- 16 Apr 2004 23:09
#151513
I am not trying to be especially critical here, m8..but there seems to be a lack of perspective here in your statement. Environmentalists decry drilling in Alaska not because of potential mistakes...wells don't just bust open and make a mess like an oil tanker crashing into an iceberg...they do so because of the amount of infrastructure that has to be built on virgin natural land. This means dredging, bulldozing, levelling, clearing, etc...to make room for access roads and facilities and pipelines. However, as I have stated in an earlier post, new technology has GREATLY mitigated this problem and made the needed infrastructure very tiny and unobtrusive to the environment. Many of the environmentalist concerns have been addressed and solved, but many of these activists stick to the same arguments they had in the 80s. It's basically the effect of putting ones ideology above present fact and conditions--people will ignore the truth when they believe in something so much that they lose perspective. One example is the founder of Greenpeace who is now Greenpeace's greatest critic. He realizes that his work early on was very important, but things have come to a point where technology and environment can and must co-exist and this is occuring.
Astaroth
I think that drilling in alaska is a mistake. what if Something went wrong? i mean there is a lot of habitat up there and oil very where on the ice would NOT be good.
I am not trying to be especially critical here, m8..but there seems to be a lack of perspective here in your statement. Environmentalists decry drilling in Alaska not because of potential mistakes...wells don't just bust open and make a mess like an oil tanker crashing into an iceberg...they do so because of the amount of infrastructure that has to be built on virgin natural land. This means dredging, bulldozing, levelling, clearing, etc...to make room for access roads and facilities and pipelines. However, as I have stated in an earlier post, new technology has GREATLY mitigated this problem and made the needed infrastructure very tiny and unobtrusive to the environment. Many of the environmentalist concerns have been addressed and solved, but many of these activists stick to the same arguments they had in the 80s. It's basically the effect of putting ones ideology above present fact and conditions--people will ignore the truth when they believe in something so much that they lose perspective. One example is the founder of Greenpeace who is now Greenpeace's greatest critic. He realizes that his work early on was very important, but things have come to a point where technology and environment can and must co-exist and this is occuring.
Astaroth
Interested in all things technical, yet want to maintain your political talk? Damaged-Planet is the answer...
hehehe
- By Potemkin
- By wat0n
- By Rancid
- By litwin