About a year ago, our county clerk was being interviewed on the radio and she commented that NY State had 10 times more SUVs registered than 15 years ago. Now, I don't know what comes to mind when you think of the words "off road", but in this state, there simply aren't places where hoardes of people are driving off road, unless you mean parking on the lawn once a year while the driveway sealer soaks in for 48 hours. The state campgrounds don't allow off road driving, and all access roads to the campsites are paved. So much for campers. The state's not enlarging the parking lots at boat launches. So much for more people towing things.
The state is bemoaning the fact that the number of registered hunters is decreasing*. So much for the group that's most likely to drive off road to get to remote hunting grounds. So, who's using 15x more off road vehicles?
The concern is less people controlling the deer population, and decreased tourism revenue for merchants patronized by hunters.
You'll never change the overall quality of drivers in this country. There's no point in even discussing it. "The system" is not and never will be equipped to do what needs to be done.
That's because we aren't talking sanctions that can be gotten around. We are talking finding other options and using them. Besides what the nasties are might do has little or no imput on what WE should do.
According to ALL experts, power plant fuel *can* be refined for weapon use, not just for dirty bombs. The problem with power plants in questionable countries is that there is now fuel where there was none before, unless illegally obtained.
"A close examination by the IAEA of the radioactive isotope content in the nuclear waste revealed that North Korea had extracted about 24 kilograms of Plutonium. North Korea was supposed to have produced 0.9 gram of Plutonium per megawatt every day over a 4-year period from 1987 to 1991. The 0.9 gram per day multiplied by 365 days by 4 years and by 30 megawatts equals to 39 kilograms. When the yearly operation ratio is presumed to be 60 percent, the actual amount was estimated at 60% of 39 kilograms, or some 23.4 kilograms. Since 20-kiloton standard nuclear warhead has 8 kilograms of critical mass, this amounts to mass of material of nuclear fission out of which about 3 nuclear warheads could be extracted."
That is an absolutely false statement. The Feds, by making it a reserve, did *nothing* that impaired the people who were then using the resources.
They did actually own it, according to the US Constitution and rulings from the US Supreme Court. Congress in 1972 legislated a "settlement act" that paid for that title, and transfered it legally to the US Federal government. Moral or not is open to question, but that is the legal history.
Making ANWR a wildlife refuge certainly doesn't keep them in poverty either, and allowing ANWR to be destroyed by oil exploration would not alleviate any poverty there either. We do have a treaty with Canada that *requires* that we protect the areas resources.
Suggesting otherwise is a bit of abject ignorance...
What point does that make?
At least I do have some idea what the heck we are talking about. You seem to be totally ignorant of the entire subject.
No they did *not*. Congress passes bills. It does not just become a law because of that. The fact is that that proposal did *not* become a law. That's the way our government works.
Note that Congress could have, but did not, override the veto. Note that Congress could have, but has never, again passed such legislation while other Presidents were in office.
Your point is exceedingly weak.
First, Congress alone *cannot* set anything aside, for exploration or otherwise. But regardless, what was done did *not* set the 1002 Area aside for exploration. They set it aside for study to determine if that was or was not an appropriate use. Obviously, given the two major studies that have been completed since then by the USGS (1987 and 1998), the fact that no law has been passed to authorize any such exploration should tell you something.
A little history for you.
From:
formatting link
In the 1950s, post-war construction and accelerating resource development across Alaska raised concerns about the potential loss of this region's special natural values. In 1952-53, government scientists conducted a comprehensive survey of potential conservation areas in Alaska. Their report, "The Last Great Wilderness," identified the undisturbed northeast corner of Alaska as the best opportunity for protection.
Two major consequences followed:
In 1957, Secretary of Interior Fred Seaton of the Eisenhower Administration revoked the previous military withdrawal on 20 million acres of the North Slope of Alaska to make it available for commercial oil and gas leasing. This was in addition to the previously established 23 million acre Naval Petroleum Reserve.
In 1960, Secretary Seaton designated 8.9 million acres of coastal plain and mountains of northeast Alaska as the Arctic National Wildlife Range to protect its "unique wildlife, wilderness and recreation values."
So we see that ANWR originated *specifically* as an area for preservation as opposed to an area for oil exploration. 43 million acres was designated for oil,
8.9 for conservation.
"production of oil and gas from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is prohibited and no leasing or other development leading to production of oil and gas from the [Refuge] shall be undertaken until authorized by an act of Congress."
So your claims that some part of the refuge somehow has legal status as a place for oil exploration is abjectly ignorant of history.
Pure ignorance.
First, *every* credible caribou biologist that has done field work on the North Slope says exploration in ANWR should *not* be done. (Do a web search on the names Whitten, Cameron, Griffith, and Nellemann.)
Second, your numbers are incorrect though that makes no difference, because you are *not* citing the number of those caribou that actually frequent the Prudhoe Bay complex. The facts are that 1) drilling commenced there long before 1977; 2) caribou studies began there in the late 1960's; 3) in the 1960's virtually the entire Central Arctic Caribou Herd, which then had about 5000 animals, was calving at what is now part of the Prudhoe Bay complex; 4) today, even though the herd has peaked at over 30,000 animals, there are actually significantly
*fewer* caribou using that area for any reason; 5) calving caribou cows do not go near oil infrastructure;
6) the herd moved its calving activities to one of the many others available to it; 7) that herd has a *huge* range which is vastly far away from oil infrastructure.
In other words, you are counting caribou that are 200 miles from the oil fields and saying that means they are not bothered by those oil fields, even though virtually none of them will now calve where they used to because of the oil development.
If you want counts of caribou that actually do frequent the oil production area:
Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease in use by caribou and a 90% decrease in their lateral movements (Cameron et al. 1995), all changes apparently in response to intensive development of the Prudhoe Bay to Kuparuk oil field region over the past 3 decades. RD Cameron, WT Smith, RG White, and B Griffith
formatting link
Extinction, no; for population decline see above.
That is not hardly Arctic tundra, nor are there significant numbers of caribou there. Which is to say that comparing that apple to an orange doesn't tell us anything at all about this orange.
Another false statement. If has less wildlife diversity, is not particularly unique, and does have problems.
You gave no accurate figures. Don't try to bullshit me about sources either. What I cited for you above are
*the* people who did the research and wrote the reports (for the State of Alaska). They don't agree with you on either the specifics or on the significance.
False statements. Fact free is true.
No, NOT subject to congressional approval. Subject to law, and no such law has ever come to be.
If that is so true, why was BP again fined millions of dollars just the other day for illegal pollution?
Why does *every* biologist of any credibility at all say we should not drill in ANWR?
We could also reduce the price by eliminating speculators who are not directly connected with the oil business. There's no sane reason for players to be fiddling with the price of a commodity that's so important to the country. Let the oil companies hedge. Keep mutual fund managers out of the game. Too much emotion (and bullshit) involved.
Having said this, I'm not convinced that lowering the price would cause the whole country to double the miles driven. For some, yes. Not for everyone.
That's different. We're talking about a business model that changes. If the business (Saudi Arabia) can't adapt to something like any other business, then their business suffers. In the case of the Saudi royals, the result would actually be horrible. They'd have to cut back on their lavish spending for yachts, villas in Europe, and large contributions to such things as presidential libraries.
You might enjoy reading "Sleeping With The Devil", by Robert Baer.
Not 15X more people. Sorry. I can't prove it one way or the other, and neither can you, but based on the pristine condition of most of the SUVs I see, they're not being used off road anywhere.
If that was logical, than we could all use slicks on our cars.
Yeah, your municipal taxes would go way down because of the savings in labor and materials. You might even be able to save enough to pay for the postage on a letter to Las Vegas.
I keep hearing that. Do you think the Chinese come looking for oil, and the Saudis tell them "Sorry - we have none for you. We're selling it to America"? Maybe that's the case, but I don't recall having read it anywhere.
"Pete C." wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@snet.net:
that still leaves government nuclear plants,reactors that make nuclear medical isotopes,and the secret enrichment facilities like Iran and N.Korea's.
I suspect that one could take spent fuel rods from a light water reactor and separate the PU from it to make warheads.
You could also use the spent rods for "dirty bombs",another sort of "nuclear weapon".
"A close examination by the IAEA of the radioactive isotope content in the nuclear waste revealed that North Korea had extracted about 24 kilograms of Plutonium. North Korea was supposed to have produced 0.9 gram of Plutonium per megawatt every day over a 4-year period from 1987 to 1991. The 0.9 gram per day multiplied by 365 days by 4 years and by 30 megawatts equals to 39 kilograms. When the yearly operation ratio is presumed to be 60 percent, the actual amount was estimated at 60% of 39 kilograms, or some 23.4 kilograms. Since 20-kiloton standard nuclear warhead has 8 kilograms of critical mass, this amounts to mass of material of nuclear fission out of which about 3 nuclear warheads could be extracted."
A very high percentage of people who purchase SUVs do so for reasons of fashion and fad. Denying that is delusional.
About the time I got married the minivan was king. Everyone was buying them and loving them. Then they got the reputation of being a soccer-mom vehicle and after that every buyer that makes decisions with his penis had to switch to something more "manly".
A few years prior to that the big three couldn't give SUVs away. That was the time when people who bought Broncos, Blazers, and Suburbans actually did have some legitimate use for them, but the industry considered them fringe products that did not make them any money.
When asked, most SUV drivers will not say they bought them for any usage that actually requires the attributes of an SUV. They will say it was for "safety" which is a joke as they are about the most likely vehicle to kill you there is. Or it was because they like the visibility of the higher seating position when minivans give pretty much that same advantage with better mileage and safety.
I have no problem with the worker, hunter, or guy that needs to tow a boat buying an SUV, but that is a very small percentage of SUV owners. For most, SUVs are the "pet rock" of the last decade or so. Eventually their attention will be moved to some other segment of the vehicle market and all of us will be better off for it.
Kurt Ullman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@70-3-168-216.area.spcsdns.net:
the newer SUVs are now "crossover" vehicles,just a jacked-up station wagon,of course weighing more than the station wagons of the past. Many of the newer SUVs cannot tow anything,and are narrow,less stable(less SAFE),and prone to rollover accidents.Their extra height is a hazard to other vehicles,too.
That's because once you get to the OTHER END,you have to either walk(often in inclement weather) or pay for another form of transport to get to your end destination.
I wonder how many people here have taken a bus daily to get to their school,job or do their shopping? (and not the school busses that drop you off and pick up right at the school)
Heck, it applies to a lot of things. These same mindsets also buy 'commercial-style' kitchen equipment when they can't even boil water. And most of said kitchens cost more than that sparkling SUV parked in the driveway.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.