Haven't been able to post this for a while.

Robomatic and other defenders of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge----


As you know, Mudcat is a music site. It's what brings us all together. Why is music so special? For me, and I know I'm not alone in this, it's partly because music lifts us out of ourselves. Making music ourselves, especially with others--which is what folk music is all about---even drinking songs, parodies and sea songs--is an activity which lifts us above the mundane. This phenomenon, for lack of a better word, could be called spiritual. There need be no element of religion whatsoever--it's still spiritual.

People who appreciate music are aware that there are higher things in life than accumulating wealth. Money is a means to an end, not a goal in itself. I think there are very few Mudcatters who would disagree with this (perhaps a few).

Another aspect of life which brings us out of ourselves is beauty, especially natural beauty, including stark fierce beauty, as in the Maine coast, the Irish Atlantic coast, much of the Scottish coast, especially the northern islands, part of the English coast,--and, as you yourself pointed out, the state of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as it now stands.

It's hard to believe that you, as a musician, would be willing to sacrifice that beauty, the beauty of an unspoiled pristine place--your word, not mine (don't try to back away from it)--see your first post, under Environmental Effects. And it would be sacrificed needlessly, and for a temporary expedient you yourself admit would not solve the problem of foreign oil dependence.

Another aspect of the issue is stewardship. Again you need not be religious in the least to accept the concept that as humans only here for a finite time, we have an obligation to be good stewards to preserve natural wonders, for visitors from all over the world, for future generations, and because natural wonders are an intrinsic good in themselves.

To make this a quasi-musical thread, a song that speaks directly to this theme of stewardship is "In the Cool of the Day", by Jean Ritchie, a wonderful and haunting song especially when sung by her. You can be not at all religious and still identify with the metaphor: ------- "You may live in this garden if you'll keep the grasses green".

Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the opposite.


Then there's the concept called quality of life, with which I'm sure you're familiar. This goes far beyond having food we like to eat and a comfortable bed, and includes, I believe, an appreciation for all sorts of beauty. As musicians, amateur or professional, we appreciate beauty in music. But we also appreciate other types, both man-made and natural beauty.

I believe it makes no difference if we ever see actually see the object. For instance, if by some terrible chance, the Taj Mahal were to be blown up, I would be sorry to hear the news, even if no one were killed. And I don't even have a strong desire to see the Taj Mahal. But knowing it is there is part of my quality of life.

Now you are telling us--don't worry, terrorists only blew up one wing. Disregard that rubble. Or, alternatively--that part had to go. It's better to have a McDonalds there so the Indian people can eat good food.


Similarly, visiting any natural wonder is part of my quality of life, but even knowing it's there is also part. Even knowing that Glacier National Park is there, that there are volcanoes in the Hawaiian Islands, that there are places in Washington state and Oregon that approach the storied "forest primeval" (not to mention obvious destinations like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone) is part of my quality of life--and I suspect I am not alone in this.

As a musican I would think you can understand this. I'm sorry for you if you don't.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a perfect case in point--and this could possibly be why this issue has called forth such extreme language on the part of usually unflappable folk--consider the the words "despise you" from McGrath and "bastard" from Katlaughing.

And the fact that it is the US which is considering this sacrilege--there's no other word for it--is another factor.

The term "energy independence" is bandied about. The suspicion may arise--and, based on Bush's track record, it seems extremely plausible--that his goal is for the US to be self-sufficient as much as possible so that he can continue to thumb his nose at the rest of the world, and continue his arrogant ways, which have alienated the vast majority of the educated the world over. The 48% of the US voting electorate who tried to stop the continuing tragedy of Bush's rule are at pains to disassociate ourselves from him whenever we travel abroad.

Also consider one of Bush's goals not trumpeted as much as the energy independence shibboleth. He is aware foreign bankers are not happy with the US deficit. But rather than touch his sacrosanct tax cuts (which disproportionately benefit the rich--any argument here?)--he has included at least $2.4 billion in oil leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the budget just for 2007.

Also, consider the goal of the drilling--to lower oil prices or keep them from dramatically rising. As I recall, US gas prices are already some of the lowest, if not the lowest, of the industrialized world. US consumption of oil is far out of proportion to US population in the world.

How serious is the US in dealing with conservation of oil? Well perhaps a clue is in 2 stories recently in the Wall St Journal. Fuel economy has been worsening since the late 1980's. "Last year, even as gas prices were surging, average fuel economy fell again"--WSJ 22 March 2005. "The makers of SUV's , already under fire for poor gas mileage and safety issues, have a new strategy to reverse sagging sales: putting bigger engines in them"--WSJ 24 March 2005.

You seem to think there are grounds for compromise. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is now in a "pristine" state--your word. A synonym is "virgin". Would you like to discuss degrees of virginity? Do you understand why compromise is not possible?

The US is the richest nation in the world. The question of the Monarch butterflies in Mexico is much more complex--somehow the poor who live near the Monarchs' winter refuge must be employed so they need not chop down the trees in those mountains for fuel or employment.

But the US has absolutely no excuse for violating the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Alaska natives closest to the proposed drilling are already prosperous, due to proximity to the current North Slope activity.

Bush supporters' cry of alarm at 70% dependence on foreign oil rings hollow for many reasons. First, Canada and Venezuela are a large part of that 70%. Second, the very people allegedly concerned about dependence on foreign oil are also the ones who have most strongly resisted both federal requirements for non-fossil fuel use and fuel economy standards. I have noted this phenomenon for years in the editorial pages of the Journal.

How much help will the oil from the refuge help the dependency problem? Defenders of drilling admit that the drilling will likely not be fully onstream til at least 2017.

The US Energy Information Agency, a branch of the US Dept of Energy, hence likely an objective source, predicts that in 2020, 62% of the oil needed by the US will be imported, and if the HIGH END estimates (my emphasis) of oil from the Refuge are accurate, Refuge oil could reduce this to 60% (source MSNBC 18 Mar 2005).

That's right, a 2% difference.

So, for a 2% difference, you are advocating that the US, richest nation in the world, turn its back on any stewardship of natural wonders--primarily to preserve the Bush tax cuts.



By the way ,your suggestion that environmentalists "disseminate..ecological research..particularly.. in China" is either a red herring or disingenuous, or both.

Against China's headlong industrialization push, even their home-grown ecologists have little clout--which I suspect you already know. There have been excellent WSJ articles on this point, on mercury pollution, among others.

And the pipeline is 30 years old. Good point. So it sounds as if we can look forward to huge expenditures to maintain it, with progressively more chances for cracks and breaks (and spills) as it ages. If there is more oil in it, the spills when they occur will be more serious. Why is this not so?

You are also incorrectly assuming something in my earlier post. The drilling I am referring to--again courtesy of the WSJ article--is not just exploratory but actually extracting oil. The majors are skittish, some of the minors not so much.

Advocates for drilling are trying to draw a blatantly false distinction between conservation and environmentalism. We drilling opponents are not proposing an Earth First! type action like chaining yourself to a tree to prevent its "harvesting", as the timber industry likes to put it.

However, it's clear to me, and probably others, that anybody with both a head and a heart, and that, I'm sure includes the vast majority of Mudcatters, would reject this ill-considered and unnecessary drilling.

Conclusions (at long last):

1) Bush is hiding his real goal, which is to preserve tax cuts at all costs.

2) There are compelling reasons, far beyond monetary considerations, which argue passionately against any drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

3) The burden is still on those in favor of drilling in the Refuge. The case for it has not been made.