Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Yet the fact of the matter remains, that the action Congress is taking is in regards to contract negotiated under the Clinton Department of Interior, for they were negotiated in 1998, not in 2001. There was no attempt to hide any truth. All one has to do is look at any government website and one will see that after a time, certain items, studies, and news releases are archived. The same held true here. Nor do you ever mention that the same arguments being used today were used when Prudhoe Bay and the Alaskan pipeline were first being debated. Those arguments were proven false and extreme then, and today there is no difference.

Furthermore, like so many you ignore the fact that improvements in technology and exploration have led to safer methods of removing oil from the ground, coupled with the desire of companies to restore to balance the environment when they are finished with their endeavors.

Instead of having the question placed into the hands of the people who will be involved in the drilling, instead it remains left to politicians, who on one side have the oil industry that supports them, and on the other side those who have the environmental industry.

I believe that under the topic of ANWR regarding the bill that would forever ban drilling, I submitted a link to the page of the people who actually live in the area under question. The same people who have stated through their site the fact that the people from the oil industry have remained willing to work with them and have shown a concern for their issues and well-being, whereas, those who oppose drilling, have not once cared about them or their thoughts. Sometimes environmentalists seem to forget that the human species is a part of the environment.



Again, the polar bear would become a protected species and not an endangered one. However, with any investigation, the facts have to come in and we will see if the scientific models are correct, or whether those who actually live in the area and understand the environment are correct. On the one hand the models say the polar bear is in trouble, and on the other, they say the polar bear is increasing.....Model or actual observation?????



All major auto manufacturers offer forms of hybrid engines. The studying of alternative fuels is also being conducted. However, a company also must weigh in with a Cost/Benefit analysis. Unfortunately at this time, the costs outweigh the benefits. What point does it make for a manufacturer to make a product that average people cannot afford. Until such time as the cost of these alternatives become reasonable they will not be produced. Not everyone can afford the price tag of the $90,000 electric sports car. So are we to say those who can't should not have an auto???? So much for sentencing the poor to more poverty, all to say the environment.

dmk