Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    ...and what, pray tell, would you have us run our economic engine
    with?  Fish Oil...bear sweat?  It sounds like a very good, well
    balanced bill to me.  My God, have you ever been to Alaska?  It
    isn't like they're trying to do this in the Bronx, y'know.
    
    This is the price we have to pay for the society we have created.
    I, for one, and not going to ride bikes, drive GEO's, or live without
    electricity.
    
    If anyone calls, please support this action.  I for one will.

    Mr. Lennard,
    
    Are you simply being intentionally offensive again?
    
    Have you ever looked into conservation, alternative fuels, proper
    insulation in homes, recycling, etc as alternatives to the "we must
    have more oil" theory?
    
    Alaska's northshore is an extremely fragile eco-system, similar to
    above treeline ecosystems in Colorado.  I would far rther they drill in
    the bronx or brooklyn, or even in downtown C Springs than drill there.  
    
    I would hope you are just baiting again, rather than as seriously
    ignorant of the world as your writing appears to be.
    
    Meg

     
     I say that if it's up there then lets go get it, otherwise old
     mother nature would have put it some where else. 
     Thanks for the info, I will call in support.
    
                                                       AL:

    
    I was going to let this coast - being lazy about calling/writing
    as I often, but not always, am.
    
    .1 has convinced me that I must call today with my condemnation
    of this bill.
    

    re. 'have you ever been to Alaska?'
    
    Yes, I have. I lived there for three years. No, I did not live in the
    Refuge.  However, I learned a fair bit about how little it takes to
    kill the arctic tundra upon which the land-based higher life-forms
    depend mightily.
    
    I am not now, nor have I ever been, in favour of opening this
    particular area up for mineral or fossil fuel extraction. Existing
    safeguard-technologies would have to be improved upon by a Zen factor
    before I would reconsider my opposition.
    
      Annie

 <== Me too.

 ('cept I've never been. Not yet, anyway...)

    No .2, I'm not rabble-rousing.  I just dealing with reality.  Those
    resources are there for us to use, and they are badly needed.  If
    the caribou have got to go (which I seriously doubt), so be it!!
    After all, the last time I checked, we were still in charge and not
    the critters.  No, the issue is are you as seriously brainwashed by
    the environmental crazies as I think you are.

.0
    
Sounds like good ole "dominion over nature" rearing its ugly head again
(where *did* that attitude come from anyway?).

...*thanks very much* for entering this. 
 
D.

    
    Can't there be one place on this planet that can be left as it was in
    the "beginning"?  Must we endanger every non-human living thing on the
    planet so that we don't have to carpool?  Must we continue to build
    cars that use more gas than they need to to the point that we have to 
    go to war to keep the oil flowing.
    
    
    
    Pathetic indeed.  If we have dominion over the animals I hardly believe
    that gives us the "power" to destroy them.  I believe with dominion
    comes responsibility and the bill in .0 is clearly irresponsible.
    IMO, of course.
    
    
    
    
    

 Why should Lennard care? he's only got a few decades left. Let the dummies
that remain pay his bills <snicker> <guffaw>. It was their choice to be born 
after him.

 Why doncha dump toxic waste into your favorite cutthroat stream, Dick? I
mean, who's in charge here?

    re: .8 and .9
    
         I'd like to clarify something both of you are misusing:
    the term dominion...one does not have dominion *OVER*.
    One has dominion *IN*.  One can DOMINATE *over*, however.
    And in the context you used the words, the more appropriate
    word would have been dominate.
    
         And I agree with you both.  Humankind does not need to
    despoil another area for our collective greed.
    
    Frederick
    

    re .7
    
    And it is attitudes like yours Mr. Lennard that have us in the
    environmental mess we are in today.  It is the attitude of ME FIRST 
    and the rest of the world be damned that has created the problem.
    
    Man may be in charge, but he sure has mucked the whole thing up.  Maybe
    the critters should be in charge.
    
    IMHO, of course
    
    Karen

    RE:  .1 by COOKIE::LENNARD
    
        ...and what, pray tell, would you have us run our economic engine
        with?  Fish Oil...bear sweat? 
    
    
    And the answer is:  hemp.
    
    Visit your library and check it (the subject) out.
    
    Pat
                             

    
    
    Maybe those of you against the bill are overestimating what
    oil drilling can do. I can't believe that nature is so delicate
    that the second we start looking for oil, entire species will vanish
    off the face of the earth. Do you think life in general would have
    survived so long?
    
    Yes, we need to conserve, and recycle, and research into alternate
    fuel sources. And yes, if we are haphazard and irresponsible, we can
    be responsible for wiping out a species. Either way, we will still need
    the oil.
    
    It is easy to be indignant and look down on those who have that
    "Me First" attitude.
    But, will you still be happy that the Grizzly and the Snow Geese are
    roaming without our presence thousands of miles away when it is
    10 degrees outside and getting any kind of warmth will cost an arm
    and a leg? 
    
    Is it better to look for oil in our own country in a responsible
    manner? Or to have to deal with those who use our dependancy on oil
    to their own advantage (I am refering to the Mid-east)?
    
    If you believe this bill to be irresponsible in nature, then you should
    speak up. I'm just pointing out that it may be possible to drill for
    oil and NOT destroy thousands of miles of free range.
    
    Admittedly, I don't know too much about this bill. And, I also don't
    see those behind it having a responsible drilling approach in mind.
    That's what institutions like Greenpeace are for. They (and we) have to
    keep the checks on them.
    
    john...
    

    It has been proven that this particular part of the world *is* that
    delicate.  Protecting the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge is a battle that has
    been going on for nearly 10 years.
    
    It is not that we will be innocously looking for oil; we will be
    *drilling* for oil.  This is a very traumatic process for the earth.
    Something that many people do not seem to understand is that if we
    eliminate 1 species, we endanger the species that depend on that first
    one.  And to quote an old shampoo ad:  and so on and so on and so on.
    
    I don't remember the statistic specifically; I am sure someone here
    will.  But I believe ~300 forms of life are becoming extinct every
    year.
    
    E Grace

    cookie, to me it's not your opinion that's offensive, it's your
    characterization of those who disagree with you on this as
    "environmental crazies".  It seems to me that this fits a pattern -
    insulting labels for those who don't share your lifeviews in their
    entirety.  This tactic tends to close the ears of those who hear
    you.
    
    Even when you're right, there's a difference between being right, and
    being effective.  It's best to strive for both, imo.

    Mr. Lennard, Sarah has it right.  It's fine for you to feel that all
    resources should be exploited to the fullest (even if you are wrong
    imnsho)  However, to refer to those who don't agree with your views as
    crazies, buffoons or what have you is not going to create effective
    dialog.  It makes it hard for me to read anything you write as
    intelligent or factual or anything but added noise.
    
    I would still suggest that you read a little bit about what the artic
    tundra is and how much disturbance it can repair in under, say 25
    years, before you classify those of us who oppose drilling and
    development of the north shore as wierdo's.
    
    You might also wish to learn a little about some petro-chemical
    alternatives which can be grown on marginal land, right here in the
    good old USA.  I would suggest Hemp for Victory, a USDA film from the
    1930's as a good start.
    
    Meg
    A true environmental crazy and proud of it

     
    
       I wonder how .2 and .9 get to work?????? do they walk???????
       
       I also wonder how many cars are in there family?????????????
    
                                                             AL:

    Did somebody bring this up already? Or is Al Zerega the first one to
    bring up the point that environmental awareness and automobiles are
    incompatible (and that having both is therefore hypocrisy)?
    
    Problem with environmental issues: solutions get sidetracked easily.
    While the conscientious ones struggle to clarify the apparent
    contradictions, they often lose track of what the already established
    mechanisms for environmental destruction are doing.
    
    Zerega and Lennard are not worth the effort it would take to persuade
    them. It only takes one opposing vote to cancel their
    influence. Energy spent making the next generation more aware of the
    mindless destruction is likely to show more results.
    
    Just pick up your phone and call your legislators. This is one
    environmental nightmare we can foresee and possibly forestall.
    
    
    John H-C

    .7
    
    Well, we environnmental crazies know better tha to think that we are in
    charge.  Just what do you consider the human species to be if not
    just another form of critter?  
    
    Remember those in charge people who built houses on Chatham's beach 
    front only to lose them to, gasp, nature?  Imagine they just couldn't
    control that wind and water, could they, although they must have done
    a lot of in charge shouting about it.
    
    Resources there for us to use.  Uh-huh.  Sure.  Obviously the whole
    universe revolves around the human species.   Keep kidding yourself.
    It feels better than to know the truth.
    
    Maia
    

    
    Of course it's compatible to be an environmentalist and drive
    an automatible.
    
    The reason is quite simple:  you see, as *consumers* living in
    the US, we have no choice but to drive, because the federal govt
    has been heavily sudsidizing this form of transportation (to the
    exclusion of other less energy-intensive forms) for many, many
    decades.
    
    General taxes pay for roads, interstates, bridges, and parking lots.
    Meanwhile, urban transit systems, Amtrak, and alternative energy
    research all get next to nothing.  Bicycle trails and racks - again,
    nothing.
    
    If users of automobiles were made to *pay* for the things they
    *use*, you can damn well bet people *would* find an alternative -
    and gladly.
    
    But, for now, simply from an economical point of view, I must drive.
    That's because I am both an environmentalist and an ordinary consumer.
    
    Meanwhile, I have written to the president and my congressman and
    senators with my ideas for turning things around so that we as a nation,
    are less dependent on foreign oil *and* begin to decrease pollution.
    

    RE .18
    
    
    I drive to work and I own one car (my household consists of me).
    
    -1 explains it better than I can..
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Jim

>    Did somebody bring this up already? Or is Al Zerega the first one to
>    bring up the point that environmental awareness and automobiles are
>    incompatible (and that having both is therefore hypocrisy)?

 Al was the first to raise that red herring. The fact that one does not
live one's life in an environmentally pure manner (which happens to be
impossible) does not undo the good things that one does for the environment.
While personal transportation is arguably worse than public transportation,
the fact is that public transportation is only less bad and is not at all
"good." Therefore the best environmental solution is no transportation,
save foot or hoof. Clearly this is unreasonable.

 Justifying the pillaging of resources because one drives a personal
automobile is egregiously cynical and deserving of a slap. :-)

 the Doctah

re .21

	A nit, but an important nit:

>	the federal govt has been heavily sudsidizing this form of 
>	transportation 

>    If users of automobiles were made to *pay* for the things they
>    *use*, you can damn well bet people *would* find an alternative -
>    and gladly.


	The set of people who are paying the taxes that pay the above
	mentioned subsidies is pretty close to the set of people who
	derive benefit from the use of automobiles. Therefore, for
	all intents and purposes, the users *are* paying for the
	things they use. 

	The thing is, the mechanism of paying through taxes tends to 
	obscure the connection between the real costs of driving
	and the cost you pay whenever you turn the ignition key.  
	Make the costs more visible and direct, and the pressure for 
	alternate modes of transportation should increase.

					Tom_K

    for once, i'd like to see some real support for renewable energy
    sources....like the sun for instance.
    
    photo voltaic cell production has now improved the price/performance
    ratio.  if PVCs were used in new construction, the cost is almost the
    same as conventional heating/cooling/power for residences.  of course,
    it being a renewable technology, the dependence on the power utilities
    would lessen.  we might even have enough oil for our cars!  what a
    concept.  personally, i am investigating solar energy for the  home i
    will build in the next few years.  it will be energy efficient, and
    powered by renewable sources BECAUSE i don't want to spend my
    retirement dollars on utilities that continue to increase their prices
    without increasing their efficiencies or for finding renewable sources.
    
    it can be done today....and could be done more cheaply but for the
    powerful utility lobbies.  oil=bush
    
    sue

    Alas, the subject of this note has, indeed, been sidetracked by the
    question about the environmental conscientiousness of driving an
    automobile.
    
    The real issue here, IMO, is that we are suddenly offered an
    opportunity to say something about some environmental legislation. 
    
    Most environmental laws get passed as riders on other, unrelated bills.
    That is how the Cleanwater Act got its new lease on life earlier this
    year. Normally, the environmentally detrimental laws such as the one
    referenced in .0 get passed in much the same way. 
    
    You just don't hear about it unless you read your  "junk mail" from
    some of the environmental lobbying organizations.
    
    So here is a bill that you have heard about. Please, call your
    representatives and tell them you don't want the "energy" companies
    trashing another fragile environment.
    
    While you're at it, you might feel like mentioning how you feel about
    drilling for oil and gas through the few coral reefs left alive in the
    Gulf of Mexico. The EPA isn't taking recommendations on that one from
    the public after October 29.
    
    John H-C

    Yes my family owns and drives one car.  I live in Colorado Springs
    where the busses run intermittantly at best and only from the hours of
    7am to 630pm Monday through Saturday.  Although expanding bus service
    was one of the "clean air" goals that got the city of the EPA's *hit
    list 10 years ago, the powers that be have steadily reduced the bus
    routes to the point that it is useless.  (Yes I have been trying to
    Vote the rascals out.)
    
    However we do most of what we can on foot or on bike (Two kids, frank
    and myself)  We also do make an effort to reduce our impact on
    resources, and increase conservation, beginning at home.  We recycle,
    compost, attempt to buy goods made from recycled materials, have been
    steadily decreasing the energy losses from our home, use low flush
    toilets and low flow shower heads and keep the temperature of the water
    heater down to a reasonable level.  If everyone else did just that
    little bit, I'm sure there would be a lot more of that precious oil
    available for your automobile, as well as mine.  
    
    Meg  

    
     RE:23
    
        Thanke Doctah, I needed that. :^)   :^) 
    
                             
                                                       AL:

    
    re .27.
    
    
    Do you have reference numbers? Are the bills already in frontof the
    House/Senate?
    
    Thanks - 
    
    Jamd

    Government seems to be taking a holiday today.
    

    
    .27
    
    Thanks, John, I think we all needed that.
    
    Dorian

    Well, after all the bruhaha over my .1, I decided to go back and read
    .0 again.  No surprise, but I still feel the same way.  Seems like a
    reasonable bill to me.  I probably over-reacted to the word NIGHTMARE.
    
    Given what we now know about drilling and transporting oil and natural
    gas, as well as nuclear safety, we should be able to exploit all
    available resources safely.  It's certainly not a "nightmare".  Of
    course there will be spills...of course there will be nuclear
    incidents....., but we do have the controls in place to lessen the
    probability.  Does it make sense to leave all that oil in the ground?
    Does it make sense to periodically fight a war in the Mid-East when we
    could lessen or dependency on them?  I say go for it!
    
    I believe that nuclear power is absolutely necessary to our survival.
    Many European countries (like France) seem to be able to handle the
    problem very well.  We should be able to do the same.  I don't like
    it, and I didn't always feel this way, but I have changed my mind.
    
    Sun and wind and thermal sources are nice, but they aren't going to
    cut it....that's silly.  They will always be secondary sources.  Maybe
    a hundred years from now...but not now.  Anyhow, sorry to get so many
    people upset, but the last I heard I was entitled to my opinion also.

>    Given what we now know about drilling and transporting oil and natural
>    gas, as well as nuclear safety, we should be able to exploit all
>    available resources safely.

	Your interpretation doesn't follow the facts...pardon me for
	not making the same logical leap.  Last I checked, we were not
	doing the real spiffy job in this area that your comment would
	indicate.

>    Does it make sense to leave all that oil in the ground?

	Does it make sense to pump it all up in less than 300 years? Doesn't
	sound like a good investment strategy.  Clearly it's use as a fuel
	gave us the technological revolution we're now enjoying, but that
	was a jump-start.  We can do better, cheaper and cleaner.

>    Does it make sense to periodically fight a war in the Mid-East when we
>    could lessen or dependency on them?

	Great case for alternative energy.  Too bad we didn't pay attention
	when Carter made the same case for energy independence.  We're the
	ones who drive the economy of middle-east war through our consumption
	of oil.
    
>    Sun and wind and thermal sources are nice, but they aren't going to
>    cut it....that's silly.  They will always be secondary sources.  Maybe
>    a hundred years from now...but not now.  

	As long as the goverment subsidizes the existing forms of production
	as opposed to doing R&D, you've got a point.  As a citizen of the
	US, I'd like to encourage my country to start working on longer term
	plans than those of politicians whos interests revolve around the
	next re-election.

	I suppose if I was convinced the world would blow up in a few years
	I might not care, but I want to invest in an energy/environmental
	strategy doesn't leave my children to deal with my mistakes. 

	Also, current work in certain areas are having an almost equal pay
	back on solar facilities.  Given economy of scale, the sun could
	easily provide alot of the power...in one way or another it already
	supplies all of it.  We're talking a couple of pennies a Kw/hr
	difference. How do you figure "silly" applies?

	Then there's biomass---wouldn't the farmers love that!  Good for our
	economy and leaves out the messy hydrocarbons---still got the CO2
	problem, but the plants that you convert into alcohol offset that
	with photosynthesis...solar power again.

>    Anyhow, sorry to get so many people upset, but the last I heard I was 
>    entitled to my opinion also.

	Last I checked, we were allowed to disagree with 'em...no grief here.

-larry	8^)

    
    I just wanted to add my support against the previously mentioned bill. 
    Not because I don't think we need the oil but because I don't believe
    it is the best alternative.
    
    Oil people, like most businesses, are out for the highest return on the
    dollar.  If they can go somewhere that has oil available within a
    "shallow" depth they will do so no matter what the environmental
    consequences.
    
    Being from Oklahoma I am somewhat familiar with the oil business,
    besides my husband was a field engineer out there in the oil boom of
    the early eighties.  I happen to know of many wells that were capped
    because the oil/gas was so deep that its regulated cost was higher. 
    Those sources are still there.
    
    I also know the terrible mess an oil rig makes.  Between heavy
    equipment, salt water and run off oil it contaminates ~3 to 5 acres of
    land.  It seems a waste to me to invade these pristeen places when
    there is oil still available in previously used sites.
    
    Linda B

    I am really happy to see all the discussion going on. I've gotten some
    grief (I did enter the note in a few notefiles) about the bill and the 
    wording, but I take a very firm stance on protecting the environment
    and I don't care about the hassle I've been getting.
    
    Re .33, In 30 years, we'll probably look back at this time and say that
    we were so ignorant on many issues, namely nuclear power. We don't know
    everything and that's what scares me. What's going to happen in 30, 50,
    100 years if we keep using our resources at the rate we're going. What
    happens if the oil runs out (which it will)? What happens if we have a
    nuclear accident (Seabrook) which makes a 50-100 mile radius
    inhabitable? Can we afford that? NO!
    
    So we have to make a stand now! I'm not going to use up my children's
    future so I don't have to worry about the environment. I can't take
    the easy way out - ride the wave....  
    
    Someday all this garbage is going to come back to haunt us. It's
    already starting.
    			Cindy
    
    

    re:.36
    
    I thought this area was already 'inhabitable'?
    
    :-)
    
    ed

		Senate Hears Hype on Damage to Arctic Refuge

			by Warren T. Brooks

	The U.S. Senate is about to debate the National Energy
	Strategy Bill.  That bill is one of the most pleasant
	surprises to hit Capitol Hill in a long time.  While it
	generates three times as much "new energy" from 
	conservation as it does from production, for the first time 
	we have a real "pro-growth" energy strategy.

	The credit for this amazingly good bill belongs to Senate
	Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Bennett Johnston, 
	a Louisiana Democrat, ranking Republican Sen. Malcolm Wallop	
	of Wyoming, Energy Secretary James Watkins and deputies 
	Henson Moore and Linda Stuntz.

	Sadly, the environmental zealots led by Democratic Sens.
	Timothy Wirth of Colorado, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut 
	and Paul Wellstone of Minnesota have adopted a "scorched
	earth" strategy to derail this bill over its proposal to
	drill for new oil on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
	which offers the largest potential new field in the United
	States.

	Americans who watch this debate will be subjected to florid
	rhetoric about the "violation of this pristine wilderness"
	by "greedy oil companies."  The same folks who said the
	Exxon Valdez spill "forever destroyed" the fisheries in Prince
	William Sound ( which in 1990 and 1991 registered the biggest
	salmon catches in history ) are now raising money by telling
	fibs about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

	Last May 4, the Natural Resource Defense Council's Lisa Spear
	told a hearing of the Senate Environment Committee that the
	conmmercial oil development at Prudhoe Bay on the north slope
	of Alaska had produced "the destruction of thousands of acres
	of wildlife habitat and a decline in local populations of
	bears, wolves and birds."

	On May 11, Republican Sen. Steve Symms of Idaho, referring to
	Spear's testimony, asked U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director
	John Turner, "Does the data available to the Department of the
	Interior support he claims with respect to the bear population?"

	Turner said, "No, Mr. Chairman."  Asked Symms, "How about
	the caribou population?"  Said Turner, "They have gone up
	substantially."  Asked Symms, "How about a loss in the
	bird population?"  Responded Turner, "We certainly haven't
	documented that."  Then asked Symms, "How about the health of
	local fisheries ?"  Turner replied, "We have not documented
	substantial loss."

	In fact, the Alaska Fish and Game Department records record numbers
	of grizzly bears now using the Prudhoe field area for habitat and
	mating.  The snow geese population has gone from 50 nesting
	pairs to 302.  The caribou population has more than quadrupled
	sing 1970.  Symms accused Spear of using her appearance on a
	C-Span televised hearing to "raise money for the Natural Resource
	Defense Council."

	One week later, an "Urgent Environmental Dispatch" from the
	Natural Resources Defense Council asked recipients to contribute
	money for the Natural Resource Defense Council to go to 
	court and "keep oil giants our of Alaska's Arctic wildlife
	refuge," repeating Spear's charge of declining animal 
	populations at Prudhoe.

	Natural Resources Defense Council Executive Director John Adams
	warned that "virtually the entire domestic oil industry are 
	mobilizing to commence drilling by summer's end..."  In fact,
	even congressional approval would not mean drilling before the
	year 2000.

	"At stake is the only refuge in North America that protects - 
	in an undisturbed condition - all of the various Arctic ecosystems.
	And I can tell you  firsthand that it won't even take an oil spill 
	to destroy forever the incredibly fragile beauty of its
	coastal plain," warned Adams.

	In the first place, the drilling and production area will cover
	fewer than 13,000 acres, which is 0.07 percent of the Arctic
	National Wildlife Refuge's 19 million acres.  In the second
	place, the "coastal plain" is in fact covered with ice and
	snow for nine months of the year and in the summer has such a
	barren crop of mosses, lichens and dwarf shrubs, it looks more like
	a green moonscape than a wilderness.

	Compare this with the Wilderness Society's description of this
	"coastal plain" as "America's Serengeti....and Arctic wilderness
	of boreal forests, dramatic peaks, and tundra."  But area 1002 of 
	the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where drilling is proposed,
	has no trees or mountains in sight.  Any relationship between
	the heavily animal-populated Serengeti plain with its 80-degree
	temperature and 3 million animals is purely a figment of green
	imaginations.

	As for the "ecological nightmare" promised by the Natural
	Resources Defense Council's Adams, he should call his friends
	at the National Audubon Society, which now earns money at 
	three of its sanctuaries with oil exploration and production --
	on the 26,800 acre Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary in Louisiana, the
	Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary near Naples, Florida, and the Baker
	Wildlife Sanctuary in Michigan, which found "the birds breeding
	in habitats adjacent to the oil well site were not noticably
	disturbed by the presence of the humans or the noise of oil
	drilling."  That agrees with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
	evaluation on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that
	"exploration and development drilling activities would
	generate only minor or negligible effects on all wildlife
	resources..."

 Things that make you go Hmmm.

    re .38:
    
    Who is Warren T. Brooks?
    
    Where was this article published?
    
    
>	"How about a loss in the
>	bird population?"  Responded Turner, "We certainly haven't
>	documented that."  Then asked Symms, "How about the health of
>	local fisheries ?"  Turner replied, "We have not documented
>	substantial loss."
    
    Well, of course they haven't documented it if they didn't bother
    to look for it.  Great.
    

>           <<< Note 1061.40 by BLUMON::GUGEL "koatamundi whiteout" >>>
>
>
>    re .38:
>    
>    Who is Warren T. Brooks?
>    
>    Where was this article published?

	Warren T. Brooks is a syndicated columnist.  He writes for
	the Detroit News.  His research and columns in recent years have
	focused on debunking environmentalists' hyperbolic statements.

	The article was published locally in the Colorado Springs
	Gazette Telegraph ( on the editorial page ).

	Note that the paragraph following the interview excerpts 
	refutes more explicitly the NRDC's claims of declining animal 
	populations in the Prudhoe Bay area.


	Steve H

    Some of Mr. Brooks' comments seem a bit hyperbolic too, no?

    <Set mode tone=sarcastic>
    
    "..environmental zealots..."
    "..[environmentalists are pursuing a] 'Scorched earth' strategy to derail 
    this bill.."
    "..[innocent, trustingly naive public and lawmakers are ] subjected to
    florid rhetoric.."
    "[environmentalists are] telling fibs.."
    
    Certainly no rhetoric from the proponents of this bill!
    
    <set mode sacarasm off>
    
    
    A major contributing factor to the lack of consensus on bills of this
    type is that many "facts" are presented out of context or with little
    qualifying data. 
    
    ".. this bill will generate only minor or negligible effects on all
    wildlife resources.."
    
    Sez who?  What's 'minor' or 'negligible'? Do you *really* mean *all*
    wildlife?  what *specific* effects does this bill entertain as
    possible? 
    
    
    
    I'm against this bill... I guess I'm one of those environmental
    zealots.. (reminds of the old saw.. I'm firm in my convictions, but
    YOU're pig-headed!) Anybody interested in looking at long term effects
    of NOT taking the time to consider the effects might read _Sea of
    Slaughter_ by Farley Mowat.  Excellent book... and disturbing... Oh,
    and also... based on facts.
    
    Jamd

what caught my attention was the reference to the coastal plain as more like a
"green moonscape than a wilderness".  I can't buy this one.  Those are bogs, 
wetlands whose permafrost underlies the seasonal melt that supports vast insect,
and hence vast bird, populations.  The anti-eco-freak freaks seem just as eager
to view the land in through lenses of their own definitions, as they accuse the
ecologists of doing.

Just one that pops to the top of the stack of my memory, that illustrates an
example of agenda-driven view of the land and it's population (human and not).

When Europeans first arrived in New England, they saw (my beloved) woods and
forests as a Wilderness -- evil, unChristian, needing to be tamed and subdued;
not as a natural garden.  Did the land support tens of thousands of people in a
sustainable way?  No matter (actually not even seen).  Cut it down, for ships'
masts and lumber and fields and cattle.  Burn it off (as was done here in Vt, I
read recently) and sell the ash to the British Canadians (early Federal period),
to clear the land for sheep.  There is now more forest cover in all of New
England than there was 100 or 150 years ago; and I believe only one remnant of
the original mixed-species old-growth virgin forest.

Sara

    
    so what are y'all planning to burn in your cars and oil fired heaters?
    
    you say you're all planning to ride bikes to work?
    
    what a laugh. its a pity there is no oil in NE..

    
    Re -1....see .21 in this string.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Jim