ANWR Drilling Stopped

[Yosemite_Sam1]

I may not be able to go camping there with my RV but it is still in my bucket list of place to see (or go tent. camping).

It might not happen but sure glad to know it will be kept in it's pristine condition.

ANWR Drillling Blocked

[MikeDupont]

Not taking a stand here, but it is believed that there are 70+ MILLION ounces of gold (not to mention large quantities of other metals) at Pebble. I'll let you do the math and decide if there enough to pay off those needing to be paid off vs the actual usage the site would see.
Again, i have no dog in that fight so please dont shoot the messenger.

As to ANWR, the lack of major oil companies bidding there in january tells me they dont think theres enough oil there anyway. So i wouldnt get too wound up about that one.

[cptqueeg]

enblethen wrote:
Getting off topic.
Started with ANWR, now talking emissions.
Should stay with stop drilling and mining within national wildlife, national monuments and national parks.
R-establish boundaries reduced under previous administration for use by the public.

With the mass of people heading into the outdoors shouldn't there be a few places where one gets the sense of being in the middle of nowhere?

Fishing is great in Kona, Hawaii-top of the line boats, food, accomodations, easy travel, etc, but I enjoy being in places like Pinas Bay, Panama and Acklins Island, Bahamas even more because they come with that end of the earth feeling.

Floated the Middle Fork of the Salmon in Idaho a few years back, fun rafting, great scenery, but for a Wild and Scenic River it was like Times Square.

ANWAR was opened up for oil AND to piss people off. Only 2 leases sold to actual oil companies, some were bought by AK in the hopes of reselling them, and others went unsold....no major oil companies even bid on any of it. Hopefully we're going to get past that type of thinking.

The Pebble Mine same thing, but Jr put the kibosh on that - thankfully. Another example is opening up 9 million acres in the Tongass NF for logging. I worked in the Tongass laying out timber sales in fact, and I love logging and forestry, and there is a place for it in the Tongass and other NF but 9 million acres!!!

We're better than this, we're smarter, we can learn to use what we have and mine and log and extract energy from areas already in production w/out messing up these incredibly pristine, productive places. Yeah these new places are untapped and cost of extraction is probably going to be lower/unit, but we don't need to supply cheap commodities at the expense of our heritage. Once it's tampered with, it's gone forever.

[wiskeyVI]

I'm still trying to figure out why we are curbing gases that are proven to help plants grow.....

[enblethen]

Getting off topic.
Started with ANWR, now talking emissions.
Should stay with stop drilling and mining within national wildlife, national monuments and national parks.
R-establish boundaries reduced under previous administration for use by the public.

[jesseannie]

ferndaleflyer wrote:
Tree Huggers----always got the data to support their beliefs.

Yeah I always hate it when people fight unfair by using facts!

Jesseannie

[Lynnmor]

Those concerned about emissions in the USA should refer to the chart posted earlier, then pick one of those at the bottom of the list. It would be great to live in a country that doesn't produce squat and then just lay around like a rat doing next to nothing. Per Capita is a joke, you can't compare doing nothing to those that supply and feed the world. Of course those that don't do productive work cannot grasp the concept.

[NRALIFR]

What they claim and what they commit to doing are entirely different from what they will be held verifiably accountable for.

This is from a Feb. 1, 2021 Boston Herald opinion piece:

“ However, even if the United States makes major cuts, little will be accomplished unless China undertakes a similar effort. And that means a Biden administration pushing for global consensus on two key problems.

The first challenge is obvious.

China’s annual CO2 emissions are greater than the combined output of the U.S. and the European Union. And yet, the Paris Accord currently allows China to continue moving toward peak emissions until 2030.

In contrast, the U.S. pledged during the Obama administration to meet a 2025 deadline of reducing emissions by at least 26% below 2005 levels.

Since 2005, U.S. CO2 output has been gradually declining. In recent years, emissions have fallen even faster due to the increased use of natural gas. In fact, U.S. emissions of CO2 dropped 2.9% in 2019 alone.

It’s a different story with Beijing.

China’s CO2 output continues to rise each year — and has actually jumped significantly since 2016. Even the best case scenario shows China having greater emissions in 2030 than at present. But China is also continuing to build coal plants — including a staggering 250 gigawatts of new capacity currently in development. These additional coal plants alone will far outstrip the entire coal fleet of the United States.

Even if the United States makes costly cuts to its power sector, China will happily make up the difference with its own increasing CO2 output.

There’s a second problem, however, and it’s even more troubling.

Since 2012, China has been emitting roughly 20,000 tons of carbon tetrachloride (CTC) into the atmosphere each year. CTCs are one of the internationally recognized compounds that destroy stratospheric ozone. Like other ozone-depleting substances, CTCs are banned under the Montreal Protocol. However, China is continuing to simply disregard international convention.”

:):)

[Yosemite_Sam1]

enblethen wrote:
China has built several large hydroelectric projects and have greatly reduced dependence on coal.
India is also building hydroelectric projects.

And the over supply of oil in the world is due to China's lower usage.

Stock analysts are discouraging buying oil stocks for long term investment, the Exxons of this world.

[enblethen]

China has built several large hydroelectric projects and have greatly reduced dependence on coal.
India is also building hydroelectric projects.

[Yosemite_Sam1]

NRALIFR wrote:

Allowing any nation that is contributing as much to the problem as China is sit on the sidelines and contribute nothing to cleaning up the problem just isn’t right.
:):)

I'm the last the defend China, but why do you think China has stopped importing coal from us, going fast and furious producing EVs and at the point can export to us solar panels cheaper than we can make them?

Beijing used to be one of the most polluted city that they have to order all the factories to shut down for the day to reduce air toxicity, and now, not totally cleaned up but at par with global health standards.

[NRALIFR]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

Reisender wrote:

NRALIFR wrote:
Wanting ALL of the data to be considered isn’t “pointing fingers at a group of people”. All developed nations are part of the problem, and all should be included in any proposed solution.

Excluding any of the major players is the exact opposite of fairness.

Even under your policy proposal, at the rate of CO2 production growth in China, and the relative flatness to downward trending production in the US, we wouldn’t have to halve our production before asking China to join in. It would be better if everyone started making reductions now.

:):)

Good point. I agree.

Cheers.

And what measures to use for global collective action other than the fact that we are just 5% of the world population but contributing 25% to it's pollution.

I also thought we have International leadership. I just know that leadership is. not pointing fingers -- well, at least not lately in the last...

That’s for our respective governments to figure out. All contributors to the problem need to take a seat at the table and commit to making reasonable reductions. We all pooped in the litter box, we should all work to clean it up. Allowing any nation that is contributing as much to the problem as China is sit on the sidelines and contribute nothing to cleaning up the problem just isn’t right. It’s a bit too “cat-like” for me, and I’m a cat lover at heart.

It’s my understanding that the EU nations have done a tremendous job of reducing their collective CO2 emissions. But yet they’re still willing to work to do more. China should do their part too. I don’t know what “their part” is exactly, but I know it’s exactly not “nothing”.

And I’ll say it again, acknowledging ALL the data and ALL the contributors to that data isn’t pointing fingers. It isn’t racism, nationalism, xenophobia, or whatever evil sounding label you want to put on it. It’s just dealing with reality. As long as it takes to get a policy from proposal, through negotiations, to finalization, to legislation, to implementation, to at long last measuring whether they actually worked or not.........NONE of the big contributors can sit on the sidelines waiting to reach per-capita parity with the rest of the world before they jump in to help.

And I’ll tell you something else, these policies better friggin’ work.

Because if they don’t, we’ll probably be too broke for a do-over.

:):)

[Yosemite_Sam1]

Reisender wrote:

NRALIFR wrote:
Wanting ALL of the data to be considered isn’t “pointing fingers at a group of people”. All developed nations are part of the problem, and all should be included in any proposed solution.

Excluding any of the major players is the exact opposite of fairness.

Even under your policy proposal, at the rate of CO2 production growth in China, and the relative flatness to downward trending production in the US, we wouldn’t have to halve our production before asking China to join in. It would be better if everyone started making reductions now.

:):)

Good point. I agree.

Cheers.

And what measures to use for global collective action other than the fact that we are just 5% of the world population but contributing 25% to it's pollution.

I also thought we have International leadership. I just know that leadership is. not pointing fingers -- well, at least not lately in the last...

[tomman58]

azdryheat wrote:
Diesel, near me, is $2.43. I sure can't wait to pay $5, the way things are going.

Heck I remember paying 5 bucks a gallon when GWB was in office. It was only once and it was in Tx. I keep my 2500 DMAX for towing and for driving the slab I 75 north. I really am hoping for an electric next year for us here in the city. I had a Volt and liked it other than getting in or out.

[Reisender]

NRALIFR wrote:
Wanting ALL of the data to be considered isn’t “pointing fingers at a group of people”. All developed nations are part of the problem, and all should be included in any proposed solution.

Excluding any of the major players is the exact opposite of fairness.

Even under your policy proposal, at the rate of CO2 production growth in China, and the relative flatness to downward trending production in the US, we wouldn’t have to halve our production before asking China to join in. It would be better if everyone started making reductions now.

:):)

Good point. I agree.

Cheers.

[NRALIFR]

Wanting ALL of the data to be considered isn’t “pointing fingers at a group of people”. All developed nations are part of the problem, and all should be included in any proposed solution.

Excluding any of the major players is the exact opposite of fairness.

Even under your policy proposal, at the rate of CO2 production growth in China, and the relative flatness to downward trending production in the US, we wouldn’t have to halve our production before asking China to join in. It would be better if everyone started making reductions now.

:):)