Fionn: sorry you are not comfortable agreeing with me on some points, but so be it.

I am sympathetic with your concerns that the area in question in Alaska is among the last of the pristine areas of the U.S., perhaps in the world. I would argue, though, that if it does contain the supply of natural resources that a growing population requires, we should extract them. We can rant, rage, beg, and plead, but in the U.S., efforts to encourage conservation to the degree that is necessary, will not be successful. We are too used to instant gratification.

It seems to me that we have limited choices at the moment because demand is exceeding supply. Why? The population (in the U.S.)growth over the past ten years, has exceed the supply on hand. We can either be content to pay foreign countries for the oil and gas they produce, or seek those resources within our own boundries. If the decision is made not to seek additional resources within our own country because of enviornmental concerns, then so be it. But then we have no logical reason to complain about high prices.

Another point and then I will shield myself from the onslaught that will surely come. Preserving areas solely for the continued existence of wildlife makes little sense to me at all. If a tree falls in the forest will there be a sound? Who cares? Few people on this earth will ever see the wildlife preserve in question. If drilling is not allowed, there will be those who will take comfort from the fact that there will be a lot of happy Caribou. But we will still need the energy that that area could provide us. If, ultimately, the area is used to provide energy that we need, and some Caribou are displaced, that's too bad. I cannot believe, however, that a country that can put a man on the Moon, cannot extract the natural resources, so badly needed, without disturbing the environment.

DougR