• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

...Push to Drill in the Arctic Refuge

You can drop a gigantic garbage dump into the Arctic tunda may times over and have no significant impact on it. Still loads of it left.
Yes, thanks for yet again displaying your callous attitude towards the natural world and the wilderness.

The planet does not exist purely for the use of human beings, and it is that attitude which is wreaking havoc with the world in myriad ways -- from climate change, to waves of extinction of species that the world hasn't had in 65 million years, to poisoning the planet with chemicals and radiation.

The solution is not to cause more damage to the planet. It's to be better stewards of what little pristine nature remains.
 
No surprise that those who are doing their best to convince us that AGW isn't an issue are also the keenest to expand fossil fuel production! :roll:
News flash! The fossil fuel companies aren't interested in drilling in ANWR either.
 
Yes, thanks for yet again displaying your callous attitude towards the natural world and the wilderness.

The planet does not exist purely for the use of human beings, and it is that attitude which is wreaking havoc with the world in myriad ways -- from climate change, to waves of extinction of species that the world hasn't had in 65 million years, to poisoning the planet with chemicals and radiation.

The solution is not to cause more damage to the planet. It's to be better stewards of what little pristine nature remains.

There is no mass extinction occurring at present.
 
Yes, thanks for yet again displaying your callous attitude towards the natural world and the wilderness.

The planet does not exist purely for the use of human beings, and it is that attitude which is wreaking havoc with the world in myriad ways -- from climate change, to waves of extinction of species that the world hasn't had in 65 million years, to poisoning the planet with chemicals and radiation.

The solution is not to cause more damage to the planet. It's to be better stewards of what little pristine nature remains.

Can we use 1% of the tundra as a dump?

That's 99% unspoilt frozen hell hole left.

Is that OK?
 
Err, hello? That doesn't address a single point in my post.

You had a point? I'm sorry. I'm used to you just ranting and raving about something.

Please, excuse my ignorance. What was you point?
 
Erm.... That doesn't sound like a valid reason to despoil a major wildlife preserve. In fact, it sounds completely backwards. If we actually need the pipeline, it should be maintained;
Your confirmation bias is showing.

Do you have evidence that it will damage the region?

if it no longer has a use, or it can't be adjusted for lower flow, then maybe it's time to shut it down.
It cannot be adjusted for a lower flow. The rate of flow of heated product is what keeps it a healthy system. Reducing the flow, and the oil gets too cold.

Uh, hello? Have you not looked at the price of oil lately? It's at 1/3 its peak.
So? At some points the price will rise again. There is a cyclical process to the price.

There is very little evidence of interest by energy companies to drill in ANWR. It's as remote as it gets, which makes extraction expensive.
Extraction prices are expected to be competitive.

Meanwhile, current production in Alaska has fallen since its peak in 1988; Shell shut down operations in the Chukchi Sea; oil prices have gone through the floor, to 1/3 of their peak; supply is abundant (including domestic sources); and demand is eroding. Demand for natural gas and renewables are high, even as oil is cheap.
Have you missed the point of the OP?

Production is why there is another push to open ANWR. Because the current production is too low to keep a pipeline viable.

This is mostly just Murkowski's fantasy of a rebound for the oil industry.
There you go again,. assigning blame via confirmation bias.

Do you ever think with logic and without hatred?
 
Your confirmation bias is showing.

Do you have evidence that it will damage the region?
Is that a joke?

Drilling will clearly damage the immediate area, both at the drill site, the need for humans to live there, and events such as oil spills. It destabilizes the permafrost, disrupts migration patterns and habitats.

The land is also difficult to restore, as discussed in a recent NYT article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/15/climate/arctic-drilling-anwr.html


It cannot be adjusted for a lower flow.
Yes, it can. There are several options, including warming the pipeline. The question is whether it's worth the cost and effort, as Alaskan production is gradually falling.


So? At some points the price will rise again. There is a cyclical process to the price.
lol

No, that's not how oil prices actually work. There are some short-term cycles (e.g. higher demand in summer as people tend to travel more), but long-term there is no discernable long-term price cycle. Prices respond to the vagaries of supply and demand, neither of which indicate such a desperate need for oil that we must drill in remote, pristine, protected wilderness.


Production is why there is another push to open ANWR. Because the current production is too low to keep a pipeline viable.
Try again.

Energy companies aren't the ones pushing this; they aren't even interested in expanding their operations in Alaska. That should be evident by them shutting down operations that cost them billions to acquire the rights.

And again, your idea here is completely backwards. If the pipeline is not needed, then it is not needed, and we should not try to increase access to unwanted supply in a foolish attempt to keep a pipeline running.


There you go again,. assigning blame via confirmation bias.

Do you ever think with logic and without hatred?
:roll:

Please. Don't even front. Or perhaps more aptly, don't fool yourself into thinking that ad hom attacks make up for your total lack of effective arguments on this topic.

It is obvious that opening up ANWR is mere politics, meant to appease Murkowski, and generate phantom funds to justify the massive tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations, and to score political points.
 
Environment / Forests
[h=1]Arctic Restoration — Go Beavers![/h]Guest Essay by Kip Hansen Oh those busy, busy beavers — aren’t they great? There’s the little guy in the corner of the photo, he and his pals built that dam that slowed the stream and produced a large shallow beaver pond. The American beaver is a keystone species on the North American continent…
 

[h=1]Trump Administration to open 90% of US Offshore to leasing and rollback Obama-era drilling regulations[/h]Guest post by David Middleton The plan is to open almost everything in the 2019-2024 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program, with Eastern Gulf leasing beginning when the Congressional moratorium expires after 2022. Secretary Zinke Announces Plan For Unleashing America’s Offshore Oil and Gas Potential Draft Proposed Program considers nearly the entire U.S. Outer Continental Shelf…
Continue reading →
 
I predicted this would happen with Trump in. The republicans have been after that oil on the refuge since forever. Trump in particular has no empathy for anything nature (cut it down, pave it over, dig it up, drill). I'll have to see how their latest plan to slaughter the mustangs is going.:slapme:
 
I predicted this would happen with Trump in. The republicans have been after that oil on the refuge since forever. Trump in particular has no empathy for anything nature (cut it down, pave it over, dig it up, drill). I'll have to see how their latest plan to slaughter the mustangs is going.:slapme:

Economy over the environment for Trump.
 
Back
Top Bottom