<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Arctic Refuge drilling debate misses the big picture]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by jmjusten http://www.grist.org/article/fischman/ Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:31:01 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/fischman/1 No Refuge Is an Island

Although I agree with Professor Fischman that the whole national wildlife refuge is in danger. I believe there is another important big picture item that should be mentioned. The refuges are linked together and provide a web which provides essential habitat for various animals, migratory birds and plants. However, we humans are also connected  to this web and our survival is directly dependent on the health of these ecosystems. I become very anxious when enviornmentalist talk about how pretty and pristine an area is, and how we need to protect these areas for the plants and animals. I think it is time to educate the general population that our survival as a species is dependent on clean air, water, land and intact ecosystems. If all the plants and animals die, what are we going to eat?

]]> No Refuge Is an Island

Although I agree with Professor Fischman that the whole national wildlife refuge is in danger. I believe there is another important big picture item that should be mentioned. The refuges are linked together and provide a web which provides essential habitat for various animals, migratory birds and plants. However, we humans are also connected  to this web and our survival is directly dependent on the health of these ecosystems. I become very anxious when enviornmentalist talk about how pretty and pristine an area is, and how we need to protect these areas for the plants and animals. I think it is time to educate the general population that our survival as a species is dependent on clean air, water, land and intact ecosystems. If all the plants and animals die, what are we going to eat?

]]> Comment #2 by Ana Unruh Cohen http://www.grist.org/article/fischman/ Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:32:10 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/fischman/2 Oil and Refuges don't mix

A great point! Rep. Markey (D-MA) and the Defenders of Wildlife tried to highlight this point back in 2001. Almost half of wildlife refuges have oil potential. You can check out their work and the Governament Accountability Office (GAO) report that started it all here:
http://www.house.gov/markey/anwr01-02.htm (near the bottom of the page)
Is the wildlife refuge nearest you on the list?

For the real wonks among you, GAO did a follow-up report in 2003 that outlined some of the major problems with oil and gas production on wildife refuges. It's here:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03517.pdf




]]> Oil and Refuges don't mix

A great point! Rep. Markey (D-MA) and the Defenders of Wildlife tried to highlight this point back in 2001. Almost half of wildlife refuges have oil potential. You can check out their work and the Governament Accountability Office (GAO) report that started it all here:
http://www.house.gov/markey/anwr01-02.htm (near the bottom of the page)
Is the wildlife refuge nearest you on the list?

For the real wonks among you, GAO did a follow-up report in 2003 that outlined some of the major problems with oil and gas production on wildife refuges. It's here:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03517.pdf




]]> Comment #3 by wildswan http://www.grist.org/article/fischman/ Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:55:52 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/fischman/3 Wildlife refuges

Would like to share this story:

When I was a child growing up in South Texas my grandmother taught me about birds. We lived out in the country, in the flat, almost treeless coastal plains. Palm trees and salt cedar and a few live oak trees surrounded our old farmhouse. It must have seemed like an oasis for the birds. Especially when the sprinkler was o­n in the yard!

We were also o­n a major migratory route. My childhood years were marked by the passages of austere northern geese and clouds of raucous bright yellow Mexican parakeets and by the annual whooping crane count at the Aransas Wildlife Refuge which was a special love of my grandmother's.

The birds accompanied my days. They were never far away. They sang me awake in the cool sweet dawn, they shared the secrets of the tamarack and live oak trees where I sought shelter from the humid heat and the family squabbles, they played with me at the beach - the funny little sandpipers, the greedy gulls, the ponderous pelicans. Part of me would lift up and fly whenever they passed over and my grandmother was always pointing out this or that - look at the cardinal, you o­nly see them in January, or they o­nly eat this kind of seed . . . .

My grandmother lived until she was 102 years old. She spent a lot of time those last years o­n her patio, hanging out with her beloved birds. I have always felt the birds with me as I traveled through my life, far far from South Texas; my friends, my uplifting and tender companions.

Not long ago I went to visit my grandson who was almost two and I found we had something in common. His first word had been "bird" and he couldn't wait to show me the birds. Living in an air conditioned place in the city, he didn't get outside too much but he had a big window in his room and guess what he watched out the window? He loved the birds. He was intrigued by them. I found myself saying the things I remembered my grandmother saying, telling him little things about the mockingbirds and the hummingbirds and the blue jays we saw. O­ne day when we were outside I found a mockingbird feather and held it up to him. His eyes got big. He reached out o­ne chubby little finger very tentatively and when his finger touched the feather he shivered intensely all over and pulled his finger back as if he'd been shocked. He looked at me amazed.

Yeah, Carlos, bird.

I know he won't forget . . . . his first flying lesson

Rebecca Swan is the creator of Wildflower Stew
http://www.wildflowerstew.org
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_KGJF9v6upt').innerHTML = output; //]]>

]]> Wildlife refuges

Would like to share this story:

When I was a child growing up in South Texas my grandmother taught me about birds. We lived out in the country, in the flat, almost treeless coastal plains. Palm trees and salt cedar and a few live oak trees surrounded our old farmhouse. It must have seemed like an oasis for the birds. Especially when the sprinkler was o­n in the yard!

We were also o­n a major migratory route. My childhood years were marked by the passages of austere northern geese and clouds of raucous bright yellow Mexican parakeets and by the annual whooping crane count at the Aransas Wildlife Refuge which was a special love of my grandmother's.

The birds accompanied my days. They were never far away. They sang me awake in the cool sweet dawn, they shared the secrets of the tamarack and live oak trees where I sought shelter from the humid heat and the family squabbles, they played with me at the beach - the funny little sandpipers, the greedy gulls, the ponderous pelicans. Part of me would lift up and fly whenever they passed over and my grandmother was always pointing out this or that - look at the cardinal, you o­nly see them in January, or they o­nly eat this kind of seed . . . .

My grandmother lived until she was 102 years old. She spent a lot of time those last years o­n her patio, hanging out with her beloved birds. I have always felt the birds with me as I traveled through my life, far far from South Texas; my friends, my uplifting and tender companions.

Not long ago I went to visit my grandson who was almost two and I found we had something in common. His first word had been "bird" and he couldn't wait to show me the birds. Living in an air conditioned place in the city, he didn't get outside too much but he had a big window in his room and guess what he watched out the window? He loved the birds. He was intrigued by them. I found myself saying the things I remembered my grandmother saying, telling him little things about the mockingbirds and the hummingbirds and the blue jays we saw. O­ne day when we were outside I found a mockingbird feather and held it up to him. His eyes got big. He reached out o­ne chubby little finger very tentatively and when his finger touched the feather he shivered intensely all over and pulled his finger back as if he'd been shocked. He looked at me amazed.

Yeah, Carlos, bird.

I know he won't forget . . . . his first flying lesson

Rebecca Swan is the creator of Wildflower Stew
http://www.wildflowerstew.org
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_KGJF9v6upt').innerHTML = output; //]]>

]]> Comment #4 by rivergal http://www.grist.org/article/fischman/ Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:12:08 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/fischman/4 Congress can allow drilling virtually anywhere!

While I'm vehemently opposed to drilling in ANWR (I live in AK and work for a national land-managing agency), I'm not sure Robert Fischman's premise is valid.  He seems to be arguing that opening up the "1002" area of ANWR creates a new, negative precedent for all national wildlife refuges.  This isn't really the case.

ANWR was created by an Act of Congress.  Congress also does things like create national parks and designated wilderness.  Anything Congress does, it can undo.  It can authorize oil and gas drilling on federal lands virtually anywhere in the country if it wants to.  This would include other national wildlife refuges and even national parks.  No, it wouldn't be politically easy for Congress to allow drilling in parks, but it could be done, legally, by de-authorizing the park or by making drilling an excepted use within the park.

Congress has not yet authorized drilling in ANWR.  But the prospect of this has been around since before 1980, when the law that created ANWR and many other federal protected areas in Alaska was passed. That law was ANILCA, and it instructed the Department of the Interior to study the oil and gas potential of the so-called Section 1002 area of ANWR.  ANILCA also said that new Congressional action would be needed before oil and gas development would actually be allowed.  That is what is being debated now.

So, does the current debate create a legal precedent for drilling elsewhere?  I'd say not, especially for federally-protected areas that do not have ANILCA-like language in the statutes that created them.  The vote on ANWR would only undermine protection for other refuges or parks if Congress explicitly added these areas to the drilling approval bill.  Meanwhile, courts could not rely on Congress's ANWR decision to allow drilling elsewhere.

National parks, wilderness, and wildlife refuges are Congressional constructs.  It's not a precedent in the legal sense of the term when Congress changes its own laws.  In this case, it's still a bad idea, however.

]]> Congress can allow drilling virtually anywhere!

While I'm vehemently opposed to drilling in ANWR (I live in AK and work for a national land-managing agency), I'm not sure Robert Fischman's premise is valid.  He seems to be arguing that opening up the "1002" area of ANWR creates a new, negative precedent for all national wildlife refuges.  This isn't really the case.

ANWR was created by an Act of Congress.  Congress also does things like create national parks and designated wilderness.  Anything Congress does, it can undo.  It can authorize oil and gas drilling on federal lands virtually anywhere in the country if it wants to.  This would include other national wildlife refuges and even national parks.  No, it wouldn't be politically easy for Congress to allow drilling in parks, but it could be done, legally, by de-authorizing the park or by making drilling an excepted use within the park.

Congress has not yet authorized drilling in ANWR.  But the prospect of this has been around since before 1980, when the law that created ANWR and many other federal protected areas in Alaska was passed. That law was ANILCA, and it instructed the Department of the Interior to study the oil and gas potential of the so-called Section 1002 area of ANWR.  ANILCA also said that new Congressional action would be needed before oil and gas development would actually be allowed.  That is what is being debated now.

So, does the current debate create a legal precedent for drilling elsewhere?  I'd say not, especially for federally-protected areas that do not have ANILCA-like language in the statutes that created them.  The vote on ANWR would only undermine protection for other refuges or parks if Congress explicitly added these areas to the drilling approval bill.  Meanwhile, courts could not rely on Congress's ANWR decision to allow drilling elsewhere.

National parks, wilderness, and wildlife refuges are Congressional constructs.  It's not a precedent in the legal sense of the term when Congress changes its own laws.  In this case, it's still a bad idea, however.

]]> Comment #5 by howeird http://www.grist.org/article/fischman/ Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:29:07 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/fischman/5 no island is a refuge

seems like our current administrations goal is to promote the destruction of our enviroment for the sake of immediate gains and the hell to everything after that. one word: greed. I suggest that all trees should be cut down as soon as possible so there won't be anymore strife. equally, all coastal areas should be opened for oil/gas exploration so our energy needs will be slated for the years to come and be able to quench the thirst of all our big vehicles. Yes, Yes, Yes, let us drive ourselves to extinction, the sooner, the better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

]]> no island is a refuge

seems like our current administrations goal is to promote the destruction of our enviroment for the sake of immediate gains and the hell to everything after that. one word: greed. I suggest that all trees should be cut down as soon as possible so there won't be anymore strife. equally, all coastal areas should be opened for oil/gas exploration so our energy needs will be slated for the years to come and be able to quench the thirst of all our big vehicles. Yes, Yes, Yes, let us drive ourselves to extinction, the sooner, the better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

]]> Comment #6 by alaskaddict http://www.grist.org/article/fischman/ Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:40:33 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/fischman/6 All enemies..foreign and domestic...

As a former Alaskan, the refuge represents the crux of the age old battle of preservation of wild vs preservation of wealth.  And, as a rabid environmenatlist and animal rights advocate I am obviously all for protecting this resource.  However, I would actually be FOR drilling in the refuge, if it was truly necessary:

If Americans were all driving 3 cylinder vehicles, and using them only for necessary purposes.
If all of the World's oil was gone and this was the only source for America.
If oil was $6 per gallon and taxes could be levied to purchase/allocate substantial wildlands from logging/further destruction.

Obviously none of these are true.  I will not stand for drilling so that soccer moms and divorce dads can cruise around in a Denali (ironic) or Yukon (ironic).  I will not watch my wilderness dissappear so 17 year old kids can drive loops around town all summer; or so that Americans can save money on gas to spend on french fries and snickers bars.

Trust me - not all Alaskans want drilling in ANWR.  I wa sone of the few who did not even file for our PFD, as I refuse to be bought out by the state aka oil industry.

Scott

]]> All enemies..foreign and domestic...

As a former Alaskan, the refuge represents the crux of the age old battle of preservation of wild vs preservation of wealth.  And, as a rabid environmenatlist and animal rights advocate I am obviously all for protecting this resource.  However, I would actually be FOR drilling in the refuge, if it was truly necessary:

If Americans were all driving 3 cylinder vehicles, and using them only for necessary purposes.
If all of the World's oil was gone and this was the only source for America.
If oil was $6 per gallon and taxes could be levied to purchase/allocate substantial wildlands from logging/further destruction.

Obviously none of these are true.  I will not stand for drilling so that soccer moms and divorce dads can cruise around in a Denali (ironic) or Yukon (ironic).  I will not watch my wilderness dissappear so 17 year old kids can drive loops around town all summer; or so that Americans can save money on gas to spend on french fries and snickers bars.

Trust me - not all Alaskans want drilling in ANWR.  I wa sone of the few who did not even file for our PFD, as I refuse to be bought out by the state aka oil industry.

Scott

]]> Comment #7 by KirkS http://www.grist.org/article/fischman/ Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:10:34 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/fischman/7 Check History of Drilling in Alaska - Prudhoe Bay

I've just learned that in the '60s - '70s they gave some of the same arguments for drilling in Prudhoe Bay.  And did you know the oil pumped out of there does NOT go to America?  It does NOT lower our dependence on imported oil.  Nor does it make that oil cheaper.  That's right - it is pumped from public land for next to nothing, and sold to the highest bidder.  The only return we get is... oil spills.  So how does it benefit America?  

5/13/05
The Associated Press

ANCHORAGE -- About 1.4 million cubic feet of natural gas and an unknown quantity of crude oil spilled yesterday at a Prudhoe Bay drilling site operated by BP Exploration (Alaska), state environmental regulators said.

]]> Check History of Drilling in Alaska - Prudhoe Bay

I've just learned that in the '60s - '70s they gave some of the same arguments for drilling in Prudhoe Bay.  And did you know the oil pumped out of there does NOT go to America?  It does NOT lower our dependence on imported oil.  Nor does it make that oil cheaper.  That's right - it is pumped from public land for next to nothing, and sold to the highest bidder.  The only return we get is... oil spills.  So how does it benefit America?  

5/13/05
The Associated Press

ANCHORAGE -- About 1.4 million cubic feet of natural gas and an unknown quantity of crude oil spilled yesterday at a Prudhoe Bay drilling site operated by BP Exploration (Alaska), state environmental regulators said.

]]>