Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
ANWR is a good example here as you have legitimate environmental concerns given the unique habitation of that area. Does this mean that it's possible to extract oil without disrupting the ecosystem? Maybe, but at the least making things difficult will ensure every measure is taken to protect a very special place.
It wouldn't surprise me at all that the people of Alaska want to drill in ANWR, they all stand to personally see financial benefits.
-spence
|
Financial benefits is the point of drilling ANYWHERE. Alaskans are no different in that respect, nor should that motive be considered negative. The underwriting referred to in this thread was supposed to be about American jobs--financial benefits to Americans. And the financial benefits to those immediately involved in the drilling process, and delivery process, and refining process, and distribution process, and the use of the product, financially benefit the entire American economy. And wasn't that your point about drilling being accepted by various states--if the trade-off was worth it? That different states may or may not accept drilling if the financial benefit was worth the trade-off?
As far as legitimate environmental concerns, ALL drilling evokes "legitimate" environmental concerns. From what I've read, the Caribou don't have that much to fear from well done ANWR drilling. And if ethics and hypocrisy in our face to the world are a concern to you, I would think that the double standard of restricting drilling here because of the environment, while funding drilling elsewhere might well be looked at by the rest of the world as hypocritical.