So, Bush finally expand the oil drilling in Alaska

page 1 of 1 5 total items

Mordin

Mordin

The Wise One

Cancel

We all know it was coming when we elected him. I didn't exctaly like his environment policy, but there are many arguments on US being too dependent on the middle east for resource such as oil weaken our national security. I guess that can be an solid argument, but I also wonder if that is the case, should we also worry about the outsourcing of the manufacture jobs outside of US, since human captial is also important to our national security. The last time I check almost every domestic goods are made from China, and Wal Mart, the country's biggest retailer import most of their goods from China. That is just one example. Should environment always take a back seat when it comes to our public policy because it isn't convient for us to protect it.

Signature
	Image
Thank you einna for the siggy :)

  • Jan 22, 2005

Celessa

Retired Moderator

Celessa

Okaerinasai - Welcome Home

Cancel

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/21/alaska.oil.ap/index.html

Welcome the news of the oh so terrible but obvious.
Bush has struck again.

Here's the article I found on the Oil Expansion in Alaska's Reserves regarding the effects it can cause to wildlife. Here's the general rundown scoop of the story.

"No matter where you go, no matter how tough life may be, just remember that always in your heart, you will still be loved."

Signature
	Image

toujin1

toujin1

the sword's blade

Cancel

.....who didnt know this was coming? i mean, yeah duh..he hasnt done anything truly envrionmentally friendly since coming to power...the worst thing though, is that when it comes to the actual global world env problems, his country usually contributes over a 1/4 (i have been studying env science for yrs now) and the only way to truly put a dent into the causes would require america to make some sacrifices...and lets face it, he is never gonna do that.
has anyone read that pentagon released report a while back? about the coming of the next ice age and all the million other things that are going to turn this globe upside down?
...where ever bush goes, australia seems to be following...how embarrassing...

This signature violates the signature guidelines, thus it has been removed.

  • Jan 22, 2005

shinsengumi

Retired Moderator

shinsengumi

. . . remember me?

Cancel

Quote by MordinWe all know it was coming when we elected him. I didn't exctaly like his environment policy, but there are many arguments on US being too dependent on the middle east for resource such as oil weaken our national security.

The national security argument is a very important one that often gets overlooked or marginalized by those who look at the issue as an environmental one alone. Oil is an Achilles heel of the United States both in its national security and its economy, and having to rely on such an unstable region for oil is a worrisome state of affairs indeed.

But, the environmental stance may lack merit as well. Environmentalists claim that there isn't much oil in the North Slope, that the environment will be irrevocably harmed, and that it will have a very negative impact upon the wildlife in the area. All three counts lack merit. First, studies done by the USGS in the past few decades suggest that there should be a substantial amount of oil in the region, which is why exploratory drilling is going to be conducted to ascertain a more precise estimate. Second, the environment will suffer minimal impact, due to modern drilling techniques and what we have seen from past experience. The drilling site itself will by strictly limited to three hundred acres, and as for the pipelines, before the Alaska pipeline was constructed, environmentalists protested, saying that the pipeline would have a significant detrimental affect on wildlife in Alaska, especially the caribou. However, what the environmentalists predicted would happen never came to pass because caribou population has increased since the construction of the pipeline.

There's another thing to consider, however, and that's the will of the people of Alaska, including the native Americans who live in the northern regions. The majority of Alaskans support drilling in Alaska because it will bring a lot of much-needed money to the state and help bolster their economy. Alaska, though large, does not have that many natural resources, and to deny Alaska the ability to exploit its resources (especially in a region that was set aside specifically for the purpose of drilling for oil in the 1920s) is unfair to the people, many of whose livelihoods may depend on this.

Quote: I guess that can be an solid argument, but I also wonder if that is the case, should we also worry about the outsourcing of the manufacture jobs outside of US, since human captial is also important to our national security. The last time I check almost every domestic goods are made from China, and Wal Mart, the country's biggest retailer import most of their goods from China. That is just one example. Should environment always take a back seat when it comes to our public policy because it isn't convient for us to protect it.

The two issues have nothing to do with each other. There simply isn't anything that can be done about the fact that labor is cheap in China and in other developed nations. The fact that the United States is far more developed and that its standard of living is higher will mean that labor costs are extremely high here, often prohibitively so. If goods were made in the United States and not in China, costs, both for the consumer and for the producer, would skyrocket, increasing prices over fivefold in certain sectors, and that simply is bad for both the Chinese and the US economy.

Many people lament the outsourcing of jobs to India as well, and it's the same story. If a programmer in India is willing to work at a tenth of the wage that a programmer in the United States is willing to and at no real sacrifice in quality, there really is no reason for a firm not to take that route, and there really is no reason for the government to intervene. And, even though the programmer in India seems to be taking a reduced wage, given the disparity in the standard of living and the purchacing power between the ruble and the dollar, the programmer in India would actually be living a fairly comfortable life.

From a large-scale perspective, imposed restrictions on the economy always result in some detriment to society as a whole, as products will not be produced or allocated efficiently and/or prices will be higher than their wont. While it is a concern, it isn't a public policy issue that can be, or should, be dealt with by the government simply because to stop the use of overseas labor would have a significant negative impact upon the US and global economy. The higher standard of living and higher prices in America are just a token of how far our society has progressed in such a short time. It's perhaps something to be proud of, but it comes with a real price.

s h i n s e n g u m i
Minitokyo Policy, Forum, Review, and Category Maintenance Moderator Emeritus

Do not expect to be applauded when you do the right thing, and do not expect to be forgiven when you err, but even your enemies will respect commitment, and a conscience at peace is worth a thousand tainted victories.

Mordin

Mordin

The Wise One

Cancel

Quote by shinsengumiThe national security argument is a very important one that often gets overlooked or marginalized by those who look at the issue as an environmental one alone. Oil is an Achilles heel of the United States both in its national security and its economy, and having to rely on such an unstable region for oil is a worrisome state of affairs indeed.

That point is correct, but I always wonder that it is easier to put environment as a secondary concern esepcially the impact of the economy can be seen very quickly unlike the environment. The act of protecting the environment doesn't yield immediate result, so it is easier to make a case to gratify our immediate dilemma over the needs of the some unforseen future concern. I believe Bush, coming from his experitise background in oil industry, is somewhat bias in this instance. Of course, I don't have a good solution for this, the only suggestion I would have made would be conservation, such as car company and people stop wanting SUVs or the tank size Hummer, but I guess we aren't a nation that like to conserve, since we like to super size everything.

Quote: There's another thing to consider, however, and that's the will of the people of Alaska, including the native Americans who live in the northern regions. The majority of Alaskans support drilling in Alaska because it will bring a lot of much-needed money to the state and help bolster their economy. Alaska, though large, does not have that many natural resources, and to deny Alaska the ability to exploit its resources (especially in a region that was set aside specifically for the purpose of drilling for oil in the 1920s) is unfair to the people, many of whose livelihoods may depend on this.

That isn't excatly a fair argument, because if you look any place that has a depressed economy, the enviornment policy would be throw to the waste side in competiting against people's livelihood. The third world country faces this everyday, and if people should say just let them do it without any restraint would mean all the progress we made after the industrial revolution in terms of environmental awareness would be gone. I have nothing against the people who have no choice but to pollute the planet to just not strave, but it isn't fair to use it as a sword to put environment away as non important.

Quote: From a large-scale perspective, imposed restrictions on the economy always result in some detriment to society as a whole, as products will not be produced or allocated efficiently and/or prices will be higher than their wont. While it is a concern, it isn't a public policy issue that can be, or should, be dealt with by the government simply because to stop the use of overseas labor would have a significant negative impact upon the US and global economy. The higher standard of living and higher prices in America are just a token of how far our society has progressed in such a short time. It's perhaps something to be proud of, but it comes with a real price.

The trade deficit between US and China is up to trillion, and the US has basicly became a country that exporting raw materials to china in return for manufactural finished products. We behave like a colony. These create a major problem for factory that made consumer products in US. Take the manufatory of TV set in this country, Wal Mart wanted its supplier to find the lowest cost to produce tv, so they go to china, where the workers are badly abuse and can't form a union to protect themselves, in return china can do a price dump on tv set in US. It drove many US domestic factory to move elsewhere, take RCA for example, they moved their production out of US, because it was more expensive to produce certain parts in the US than elsewhere. Families that had work in the same factory from generation to generation in the same towns are no longer empolyed, what kind of job can they get now with the same pay, the future is in doubt for many of them. The lives of the town is in bedded with the factory. There are many cases like this, and we overlook it because we can get cheap stuff. The less people get empolyed in this country means less money we can spend on products.

The last time I check China is still rule by a communist regime which it is same as North Korea, but somehow we treated them differently because it benefits certain cooperation as well consumer greatly to be in partner with china. I don't see anyone was saying how brutal china is with its people or how to get rid of the Tyranny of the world as Bush have wanted without including China. As for the national security concern, it is a big problem. We have a hugh budget deficit the past of couple years that ran up in billions, who do you think bought most our debt, China bought most of our debt, so in return we are very much dependent on them fincially. I can't believe people wouldn't be alarm by this trend of encroachment. I don't believe we should let China off the hook just because they made our chrismas toys.

Signature
	Image
Thank you einna for the siggy :)

  • Jan 22, 2005

page 1 of 1 5 total items

Back to Love, Friends & Family | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.