Alaskans explain me this? Why are Alaskan politicos gung-ho about drilling/destroying their own wildlife reserve and hence, annual dividend of $1000+?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
I realize this creates a few new jobs up there, but other than that... don't Alaskan residents of over a year earn over $1000 in dividends annually from just owning (or perhaps even renting(?)) property in Alaska? Does the job increase balance out the eventual loss of the dividend once the reserve is all tapped out, and there's no one left who wants to come to the state to actually, you know, visit the wildlife reserve and give tourist money?

I know I'm missing the plainly obvious here.. so someone please honestly clue me in.

dali madison's nut (donut), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 19:46 (twenty years ago)

Ted Stevens is a serious nutcase.

Lars and Jagger (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 20:03 (twenty years ago)

Where is a serious nutcase who aims drilling?

Dan (Where?) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 20:05 (twenty years ago)

very very few people "visit" ANWR. it's even more in the middle of nowhere than the rest of alaska. not like denali or where the cruise ships go. the dividend is already down in the last decade or so; opening the reserves would probably restore it somewhat.

and ted stevens is a nutcase.

mookieproof (mookieproof), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 20:09 (twenty years ago)

how many people visit GCNP? or CHNS? or SFNHL? or UMNW&SR?

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 20:18 (twenty years ago)

are there pirates in annwarrrrr?

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 20:18 (twenty years ago)

GCNP? or CHNS? or SFNHL? or UMNW&SR?

Gesundheit.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 20:25 (twenty years ago)

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 20:26 (twenty years ago)

From what I've gathered, environmentally and socially, opening up drilling in that area would not be that destructive, especially compared to other areas that are already being drilled. It's a pretty barren area, it'd create jobs, etc. The troubling part is the readiness to rubber-stamp new oil consumption efforts in general.

If the US government, or any sort of international group, stated a long-term plan of how we're going to wean our way off of oil dependency with consumption falling at a calculated rate over the next twenty years, I'd say that it might be great to open up more drilling. As it is, there's lip service given to long-term planning and a lot of scrambling and uncoordinated efforts. I have no inclination to believe that the world won't just suck these oil reserves dry.

mike h. (mike h.), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 21:14 (twenty years ago)

Note that I'm definitely no Alaskan, but I did watch Northern Exposure a lot for a few years, although I have no idea why.

mike h. (mike h.), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 21:15 (twenty years ago)

We are not going to wean our way off of oil dependency unless it is gone.

don weiner (don weiner), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 21:18 (twenty years ago)

If the US government stated a long-term plan of how we're going to maintain our supply of oil, I'd say that it's unbelievably stupid to begin by drilling everything on our own soil. Not that many people believe that tehre's a lot to drill in the National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska in the first place.

Anyway, "ANWR," the Republican political issue, is pretty much a shell game. It's designed to cast the whole oil issue as one of wimpy, childish Democrats trying to protect caribou (I see the defending troops in the great war on christmas could care less about reindeer) while the big adult Republicans are trying to solve our Hard Problems, while obscuring, for instance, the GOPee defense of Detroit's unwillingness to move on CAFE standards. Part of me wants to say fuck it and just give them the issue so they'd shut up, but we don't really need to given that we have enough Rockefeller/Goldwater Repubs still on hand to protect the wilderness/ecosystem values.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 21:30 (twenty years ago)

"values"

don weiner (don weiner), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 21:38 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.