ANWR

Concerned about drilling for oil in ANWR?  Before you throw in with the envirowhackos, read these two posts from NW Republican here and here.

Comments

[Sailor Republica]

Let's just say that if ANWR is as I think it is, that we'll not only tap into that, but a larger flow under the Arctic Ocean.

And that worries Enviro-freaks.

[-keith in mtn. view]

Thanks for that!! The polkatics behind it is amazing.

[activist kaza]

Good links but I hope you all are reading the comments, esp. on the NW Republican site. Why do you people want to do any favors for big oil? I don't get it. NOBODY believes this can make a significant dent in our reliance on foreign oil. So then the whole argument is kinda moot, isn't it? If I were a smart R, I'd use ANWR as a bargaining chip for something much more significant. And why is it that every person who might want to save a tree, avoid an oil drill bit or keep our air and water clean gets dubbed an "envirofreak" or "envirowhacko"?

Unfortunately, like it or not, environmental issues tend to cut across party lines like few others today. It's not conservative or liberal when it comes to this stuff, it's mostly just common sense.

Remember, it was that good R Teddy Roosevelt who got us started on all this conservation.

[Sailor Republica]

Maybe I should change my statement to "Enviro-COWARDS". Afraid of a drill bit?

[Gullyborg]

The error in your thinking, Kaza, is your belief that clean air and water and drilling for oil are mutually exclusive. The error that some Republicans make is in allowing the envirowhackos to seize control of the terms in the debate. For too long, the perception has been that if you are a democRat you want a clean environment, whereas if you are a Republican you want to wipe out Mother Nature, put arsenic in the drinking water, kill baby seals, etc. When in fact, literally every single Republican I know happens to enjoy breathing clean air, drinking clean water, and seeing happy baby seals frolick in the wild. What we have to do is stop allowing ourselves to be won over by non-factual rhetoric and see the reality: the history of actual oil production in the Arctic indicates that we can and do produce and distribute oil without any deleterious impact on nature. The caribou and musk ox thrive along the pipe line. The real facts show that we can produce a LOT of oil from drilling in ANWR without ANY real negative impact on the environment. So let's do it, for God's sake!

[Dare!PDX]

Teddy Roosevelt would support drilling in ANWR for several reasons.

It will create a fund to restore the artic, protect the entire 200+ Acres of Federally held lands in ALaska, and it will ensure that a state twice the size of Texas will be in a position to protect these resources for future generations.

Hunters and fisherman have always supported preservation of wilderness areas. One catch the environmentalist don't agree with - they also want access to the wilderness. T-Rex basis for starting the conservationist movement was the preservation for future hunters and campers.

I remember when managing a campaign for State Senate in Alaska where my candidate almost walked out of a meeting when the League of Conservation Voters suggested that the internet was a substitute for people actually having access inside the wilderness areas of ANWR.

At $15 a barrel for oil I would oppose development of ANWR. At the current $60+ (with an expected 30+ for the next decade) why should we as a nation export such a large portion of our GDP to dicators around the world?

Furthermore, how can a self-proclaimed "environmentalist" actually view getting oil from nations like Russia and Saudia Arabia that polute at 19th century levels when they could buy their oil from Alaska where development is regulated by the Clean Air Act?

Thanks for the link-