Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Cue the Wingnuts to Spin Environmental Disaster as a GOOD Thing

Posted by Jill Hussein C., Brilliant at Breakfast at 12:58 PM on July 24, 2008.


There's oil in the arctic. Now right-wing radio will probably start talking about how great melting ice caps are, as they make it easier to drill.
meltingglaciers

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Even if you believe that homo sapiens is the only species that deserves to survive and that polar bears are expendable, the very real likelihood that the Arctic ice cap will be reduced by forty percent by 2050 and that seasonal polar ice may be nonexistent this summer ought to be cause for concern. Ecological consequences, ranging from the disappearance of coastal areas of Florida, Louisiana, and the Caribbean and an increase in predator species, combine with the possibility of land wars as passages between northern areas of Canada, Alaska, and Russia become more likely.

But today, watch for the gasbags of right-wing radio to declare the polar bear, the walrus, the seal, and the very life of the indigenous people in the northernmost areas of the world to be expendable in the name of Cheap Gas™:

The Arctic may contain as much as a fifth of the world's yet to-be-discovered oil and natural gas reserves, the United States Geological Survey said Wednesday as it unveiled the largest-ever survey of petroleum resources north of the Arctic Circle.

Oil companies have long suspected that the Arctic contained substantial energy resources, and have been spending billions recently to get their hands on tracts for exploration. As melting ice caps have opened up prospects that were once considered too harsh to explore, a race has begun among Arctic nations, including the United States, Russia, and Canada, for control of these resources.

The geological agency's survey largely vindicates the rising interest. It suggests that most of the yet-to-be found resources are not under the North Pole but much closer to shore, in regions that are not subject to territorial dispute.

"For a variety of reasons, the possibility of oil and gas exploration in the Arctic has become much less hypothetical than it once was," Donald L. Gautier, the chief geologist for the survey, said during a news conference Wednesday. "Most of the resources are on the continental shelf in areas already under territorial claims."

The assessment, which took four years, found that the Arctic may hold as much as 90 billion barrels of undiscovered oil reserves, and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This would amount to 13 percent of the world's total undiscovered oil and about 30 percent of the undiscovered natural gas.

At today's consumption rate of 86 million barrels a day, the potential oil in the Arctic could meet global demand for almost three years. The Arctic's potential natural gas resources are three times bigger. That equals Russia's proven gas reserves, which is the world's largest.

Three years. That's all the time that drilling every drop out of the Arctic would give us. Three years to even further accelerate the decline of non-seasonal ice and permafrost.

Three years.

And then what?

Three years isn't a lot of time to develop alternative technologies, particularly when the government is bankrupt from oil wars and unable to fund any of the kind of research and activities that gave rise to the computer industry and the internet. What three years does is lull people into a false sense that everything is just fine, that there is plenty of oil, when the bottom line is that no matter how you slice it, oil is a finite resource, and when it's gone it's gone. And we'd better start learning how to fuel our lifestyle in other ways, no matter what is in the Arctic that we can now get to because of our folly over the last thirty years.


A Nasty, Four-Letter Word for Our Energy Crisis
Coal. It is time to kick the habit, starting with Michigan.
Post by Bruce Nilles. October 9, 2008.
Palin Still Gets Global Warming Backwards and Repeats Big Energy Lie Twice
The debate showed she still can't get her talking points right on this issue.
Post by Dr. Joseph Romm. October 3, 2008.
Palin Used Exxon, Oil Industry-Funded Scientists for Global Warming Study
No wonder her science is a little fuzzy.
Post by Tara Lohan. October 1, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Name Calling and Mud Slinging Get You Nowhere
Posted by: billgee on Jul 25, 2008 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gone are the Bears and the Seals

No time line will work.

Just a matter of time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why?
Posted by: Scarabus on Jul 29, 2008 3:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Serious question.

One can understand why plutocrats who--rightly or wrongly--believe that they can enjoy greater wealth now by sacrificing the welfare and even the lives of future generations all across the planet might fight against controlling global warming.

One can understand why cynical politicians like John McCain and his fellow Republicans in the Senate might fight against it, so as to maintain a few more months or years of power.

One can understand why right-wing radio shock jocks (and... sports bras?) might rail against it. After all, doing so makes them rich.

But what about Joe and Josephine Six-Pack, or Sam and Samantha Bible-Thumper? They cannot benefit from destroying the environment, and (cynical as I am) I just can't believe they want their children and grandchildren to have their lives shattered.

So once again: Why?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Neo-cons just look on the bright side of life! Positivists ultra.
Posted by: nightgaunt on Aug 7, 2008 12:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The measure of it is if their pocket book contents grows in some way to give them profit. The corporate bottom line is what they consider important. Not things like polar bears and ticks and millions of other living things less important than humans. Just listen to that great naturalist and biologist Rush Limbaugh talking about the mosquitos and wonder what they are good for. If they can make money off of it one way or another is alright by them. Damn everything else. They are Dominionists, to lord over everything in God's place. As regents to the Lord of Hosts or some such. We who disagree are also on their hit list.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]