Its not about semantics

It's not about being green, or being pragmatic, or even doing what is for now the most profitable. The simple fact of the matter is that oil is not a viable fuel for the future of mankind due to the lack of supply when compared with the constantly rising demand. Furthermore, as an essentially non-renewable resource it is even less viable. Sure the National Wildlife refuge holds oil, but is it a considerable enough quantity to justify the sacrifice?
As humanity progresses towards the future we will increasingly run across such decisions and the answer is never easy. The important thing is to accept that the next few decades will likely determine the fate of humanity, we hopefully will not be destroyed under even the worst scenario... but, if we do not get our act together and address our world from an unbiased scientifically based viewpoint we will suffer untold damage. Honestly, drilling in ANWR is not a huge issue to me, but it is reflective of the choices we collectively must make in the coming years...

Reply

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <b> <i> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote> <u> <strike> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.

Join the Debate

Start your own blog, comment on topics, and let your voice be heard. Start your free account now!

User login

login

2008 Democratic Convention

Links to Rocky Mountain News RSS feeds.

Ads by Google