Why does RP support the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Oil Drilling?

[Salamando]

What is his reasoning for it?

[OptionsTrader]

A guess:

Because drilling for oil under our own lands is preferable to killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Iranians to drill for what is under their lands.

[ScotTX]

I'm sure it's a property rights issue. I don't fully agree with it. We need to protect certain areas from exploitation of Big Oil.

[OptionsTrader]

The proposed drilling area is quite small, a few hundred acres I believe.

[Cindy]

A guess:

Because drilling for oil under our own lands is preferable to killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Iranians to drill for what is under their lands.

That would be my guess too.

However, Ron has said we should get off our dependance on Oil all together. He wants to stop our government subsidation of OIl, to BETTER open up the market for alternative energy competiters. Like he says, it is up to US, the market, to patronize alternative competitors.

For you tree huggers out there, ( I am one too) before RP decided he wanted to help heal people and became a doctor, he wanted to be a FOREST RANGER. He says he spends a lot of time in the woods, and loves the natural environment.


Be easy on him for this. He would rather see us not drill for oil anywhere and he does appreciate the environment

[steph3n]

I think that the small portion on ANWR drilling would only be a stopgap to more sustainable renewable energy, with Ron Paul.

with others it will simply be a suck the hole dry measure and go find more till it is all gone.

[LibertyEagle]

The proposed drilling area is quite small, a few hundred acres I believe.

That's my understanding too.

If we're going to continue to use oil, we have to be willing to drill for it.

For those of you who think drilling there is all about profits for the oil companies, think again. Profits go up with less supply. In addition to the devaluation of our dollar, that's one of the reasons why the price of oil goes up significantly, every time we invade a country and interrupt their production.

[Nash]

If we don't pillage other countries oil supplies and you don't offer tax sponsored government subsidies to the Oil companies the costs are inevitably going to rise. Drilling in ANWR is one way to offset this cost at least for the time being.

Most environmental regulations like these are noble but also tend to harm poorer Americans because it increases the costs of basic goods that depend on Oil.

[Danny Molina]

screw the polar bears. Who needs em?

[bbachtung]

We could put it up for sale to environmentalists who could then decide how best to manage it . . .

[ConstitutionGal]

What is his reasoning for it?

Dr. Paul realizes that government regulation is part of what is crippling our economy. The U.S. used to be pretty self-reliant and in order to avoid all the nation building to (supposedly) protect 'our interests (read oil supply) in the middle-east, we need to turn our attention to land we already own. There are also huge oil reserves in Colorado but, again, thanks to government regulations, the oil companies can't go after it. I also don't think Dr. Paul seeing ANWAR as and end-all or be-all for our energy needs, it's like he says on other issues - there has to be a transition period.

Something to keep in mind about ANWAR is that there are already oil fields there and the caribou and the environment are happily co-existing with them. The problem with the U.S. oil supply is that, thanks to government, we haven't built any new refineries in decades. It's not so much a supply problem as a refining problem.

[Sematary]

What is his reasoning for it?

Perhaps you could ask yourself this. Aside from OTHER good reasons to drill our own oil - where in the constitution does it state that the federal government should PREVENT companies from taking advantage of natural resources?

[steph3n]

I have an idea to jump start the renewable energy programs, sell ALL the "strategic reserves" and invest it 100% into wind and solar power

[OptionsTrader]

screw the polar bears. Who needs em?

Can't we squeese the oil outta them. Ya know like those pesky whales?

Just kidding

[max]

What is his reasoning for it?

1. There's cheap oil there that can be used to heat our homes and run our cars.
2. It keeps us independant
3. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is MASSIVE...bigger than some US states. A few holes in the ground isnt going to "ruin the environment"
4. Nobody even lives there. Who the hell cares?
5. Caribous like to rub their bodies up against Alaskan pipelines to get some warmth...True story!

This is a no-brainer.

[Michael Ingram]

I have an idea to jump start the renewable energy programs, sell ALL the "strategic reserves" and invest it 100% into wind and solar power

Nuclear power is much more powerful than wind and solar energy currently, and has just as little so-called "greenhouse gases".

[steph3n]

I agree, we need to work more on encouraging private research not making solar and wind power more efficient, it has a lot of loss right now.

I know nuclear power is clean, and these days even spent fuel can be reused a number of times through some unique processes.
check out this by Toshiba:
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/nuclearenergy/english/

Nuclear power is much more powerful than wind and solar energy currently, and has just as little so-called "greenhouse gases".

[hard@work]

You have no idea the power behind your right to property. The statement he made about air pollution was truly revolutionary. The implications are huge in how we treat our environment.

[Kregener]

Because there is NO evidence that drilling disrupts natural habitat in any way.

Because our delivering our OWN oil is preferable to the entangling alliances that always end up leading to fomentation of anti-American sentiment and wars.

Because if you fail to hug as tree, contrary to propaganda, it will NOT die.

[Original_Intent]

I agree, we need to work more on encouraging private research not making solar and wind power more efficient, it has a lot of loss right now.

I know nuclear power is clean, and these days even spent fuel can be reused a number of times through some unique processes.
check out this by Toshiba:
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/nuclearenergy/english/

Yep, the depleted uranium makes great ammo I hear. (J/K)

I really do think that nuclear is a direction we should head, I also think we need to get rid of the Grand-Staircase Escalante national monument, at get at some of the cleanest burning coal in the world. (the environmentalist cheered that it got designated a national monument when it is some of the ugliest country in the world (where the coal is) and using that coal instead of what is used around the world would lower emmissions and greenhouse gases. I really don't understand enviro's sometimes.

Clinton just made it a national monument because the coal would compete with the coal in Indonesia, he had to protect his friends, the Riadys.

[bc2208]

The proposed drilling area is quite small, a few hundred acres I believe.

This is false - it's a very misleading number. The acreage statistics proposals give only count the actual land area of the roads and drilling sites. So, a road 300 miles long and 20 feet wide is counted as the area on the road. But because the plan requires a large network of roads, the area disrupted by the drilling is actually much, much larger than the numbers cited.

Also, there is much less oil than the general public believes. At best, we would recover enough oil to fuel our country for six months. Not a long term solution.

But, we should let the Alaskans decide - it's their land. They've pretty much chosen in favor of job production, so that's what it is.

[quickmike]

What gives the right to government to own wildlife refuges anyway? Governements job is supposed to be protect our rights given to us under the constitution, not to own vast areas of land that they deem useable for one reason or another. All land should be privately owned, not owned by government.

I would rather drill for oil here than rely on the middle east so much. Its not like they want to take the whole wilderness and destroy it for the oil, kill all the animals, and burn down their habitat. Oil drilling isnt as intrusive as some people think it is. Here in IL we have oil wells all around and they are mostly surrounded by forests. Guess what? There are still vast amounts of wildlife living there as well............... imagine that.

[Kregener]

Those roads will kill every single living creature in the area...along with the idigenous foliage.

[OptionsTrader]

the area disrupted by the drilling is actually much, much larger than the numbers cited.

I say let the people of Alaska decide if they want their land "disrupted."

[Mani]

I'm a somewhat tree hugger, but I've read a couple books that talk about how some parts of the area are just dead tundra with nothing for hundreds of miles, no animals, no plant life, nothing, so there's not much environment to protect.

One is the "energy non-crisis" by Lindsey Williams. He's not a very good writer, but HE WAS THERE when they built the Alaskan pipeline and his first hand account regarding the B.S. is quite interesting and disturbing. The environmental damage was highly political instead of a reality.

According to studies which were never released, there's as much oil as the middle east in that region.

[LibertyEagle]

Also, there is much less oil than the general public believes. At best, we would recover enough oil to fuel our country for six months. Not a long term solution.

Where are you getting these numbers?

[steph3n]

Look at what ANWR is for yourself:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...6&t=k&z=7&om=1

[quickmike]

Still waiting for someone to point out where in the constitution it authorizes the government to declare something a wildlife refuge. You either believe in the constitution, or you dont. Its pretty simple.

[Nash]

Still waiting for someone to point out where in the constitution it authorizes the government to declare something a wildlife refuge. You either believe in the constitution, or you dont. Its pretty simple.

The argument on whether or not this is valid is appropriate because the constitution could be amended to allow these things.

[thuja]

This is false - it's a very misleading number. The acreage statistics proposals give only count the actual land area of the roads and drilling sites. So, a road 300 miles long and 20 feet wide is counted as the area on the road. But because the plan requires a large network of roads, the area disrupted by the drilling is actually much, much larger than the numbers cited.

Also, there is much less oil than the general public believes. At best, we would recover enough oil to fuel our country for six months. Not a long term solution.

But, we should let the Alaskans decide - it's their land. They've pretty much chosen in favor of job production, so that's what it is.

good pionts