HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Dec. 17, 2004 I received an e-mail yesterday concerning my recent article about the distorted picture of ANWR by the Fox News Channel. The writer correctly pointed out that ANWR means "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," and NOT "Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge," as I'd stated. However, the writer then proceeded to castigate me further by claiming that "since [I] didn't get the name right, then I must not know what I'm talking about" and presumably therefore, everything else in the article was wrong. Nonsense! I suggest those in doubt go to www.anwr.org and look it up. At the bottom of the home page at that site, you'll find a "picture gallery" which has pictures of the exact location (both summer and winter) about which I wrote. It IS without visible mountains or pristine rivers or any of the cavorting caribou calves the Fox piece showed. These so-called "environmentalists" are prone to do what this guy did--probe any story that goes against leftist orthodoxy for the slightest error and then use any error found--even a misspelled word--as "proof" that the whole premise is wrong. The fact remains that ANWR is a HUGE area in the millions of acres and the truth is that there actually ARE places in ANWR that look like what's routinely shown on TV in the "lower 48." The problem is--and will remain- -that the area in which drilling is being proposed looks nothing like what's portrayed in most TV coverage of the issue of drilling there. Picture the average area rug of 5' x 3'. Imagine that it represents ANWR in its entirety. Now, put your foot in the upper left corner. The area covered by one's big toe represents how much of ANWR would be affected by the proposed drilling. It's barren wasteland without trees or even shrubs. It's tundra covered by lichens and mosses and low-growing grasses that remains frozen for over 9 months out of each year, and is a haven for huge mosquito and black fly swarms for the two or three months that it thaws out. Wildlife actually AVOIDS this area during these months because of those mosquitos--except for a small strip right along the Arctic Ocean where on- shore winds abate the mosquitos from time to time and thus make foraging there moderately bearable. These people who are opposed to drilling in this small corner of ANWR are the very people who decry the magnitude of our oil imports--or, more often, the mere USE of oil in our economic system. Not surprisingly, these people don't have any proposals for viable alternatives that wouldn't also destroy our economy in the process. Should we be seeking alternatives to oil and gas as fuel? Of course. But, we must do so in a fashion that would allow for a smooth transition from an oil economy to one in which oil has been replaced by some other fuel source. Doing otherwise would crater the most productive economic machine the world has ever known and which has provided the resources for the freest nation on Earth, as well. Without economic freedom, there cannot be any social freedom either, and, for now, the lubricant of that economic freedom is oil and gas. We should NOT be setting aside vast quantities of it because someone wants the basically lifeless tundra to remain "pristine." That's insane. ------------ About the author: David A. Jared is a news junkie, semi-retired and an avid golfer who's been writing his first book, "4000 years of chopsticks" for the last 20 years. Email: Pappadave@sbcglobal.net ------------- All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
