Alaska Permanent Fund and ANWR

Red Eagle:

Ron, opening ANWR is an incomplete idea at best. Much more could be 'produced' by conservation.

First as I pointed out earlier, if liberals say no at any cost then they fail to let themselves be at the negotiating table. And thusly to create a complete idea in your words. But beyond this, is it an incomplete idea for biodiesel, or hybrid cars or wind turbines or hydro or solar... None of these can replace oil 100%.
Secondly, nothing is "produced" by conservation. We can not conserve to no (0) demand.

We are already into the next stage of global warming, and what will that do on that artic plain? Maybe flood it? Flood all those hundreds of miles of pipelines, roads, airstrips and derricks our neocon liars call a 'postage stamp'?

If the artic plain were to be flooded then most lowlying areas will be flooded and we will have to deal with. By your theory we need to move all the cities away from the coastal areas now.

maybe paving the wilderness appeals to you? Finally, maybe our great grandkids will really need this oil, while we don't. Openning ANWR before gas milege is raised is pure waste.

You being from Alaska, I would have assumed that you knew about ice roads and the fact that very little of ANWR would be used for oil drilling. Based on microeconomics, the price dictates that we need the oil now and that our great grandkids will find alternatives if necessary. Just as my great grandfather time discovered that animal forms of travel created too much waste and was economically inefficient.

Your ideas about logging Alaska are even worse, and you do betray the neocon lie that 'thinning' is different than clearcutting. What thinning really means is taking ALL the trees so they can't burn? No matter what the liars tell you on TV, big logging operations only clear-cut because of the size of their machinery. Also, logging in places like the Tongass national forest costs the taxpayers more in subsidies than the cut wood earns.

I actually didn't say any ideas about loging in Alaska. But from my experience from observing private land that was used for logging, the clearcutting was done in sections like a checkerboard pattern. This allowed young trees to flourish on the open spaces. Animals such as deer or moose actually like the open spaces to graze. The subsidies that are often quoted are subsidies that would already exist even if there were no logging. And just because one government agency that is tied in bureacratic does not mean other governments could not do better to create revenues for the people of Alaska and Oregon.

And if we are worrying about global warming should we not try to sequester CO2?

And there's the controversial fact that if one wants to use forests at the optimum efficiency for reducing global warming gases, young growing forests absorb more CO2 than do mature trees...thus, periodic harvesting would actually help sequester more carbon than letting great quantities of forest mature into old growth

.
From RoguePundit]
And check out GreeSpirit]

The logging companies took 95% of the trees in the West, then they blame environmentalists because they're out of trees.... But really, it was the law passed in the 80's that allowed wood to be exported to Japan, without first going through a mill, that wrecked the rural communities. There's still plenty of trees out there, but they're creating jobs in Japan, not here.

If you have any facts to back up your statements, let me know. Unfortunately, I do not see that Alaska has the ability (labor force, technical skill) or will (subsidize industry indifintely) to create an industry that adds value to timber sales. Oregon has some opportunity and does appear to have some counties with sustainable timber industry. Look here.