poor Alaska

[Chrome Ninja]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/15/ene...eut/index.html

maybe it's just me but i think this is a really bad idea

[substand]

Poor Alaska? Let me give you a bit of education:

From the "city of Kaktovik" website @ http://www.kaktovik.com/:

The city of Kaktovik is located on Barter Island. Barter Island lies off the coast of the Beaufort Sea. It is within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). ANWR covers the northeast corner of Alaska.

And a poll question they asked their residents (found at http://www.kaktovik.com/anwr_survey.htm):

10. The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be open to oil and gas exploration.

43% A. Strongly agree
35% B. Agree
10% C. Neutral
5% D. Disagree
4% E. Strongly disagree

These are the people who would be most affected.

In addition, according to Native American News, (who got their results from a poll by Dittman Research Corp (which is based in Alaska, I beleive)) there is this finding:

A survey by the Dittman Research Corporation showed 75% of Alaskans would like to see the refuge opened.

So maybe its not "poor Alaska" that you feel for... maybe its "poor you," as it is evident that the ones most affected by drilling in the ANWR are overwhelmingly in favor of it.

[humanhybrid]

maybe it's just me but i think this is a really bad idea

Of course it is "BAD BAD" Yes! these people "if accurate" perhaps do want it but at what cost to the themselves and to their future generations. At what price do we compramise our mother earth. Lets not get them addicted to a consumptive way of life that slowly destroys the planet. it

[substand]

And you are much better qualified to make decisions for these people than they are qualified to make decisions for themselves.

King HH, please read the small city's poll, so that you might find they are well aware of the negatives and positives of their final decision.

For example:

3. What is the number one advantage of oil development on the North Slope?
44% A. Improved schools
35% B. Improved health care
53% C. Improved job opportunities
21% D. Improved recreation activities
4% E No advantage
8% F. Other


4. The quality of life in Kaktovik will diminish if oil development ceases.
31% A. Strongly agree
40% B. Agree
15% C. Neutral
8% D. Disagree
6% E. Strongly disagree

....

7. Please mark the advantages and disadvantages you see of opening ANWR to oil and gas development.

Advantages: Disadvantages:
68% 1. More jobs for local people 22% 1. Will increase population
26% 2. Will stabilize the economy 31% 2. May hurt wildlife
50% 3. Will help Kaktovik grow 25% 3. May hurt the environment
26% 4. More business opportunities 46% 4.lncreased alcohol,drug abuse
13% 5. Other 5% 5. Other

Yes, even these imbeciles have correctly determined the advantages and disadvantages of drilling in ANWR.

And perhaps most importantly, the Porcupine Caribou. While it is not possible to take their opinions on the matter, it is possible to get the peoples' opinions (who live near by) on it:

9. Based on your information about the Porcupine Caribou Herd, will oil development in ANWR diminish the herd's use of the core calving area?

18% A. Yes. The caribou will go away.
18% B. It might affect their use, but the oil companies can stop drilling during calving season.
15% C. I don't know.
15% D. More research is needed.
41% E. No. The caribou will not be affected.

[humanhybrid]

Sounds like a campaign promise substand, I nor you are qualified to make decisions for other communities. But it does not justify destroying nature to satisfy a few. The oil isnt worth the trouble anyway. Let the oil industry take more responsability in developing new technology. "Its their responsability" join in with us fossil fuel!!! good day!

[substand]

its not a campaign promise. its what the people closest to the matter have to say about it.

[Emerald_Dragon]

here's how i see it.

if i were to live in the middle of a vast "no-where-special" po-dunk town, and a bunch of city yokels come thru and offer tons of money for the right to drill for oil. i'd prolly say that's good for me. hell, that's GREAT for me, i can finally move. i can finally get a better paying job. i can finally move out of my damn drafty igloo.
damn the great outdoors, i want my MTV/cable/satellite.


as much as i'm against cutting down the rainforests and devastating the grazing land of nomadic caribou, i don't blame the people of the region for wanting it to occur. it is their choice and right, to do what they want with thier town. Carpediem, pay later. but in their case, they'll reap the benefits now. hell, they could well be the next Houston.

i disagree with what they are voting for, but its their life and land. why should i have a say in what's good for them?

[humanhybrid]

i disagree with what they are voting for, but its their life and land. why should i have a say in what's good for them? Shouldnt everyone who will be affected by their "choices" be concerned? good day!

[Emerald_Dragon]

yes. i am concerned.

but its hard to deny someone, of something, that they want. even if they (and we) know its bad for them (and us). like cigarettes.

all we can do is educate them and hope they make the right choices, in the end, they live with them. compassion.

i agree with you on many points. i don't think i'm going against what I believe by condoning their choices for their land, unfortunate, though it may be. I may have made the same choices had I been in their shoes. or maybe i would have moved to a city and got a job.