The U.S. Geological Survey conducted a thorough reassessment in 1998 of what

scant geological data exist from the coastal plain of the Arctic National

1 Comments

1. 1. concerned 10:42 PM 8/30/08

   The Palin "revelation" that we should be drilling in ANWR leaves out two important points:
   
   First, it does not matter what ANWR area looks like, as she states not mountainous. Refuge is refuge and justifying disturbing it because it isn't pretty gives open season on justifying ecological devastation anywhere. Pretty is not the only value that an environment has. Someone always has a vested interest in disturbing the wilderness whether it is cattle ranchers or oil or travel industry or whatever.
   
   It is our collective duty as US citizens to preserve our right to set wilderness areas aside in perpetuity if we so choose regardless of the economic benefits of specific groups. If we give in on this one, we will be opening ourselves up to land grabbing by anyone who can cause a political scare. That is disastrous for both man and nature. It will not stop with the 2000 proposed acres as two thousand turns into four thousand and so on
   
   The science does not support Ms. Palins assertions about animal populations. Disturbed migration paths and petro chemical seepage cause long term disease and sterility in animal populations. Scientists of both parties agree that we cannot continue on the current path and survive it ecologically. The congress has voted drilling in ANWR down every year for the last 25 years for a reason.
   
   There would be almost no difference in the price of oil only in the cost of drilling for the oil companies. There just is not enough supply here to make a major difference. If Alaska truly has the trillions of barrels of oil that Ms. Palin claims, then surely it cant all be in ANWR. Expensive gas is no fun for anyone so lets do something that will actually make a difference, not ill conceived half measures that are destructive in the end. By the time the drills are ready to go, that same investment may have been used to develop an alternative fuel source.
   
   I am an environmentally conscious republican. I think there is a dangerous tendency for people to slant environmental stories one way or the other depending on which side they benefit politically or economically. Unfortunately, the by product is that once these areas a disturbed, they are gone for good. Each year we loose 100's of species never to return and that trend is 10 fold to anything in past world history mostly due to habitats being disturbed. In that respect,
   commentaries like these can be very dangerous indeed.
   
   Just wanted to let you know there are more sides to this story than either democrat or republican

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this