diesel power plants? Where does your electricity come from? Do you recycle your plastic-- a petroleum product-- or do you not? Do you carpool? Can you? Have you ever ridden the bus? How many times a day do you actually use your car? How many times a year is it strictly necessary for you to use your car?

Stalling drilling in ANWR is the finger in the dyke approach. Eventually ANWR will drilled. There is only one way to stop it, and that's to remove the consumer's dependence on oil. That has to start with Americans because we consume the most oil. Big oil will lose the power in their lobby if the consumer cuts usage. If everyone in America recycled all plastic products and cut their automobile usage in half, we would cut global oil revenue by a quarter.

Writing to congresspeople to save ANWR is like getting a root canal. You should have brushed your teeth in the first place. It still has to be done, but the blame for drilling doesn't belong solely on Washington fat cats and Big Oil. It belongs mostly right on your shoulders. Mine, too.
 
KillerMuffin said:

Why does Big Oil get away with this? First of all, if you went somewhere today, how did you get there? If you have to go to the store, how do you get there? If you live in the State of California, how many times has your state squashed the building of nuclear power plants in favor of diesel power plants? Where does your electricity come from? Do you recycle your plastic-- a petroleum product-- or do you not? Do you carpool? Can you? Have you ever ridden the bus? How many times a day do you actually use your car? How many times a year is it strictly necessary for you to use your car?

Oh you mean heartless bitch! Picking on me and laying all the blame on my shoulders just because I drive a gas guzzling 3/4 ton pickup! You're hateful I tell ya!

Seriously though, you're absolutely correct that we need to be doing more to cut usage and promote recycling. Some of us live too far away from a major town for public transportation to be an option. So yeah, I drive my car or truck quite a few miles every week. I try to make my trips to wal-mart and the grocery store coincide, and if I take the truck, I can hit the feed store too. Sometimes I actually accomplish that, and sometimes I have to drive 30 miles to Wal-Mart because I forgot to buy diapers.

I don't accumulate plastic bags, and when I do, I try and recycle them. But again, because of where I live, I have to drive at least 30 miles to a drop off center. So I have to decide if the 30 miles in gas is worth the benefit of recycling.

For me, more fuel efficiency is still a worthwhile pursuit. I'm not going to move into the city so that I can avail myself of public transportation or car-pooling. They're not options. So, if someone makes a truck that can pull my horse trailer when I have 6 horses in it, and gets good gas mileage to boot, I'll be the first in line to buy one. Until then, I'm perfectly willing to pay more for my gasoline via taxes.
 
bored1 said:
Mandating that CAFE standards go up is nothing more than a TAX via the backdoor......:rolleyes:

Because....see if you can grasp this...it's comparing apples and oranges again. You do it so well.

The car makers did make the standards didn't they? They didn't like it and would rather have just ignored the whole pollution mess to fatten the bottom line but they were able to meet the mandate. Raise'em again and see what happens. I'll give ya ten to one big auto can hit the marks. They just need an incentive. All they care about is profits and all the consumer cares about is how fucking cool and big his SUV is. As for vehicle emissions, sure we all care but let someone else worry about that. Sort of like the NIMBY syndrome.

They can hit the standards if they really try. Amazing that we have to treat big business like a slow first grader.

"Come on, you can do it! Just keep trying! Yeah! That's it! You did great! Here's a star for the day!"
 
I try to do my part. Big and small. I will need a new car within the next year and I plan on buying a hybrid car.

KM - you're pretty much right on the mark. It is on our shoulders. And your point does not exclude also trying to influence our representatives. Will it do any good? I have my doubts, but I do know that it can't hurt to try. If we can take the time to discuss this and other issues on the board I think we can certainly take the small amount of time it takes to put our names on a petition for something that we believe in. And, I think we can even take a bit more effort and write or even call our representatives personally. Many years ago I recall there was a philosophy that said for every letter that a politician received there were at least a 1,000 other people who felt the same way (I can't recall the exact ratio). This is because most people don't bother to write or to speak up. So, for every one of you who takes this issue, or any issue you believe in, to your representatives you are speaking with the voice of at least 1,000 others. If enough of you do so perhaps we can have some influence. At a certain point, when an issue becomes important enough and enough people make it a priortity, the politicians start to fear for their job security and worry that if they don't act we will vote them out of office. We can actually do that... it just takes enough people with enough committment.

Its this our only recourse? No, certainly not. But it is one of the many things that we can do.
 
Last edited:
Well I went to the website and sent the message to my Senators. This is one issue I feel strongly about. Just the thought of Dumbya and his "big oil" buddies yukking it up over ruining one of the last unspoiled places on Earth makes my blood boil. :mad:

I'd like to give em all the boot.
 
Drill more.

I just sent a letter to my senators and congressmen to vote for drilling in ANWR.

The internal combustion engine is about as efficient as it's ever going to get. And there are not, and never were any, 100MPG carbuerators. Direct fuel injection is the most efficient means of atomizing the fuel/air mixture and almost all modern vehicles use fuel injection.

More fuel efficient vehicles will lead to more highway fatalities. The only means of getting there is to reduce the weight of the vehicle, thereby making it weaker.

I get a kick out of foriegn commentors on the energy issue regarding the United States. They apparently have no idea of the distances that are involved with the movement of goods in this country, or how much time and effort is expended in reducing shipping costs. All of which is dependent on fossil fuel. All those that propose a significant increase in the gas tax apparently have no idea of the impact that it will have on the general economy, or don't care. Any such increase would be reflected in EVERY commodity that is purchased, from bread, to milk, to DVD's. Talk about a repressive tax. The working poor would be devasted. And that doesn't even take into consideration the severe contraction of the economy leading to higher unemployment. Wow, what a solution!

There is also this myth that the drilling for fossil fuel will destroy the environment. Hmmmmmm, maybe that's why Texas, Oklahoma, So. California, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey are such waste lands today. (Of course we just don't need the crops and livestock that they grow there, who'd eat such polluted crap anyway?)

The solution lies in alternative fuels. Fusion in particular.

Ishmael
 
Ishmael - good for you, and I mean that. You're speaking up and participating in the political process and making your opinion heard. I only hope that there are more people who are against drilling that speak up then there are those that speak up for drilling.

But that's my opinion - and I assume you grant me the right to that as I grant you the right to yours, even if we disagree.

For those that do disagree with you - Ismael just basically told his senators and congress people that there are at least 1,000 people (see my previous post) that want the drilling to occur. If you disagree, its up to you to say something.

Oh.. and Ishmael - thank you for keeping this thread alive and at the top of the board... *grin*
 
Thumper said:


Because....see if you can grasp this...it's comparing apples and oranges again. You do it so well.

The car makers did make the standards didn't they? They didn't like it and would rather have just ignored the whole pollution mess to fatten the bottom line but they were able to meet the mandate. Raise'em again and see what happens. I'll give ya ten to one big auto can hit the marks. They just need an incentive. All they care about is profits and all the consumer cares about is how fucking cool and big his SUV is. As for vehicle emissions, sure we all care but let someone else worry about that. Sort of like the NIMBY syndrome.

They can hit the standards if they really try. Amazing that we have to treat big business like a slow first grader.

"Come on, you can do it! Just keep trying! Yeah! That's it! You did great! Here's a star for the day!"
Look at all the fuel efficent hybrids that are selling.Toyota/Honda........Nobody is buying this junk........They met the original standards...but we still use more oil.....now why is that?MORE 2
 
bored1 said:
Look at all the fuel efficent hybrids that are selling.Toyota/Honda........Nobody is buying this junk........They met the original standards...but we still use more oil.....now why is that?MORE 2

See above. I'm buying one.

July 2001 - "The Prius gas/electric hybrid sedan celebrated the one-year anniversary of its launch in the U.S. market, with 1,037 units delivered in July, an increase of 23.3 percent." http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum/Forum19/HTML/000096.html

California mandates electric cars - "About 100,000 very clean vehicles, such as hybrid cars, must be produced in 2003, with this number increasing to more than 400,000 by 2006." -http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan2001/2001L-01-30-06.html

Honda/Civic - ""The Honda Civic is the best-selling compact car in America and one of the pillars of the Honda brand. To add hybrid power to the Civic lineup is an example of the faith and confidence we have in our hybrid technology." - http://www.hondanews.com/Forms/hond...uery-Show***001749***-wieck_media***-***honda(directory)civic(directory)***.ws4d?honda/civic/results(r)_text.html

Feb. 22, 2002 - "Demand for hybrids linked to pollution standards" - http://www.jsonline.com/wheels/peak/feb02/22420.asp

Over the next few years the hybrid electric vehicle market is expected to expand.

Ford has developed a hybrid sedan, although it has not gone on the market, and it plans to market a hybrid sport utility vehicle, the Escape HEV, in 2003. The Ford Escape HEV (which is to be marketed as the Maverick HEV in Europe) will combine electric motors with a four-cylinder gasoline engine.

Demand for hybrid electric vehicles is expected to expand as emission standards grow ever stricter.

When standards for reducing airborne pollutants were first introduced, the category of low-emission vehicles, or LEVs, emerged.

Then ULEVs (ultra-low-emission vehicles) came along, followed by SULEVs (super-ultra-low-emission vehicles).

California, a leader in limiting emissions, has tightened the permissible levels for those standards under rules that are to take effect in 2004.

Europe has introduced a new standard for introduction in the 2005 model year. Many regular gas-burning cars will be able to meet these standards, but hybrid electric vehicles will do that and get better mileage, too.
 
The FAct of The Matter is.............

Oil exploration in the ANWAR preserve of Alaska............... WHOLLY OWNED by the United States of America BTFW............

The oil fields do not need to be explored.............. we already know exactly where the oil resides.

We now know how to extract that oil via environmentally friendly means.

That particular reserve could force the middle east into accepting friendly world terms........... as it would end dependence upon middle eastern oil........... Let the Bastards try to live without US TAXPAYER SUPPORTED AID............... not to mention the millions of tons of grain that we give them under strong arm threat of being cut-off from the oil flow................ check the numbers........... we feed the world......... that's a fact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And on that note.......... the world's largest oil reserves reside inside the Gulf coast of the United States of America........ In our domestic waters............... should we decide to tap those reserves.............. the middle east would economically die within a decade................

I say.................. they made the bed............. let them lie upon it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Thumper said:


Because....see if you can grasp this...it's comparing apples and oranges again. You do it so well.

The car makers did make the standards didn't they? They didn't like it and would rather have just ignored the whole pollution mess to fatten the bottom line but they were able to meet the mandate. Raise'em again and see what happens. I'll give ya ten to one big auto can hit the marks. They just need an incentive. All they care about is profits and all the consumer cares about is how fucking cool and big his SUV is. As for vehicle emissions, sure we all care but let someone else worry about that. Sort of like the NIMBY syndrome.

They can hit the standards if they really try. Amazing that we have to treat big business like a slow first grader.

"Come on, you can do it! Just keep trying! Yeah! That's it! You did great! Here's a star for the day!"
So we have had more fuel efficent cars for how many years now?Yes they met the standards..But why is consumption still up?Look at the sales of the Hybrid Hondas and Toyotas,No one is buying that junk.Smaller lighter autos= Less safe vehicles.Sorry, I pass especially when Im next to some 18 wheeler.. The govt mandating fuel standards is forcing people to buy products they dont want......The fact is eventually there will be drilling in ANWAR and in the Gulf of Mexico...Whether Bobby Redford likes it or not....Americans are addicted to CHEAP fuel and if you wanna see how addicted just watch what would happen if the gas lines of the 70s were to reappear......Fuck Robert Redford and all the other limousine liberals who know whats best for The American People:rolleyes:
 
Canada owns part of ANWR. They've been drilling their for a while.

You also don't know that ANWR won't be touched. The slope is all drilled offshore and a pipeline carries the oil. We don't know if all of the ANWR oil is reachable offshore or if there must be drilling through the land. If you have to drill through the land you fuck everything up. There is also conceivably the problem of an oil spill. The current pipeline pumps over a million barrels a day. In the event of a spill it will take upwards of 12 hours to locate it and a full day to get the necessary equipment to it.

In addition there must be a "pipeline" road. The road will eventually be opened to tourists and to settlement. The Long Haul has already interfered with local wildlife populations. So has offshore drilling. The pipeline itself hasn't been much of a problem, but it eventually will be.

A question to all those who care to check:

Are human wants and "progress" more important than animals or untouched land?

An aside to PG, get some cloth bags and use those, solve those pesky plastic bag troubles.
 
bored1
- definitely need to thank you too for keeping this issue alive. *smile*
 
Dillinger said:
bored1
- definitely need to thank you too for keeping this issue alive. *smile*
No problem.....Its been a bad day;)
 
Hybrids

The current crop of Hybrids are interesting from a technological view point. Hardly a solution.

The facts are thus:

It takes X amount of energy to accelerate a mass of Y pounds to a speed of Z miles per hour. the only thing at issue is the time it takes to accelerate said vehicle. It takes X amound of energy to maintain a speed of Y MPH. These are immutable facts. The laws of physics cannot be altered to suit anyones whims, or the laws of congress as much as many would have you beleive otherwise.

The current crop of hybrids have an ICE, drive trains, cabins, all the things that conventional vehicles have. They further have batteries in abundance (particularly weighty things) and electric motors. All of which contribute to weight. Now the manufacturers had to lose the extra weight the vehicle gained somewhere, where do you think they took it from? The body and chassis of course. These vehicles are fragile in the extreme. And are totally unsuitable for heavy hauling duty.

In the late 70's, early 80's I worked on power control systems for hybrids. This work was done at Los Alamos National Laboratories as part of a government project under the auspices of DOE. We used a little different approach though. We used a fuel cell hooked to storage batteries that in turn drove the power train. 0% pollution, 0 use of fossil fuel. And these were converted Buick Skylarks. Intermediate size cars of substantial strength.

The down side was that they had no real torque for the negotiation of steep grades, the cost, and the fact that most filling stations do not have liquid hydrogen readily available. The proposal was altered to be applied to fleet vehicles (think UPS) in relatively level portions of the country.

Addressing cost. All of the current crop of hybrids are selling at substantially less than the cost of manufacture. Even in the hundreds of thousands of units required to run an efficient assembly process, the real cost to the buyer will be astronomical as compared to the vehicles true utilitarian value. (The estimates run from $25,000 to as high as $50,000 per copy.) Speed, enduance, pay load capability, and maintenance costs all conspire against the current designs acheiving any real market acceptance.

Using California as a bell weather state for energy policy is roughly akin to using Lucretia Borgia as the model of nuturing women. The state has continually shot itself in the foot. Amazing place.

Ishmael
 
Arctic caribou herd living in the Prudhoe Bay area already has increased its population over sevenfold since oil production began 20 years ago. They fucking love it. Drill away America.

It will create high paying jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Hell, we just need a spot about the size of 4 super WalMarts. In a wasteland the size of South Carolina.
 
Back
Top