Re: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge /opposing stats -- Politicsvt

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 06:34:24 03/28/03 Fri
Author: James
Subject: Re: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge /opposing stats
In reply to: Captain America 's message, "Re: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge" on 11:03:27 03/26/03 Wed

According to National Ctr for Public Policy research (and many others if you want me to go cite them as well) there is potentially enough oil in ANWR to replace "half of all imports from the persian gulf for the next 30 yrs". In order to take advantage of this we need to use a whopping .02% of ANWR.

The dept of the interior minerals management service says that there is 75 billion barrels of oil on the outer continental shelf but federal law prohibits drilling there as well as much of the gulf of Mexico.

Just to restate, higher fuel efficiancy is a noble goal as long as it doesnt mean smaller and less safe cars. You also have to be open to the proven fact that higher efficiency and lower fuel prices dont necessarily equate to less usage or an overall savings since we do drive more when prices are low or we have a fuel efficient car.

>There are sources of data that dispute that small
>increases in fuel efficiency standards result in huge
>savings of petroleum, resulting in decreased
>dependence on foreign sources of oil, increased
>homeland security and huge $$ savings for Americans at
>the pump? Interesting.
>
>The fact is that increasing fuel efficiency standards
>makes sense.
>
>What is also interesting is that some folks in this
>room have been advocating for drilling in ANWAR
>without citing any specifics on why it is a good idea.
> Now that I have given specifics on why it is not a
>good idea, the pro-drilling folks decide that, "there
>is no sense of even bringing it up."

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

ride a bike -- Bulldogscm, 08:51:37 03/28/03 Fri
- Re: ride a bike -- James, 11:36:39 03/28/03 Fri