http://smnr.us/thespookytruth/cartalk.html

Quote :

"Tom and Ray Magliozzi Box 3500 Harvard Square Cambridge MA 02238 Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming United States House of Representatives Washington DC 20515 Oct. 25, 2007 To Members of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming You are about to make a crucial decision that may be a turning point for our country. As you consider how high to raise our nation's CAFÉ standards, you are undoubtedly coming under a barrage of lobbying from various parties. Including us! The obvious question is, who do you believe? On the one hand, you have people like Ed Markey, who's been trying to increase fuel economy for as long as we can remember. Admittedly, he's from Massachusetts. And yes, we've seen his haircut. On the other hand, you have the automotive industry (i.e. car salesmen), whose ratings for honesty are below even those of Congress in public opinion surveys. Let's remember why: In 1972, Ford President Lee Iacocca, told you that if the "EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down." Hm. That wasn't exactly right on the money, was it? A couple of years later, car makers were back in front of you guys, squealing over proposed new fuel economy standards. Chrysler Vice President of Engineering, Alan Loofborrow, predicted that imposing fuel economy standards might "outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars-or even smaller ones-within five years." That thing got a Hemi, Alan? As the industry triple-teamed Congress to keep America from improving fuel economy, a Ford Executive let fly this whooper: If CAFÉ became law, the move could result "in a Ford product line consisting either of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles..." Ask the man who drives an Expedition if that ever came to pass. The onslaught of "we can't...it'll ruin us... you're denying Americans a choice of vehicles" begins every time we the people-through our elected representatives-try to bring the auto industry, kicking and screaming into the modern era. And every time, their predictions of motorized-skateboard futures have failed to materialize. Let us repeat that, because the historical record bears it out to a tee. Every single time they've resisted safety, environmental, or fuel economy regulations, auto industry predictions have turned out, in retrospect, to be fear-mongering bull-feathers. Isn't it time we (you) stop falling for this 50 year-long line of baloney? The truth is, significantly higher average fuel economy can be achieved. In fact it's already being achieved. And if we don't push our own auto industry to set world class standards, they'll be beaten again by the Japanese, the Koreans, and maybe even the Chinese, who will do it with or without U.S. Congressional action. There are technologies aplenty that already exist that could be used to meet much higher CAFE standards. * Hybrid-electric vehicles. Hybrids offer, in many cases, a 50% increase in mileage over gasoline versions of the same vehicles. GM just introduced a hybrid Chevy Tahoe, that reportedly gets better city mileage than a Toyota Camry. * Clean diesel engines. With new, clean diesel fuel now mandated in America, expect a surge of clean diesel engines in the next three to five years that get 25% better fuel economy than their gasoline counterparts. * Diesel-electric hybrids. Combine the advantages of hybrids with more efficient diesel engines. * Turbo chargers and super chargers. These force additional air into cylinders to wring more power out of available fuel. * Cylinder deactivation. Cylinders that are not needed at any given moment, are deactivated, and instantaneously reactivated as soon as the driver demands additional power. Widely available now. * Plug-in, series hybrids. Now on the drawing boards, plug-in hybrids allow drivers to charge up overnight, when the electric grid is underused, and they'll handle most commutes without ever firing up their internal combustion engines. * Automatic stop-start technology. At least one energy analyst we spoke to believes that this simple technology, in and of itself, could result in a 10% decrease in fuel use. It's already used in hybrid vehicles, foreign and domestic, and is on its way in more vehicles in the next couple of years. * Higher voltage electrical systems. These save fuel by allowing energy draining systems, such as power steering, and air conditioning, to be run electrically, instead of by draining power from the engine and using fuel. * Regenerative braking. Captures energy otherwise lost when the car slows down to give further boost to onboard battery systems. * Safe, lightweight materials. Lightweight steel, aluminum and carbon fiber panels reduce weight, allowing a smaller, more efficient engine to propel a car just as fast on less fuel. * Better transmissions. Six speed automatic transmissions, widely available now from Ford and others, increase fuel economy by 5% and offer smoother acceleration. Mercedes has seven speeds. Lexus has eight. Nissan has CVTs-continuously variable transmissions. All of these improve mileage AND performance. * Common rail fuel injection. Now standard on modern diesels, this same high pressure fuel delivery technology is beginning to be used to increase fuel economy in gasoline engines, too. * All wheel drive systems that use electric motors at the non-driven wheels, like on the Lexus RX350 hybrid, eliminate heavy, gas-wasting differentials and drive train components on cars designed to go in the snow. * More appropriately sized and weighted cars. When we're facing a future of global oil wars and economy-killing gasoline prices, perhaps having single commuters drive 5,000 pound SUVs is something we'll just have to learn to live without. And modern computer electronics, such as stability control, can now ameliorate any driving dynamic issues that result from lack of mass. * More appropriately powered cars. In 1964, the most powerful, over-the-top Mustang muscle car you could buy came with an optional, four-barrel, 271 horsepower engine. Today, that's what comes standard on the highest rated minivans. 275 horsepower. To take your kid to nursery school? What does this say about our national priorities? Do we really want to send our kids to fight and die in the desert so that can go 0-60 in eight seconds instead of ten seconds? The truth is, we could achieve a CAFE standard of 35 miles per gallon in five years if we made it a priority. Every one of the above technologies is either available now or is well along in the pipeline. There's nothing "pie in the sky" here that hasn't been thought of or invented yet. Look what American industry did in World War II. Look what we did with the space program. It's time to make energy independence just as high a priority. And it starts with you guys (and gals), our representatives. Don't buy the "can't do" bull this time. Not only can it be done, but by increasing CAFÉ standards dramatically, you'll be helping the American automotive industry compete-by forcing them to synchronize their priorities with those of the American people, and the populations of other countries where they will be increasingly marketing their cars. It's the job of private enterprise to design and sell products. But it's the job of Congress to set our national priorities. Trust us, the car companies won't go out of business because America insists that they build the world's best, most efficient cars. We urge you to set the bar high for American ingenuity. We have no doubt out car industry will make the grade-to the benefit of all Americans. Sincerely, Tom and Ray Magliozzi"

11/6/2007 8:48:45 PM

Quote :

"Higher voltage electrical systems. These save fuel by allowing energy draining systems, such as power steering, and air conditioning, to be run electrically, instead of by draining power from the engine and using fuel."

i lol at this every time

its only going to work if you have a plug in because you lose in the fuel → electricity conversion

really, if everyone would just make sure that their tires are properly inflated we would all be ok

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 8:56 PM. Reason : 

11/6/2007 8:55:34 PM

You are mistaken. By making the various systems listed electrically driven you are able to eliminate their drag on the engine when they are not in use. One of the greatest offenders is power steering and breaking which require hydraulic pumps to maintain pressure even when the specific feature is doing no work. Similarly, even when your air conditioner is off it still has a slip clutch which is burning mechanical energy. The efficiency lost when they are in use will be negligible as the systems are already inefficient because these systems had to be designed to work when the engine was idling, which makes them obsenely wasteful when the engine is at cruising speed. Electrically driven, the vehicles AC will now work about as well at idle as it does at cruising speed while being more energy efficient at cruising speed.

That's right, they could even be more efficient while operating because right now the power must flow through a mechanical belt which heats up, wasting energy. If the only accessory being driven directly is the alternator then this belt can be eliminated. Similarly, the AC compressor does not need to be compatible with the variable RPMs of the engine.

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 10:34 PM. Reason : .,.]

11/6/2007 10:26:38 PM

This also reminds me of this article in the latest Ward's Autoworld:

http://wardsautoworld.com/ar/auto_curbing_curb_weight/

Quote :

"Nevertheless, when the final numbers are calculated, EPA projects average weight for the '07 model year to increase to 4,144 lbs. (1,880 kg), the highest ever. However you slice it, somebody needs a diet. With proposed new limits on fuel economy and carbon-dioxide emissions all but certain in the U.S. and Europe mandating 30% or 40% better fleet fuel economy in as little as 10 years, it may soon hit the crisis stage. Consider these chubby '08s: * The new-generation '08 Accord, produced by U.S. fuel-economy leader Honda Motor Co. Ltd., is substantially bigger in almost every dimension than its predecessor and now is classified as a fullsize car. It also is 258 lbs. (117 kg) heavier, gets worse mileage than the '07 model and is advertised as “the most powerful Accord ever.” The Accord has gained more than 1,300 lbs. (590 kg) since it was introduced in 1976. * The high-performance '08 BMW M3 weighs in at a beefy 3,649 lbs. (1,655 kg), even though it has a carbon-fiber roof and other weight-saving materials. Once known as a racing-inspired bit of minimalist engineering, the M3 has grown in size and packed on almost 1,000 lbs. (454 kg) since it first arrived in 1986, weighing a mere 2,700 lbs. (1,225 kg). * Even brands that consider smallness a virtue, such as Toyota Motor Corp.'s Scion and BMW's Mini, have put their models on steroids. The new Scion xB's wheelbase has been increased 4 ins. (10 cm) from the outgoing model, and overall length is up 12 ins. (30 cm). Horsepower is up 50% to 158 hp, and weight increased a whopping 600 lbs. (272 kg). And, although it does not look like it, in its first major redesign, the '07 Mini Cooper grew 3 ins. (7.6 cm) in length and 1 in. (2.5 cm) in height, mostly because of European pedestrian safety requirements."

The article definitely tries to be pro-auto manufacturers, but in the end just illustrates how wrong they are to say increased CAFE will sink domestic companies.

11/7/2007 9:33:34 AM

check this out

11/7/2007 9:54:49 AM

It's surprising how much of it came (partially) true.

AND WHY DO WE NOT HAVE ELECTRO-SUSPENSION CARS?!?!

11/7/2007 10:10:12 AM

beyond the rear-view camera, what else has come true?

11/7/2007 10:13:17 AM

national highways (this film is pre-Eisenhower system, I'd imagine)

uniform highway signs

illuminated highways

HUDs in cars

"electronic" dashboards

airborne emergency services

suburbanization

teleconferencing

uniform containers

11/7/2007 10:22:11 AM

Quote :

"national highways (this film is pre-Eisenhower system, I'd imagine)"

nah, it's 1958, two years after the einsenhower interstate stuff.

Quote :

"illuminated highways"

they were talking about highways that were themselves illuminated and also melted snow and ice with radiant heat. not exactly the same thing as lighted highways.

[Edited on November 7, 2007 at 11:10 AM. Reason : but yeah i guess if you make 1000 ridiculous predictions, a few of them will come true]

11/7/2007 11:07:29 AM

It is not that they over predicted, since one could say they were talking about the year 2100.

But what is always interesting what they did not predict! The computers in everything were still 1950s primitive with punch cards and clunky knobs. They went overboard on everything BUT what actually changed, computers.

However, what I don't get is why they said turbine engines were more efficient, when they certainly are not.

[Edited on November 7, 2007 at 12:54 PM. Reason : .,.]

11/7/2007 12:53:09 PM

when people try to predict the future, they always just end up with an exaggerated version of now

in 50s-era science fiction there are flying cars and space colonies in the year 2000, but we're still battling the Soviets and all the women are housewives.

11/7/2007 1:19:18 PM

^^ yeah star trek does the same thing with the whole reel to reel data thing...kinda funny

the data punch card seems to perform a similar function to a debit card or a flash drive/ipod

i think the most amazing thing (other than the clean cars) is the sheer lack of traffic on the road

^
aha i like it when the car splits...the man goes to the office and the woman goes straight to the shopping center

[Edited on November 7, 2007 at 1:21 PM. Reason : ]

11/7/2007 1:20:23 PM

I heard that in the year 2150, Starbucks coffee can be sent straight over your myspace account!!!

11/7/2007 1:20:46 PM

So what is the real verdict for why the American car makers are getting their asses kicked? Is it really that the designs/interiors are garbage? Are the designs interiors garbage because of steel tariffs? Are American workers just lazy? Unions? A combination of all the above?

GM lost 1.6 billion if you exclude it's financing wing. Ford is set to report a loss of 1 billion. Chrysler is laying off 11000 hourly and salaried jobs.

Toyota reported positive profits, one analyst is forecasting modest growth for Honda going forward, Nissan reported an 8.8% increase in sales YOY.

The American makers need to just die.

11/7/2007 2:11:07 PM

i think part of it was when SUVs were selling like hotcakes, they overproduced them, then sales declined and they were stuck with a bunch of vehicles that weren't selling

11/7/2007 3:48:49 PM

Quote :

"Not only can it be done, but by increasing CAFÉ standards dramatically, you'll be helping the American automotive industry compete-by forcing them to synchronize their priorities with those of the American people, and the populations of other countries where they will be increasingly marketing their cars. "

Let them die. Please just let the companies die, stop forcing them to compete and let their competition swallow them whole. Maybe then we'll see some alternatives come to light. If the american manufacturers aren't making what the public wants, let them sink and go under. Let someone else take their place. You can't force change by keeping the same old people, procedures and ideas in place.

11/7/2007 3:55:08 PM

But without this type of coercion, they're an impediment to change.

Sure, consumers want smart cars, but the popularity of SUVs demonstrates that a significant portion of us will also pretty much buy whatever's marketed to us.

As long as the big three are spending millions glamorizing inefficient vehicles, there will be a market for them. Make it difficult to sell inefficient autos, and the big 3 will stop marketing them, and demand will go down.

11/7/2007 11:41:44 PM

What an odd theory Boone.

If what you say is true then why market vehicles which cost so much to produce? Why not market the Ford Escort to them and charge SUV prices? If the people buy whatever is marketed to them then how the hell does any company ever lose money?

I'm sorry, this theory of yours is just not plausible. It is far more likely that people just like driving around in and owning SUVs and you find it easier to believe people are mindless sheep than that they could possibly disagree with your opinions on the subject.

11/8/2007 12:19:03 AM

we have to make it a national priority to have new cars

on the 'global warming' side, pollution in cities is bad...it's not good for our lungs or our scenery

on the 'terrorism' side, we need to have self-sufficient energy...so that we can enjoy our own resources and refuse outside reliance on fuel

we need to invent these technologies, so that other countries will buy our ideas

11/8/2007 12:19:55 AM

Quote :

"If what you say is true then why market vehicles which cost so much to produce?"

SUVs are very cheap to build. They're body-on-frame trucks with pushrod engines.

Which just so happens to be the only type of vehicle the Big 3 do better than foreign manufacturers.

What a coincidence that they're pushing them so hard.

Quote :

"Why not market the Ford Escort to them and charge SUV prices?"

Because the Big 3 can't compete in the small car segment at current prices, let alone if they were to overprice them.

Domestic companies are having a difficult time making any profit off of small cars, while they're netting five figures with each Navigator and Escalade they sell. It's not difficult to see why they'd choose this particular segment to push.

Quote :

"If the people buy whatever is marketed to them then how the hell does any company ever lose money?"

Please note that I used the phrase "significant portion of us," and not simply "people."

What I'm saying is that when you spend over a billion dollars marketing mostly SUVs, it's going to create demand for SUVs that wasn't there to begin with.

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060206/FREE/60206001/1041

Quote :

"I'm sorry, this theory of yours is just not plausible. It is far more likely that people just like driving around in and owning SUVs and you find it easier to believe people are mindless sheep than that they could possibly disagree with your opinions on the subject."

So you're arguing that sometime in the mid-90's, millions of people spontaneously and independently decided to drive poor-handling, inefficient, overpriced vehicles.

It was heavily marketed, and became a fad. Or it became a fad, and was heavily marketed. Regardless, domestic auto manufacturers certainly did go out of their way to encourage people to buy SUVs. To say that the companies didn't convince a significant number of people to choose their cash-cow over a car is silly.



[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 12:58 AM. Reason : cite]

11/8/2007 12:43:44 AM

Quote :

"So you're arguing that sometime in the mid-90's, millions of people spontaneously and independently decided to drive poor-handling, inefficient, overpriced vehicles."

Don't you mean....big safe-feeling vehicles that can haul more of your friends (or kids) and gear comfortably than a car or truck and aren't ass ugly like a minivan?

11/8/2007 8:04:48 AM

No no, I like the idea of aimlessly punching holes in Wildlife Preserves and marine habitats to find a finite supply of dead dinosaurs that won't be viable for another 10 years. It will solve all our problems. Once those pesky animals are extinct or at least displaced then we can build condos there and sell them on the idea that it was once a pristine natural environment.

11/8/2007 8:30:41 AM

Quote :

"So what is the real verdict for why the American car makers are getting their asses kicked?"

Quote :

"Unions?"

Big part of it. The financial burden being placed on the Big Three from retired union workers is positively enormous. For years the UAW had the automakers at their mercy and negotiated deals that were staggeringly disproportionate to the skill level required, and quality of the product produced, by the workers, and now the automakers are reaping the fruits? of these deals. Granted, the automakers didn't do themselves any favors by designing, and continuing to design in many cases, bland, unappealing, and stagnant designs, but the fallout from years and years of unfavorable bargaining has a LOT to do with the current financial difficulties in Detroit.

11/8/2007 11:00:14 AM

Quote :

"No no, I like the idea of aimlessly punching holes in Wildlife Preserves and marine habitats to find a finite supply of dead dinosaurs that won't be viable for another 10 years. It will solve all our problems. Once those pesky animals are extinct or at least displaced then we can build condos there and sell them on the idea that it was once a pristine natural environment."

Aren't you the guy that worships Earth gods? Like, a male wiccan or something?

11/8/2007 11:03:30 AM

I was being extremely sarcastic.

I guess 'Earth gods' works as a loose idea of kami. But being natural beings doesn't limit them simply to planet Earth. Sadly, my knowledge on Wicca is fairly limited so I can not make accurate comparisons between that and Shinto.

11/8/2007 11:24:00 AM

HockeyRoman, I guess you are unaware that on a 200 acre plot of land we can drill into oil deposits anywhere within a 10 mile radius. We don't need to clear the wilderness to drill for oil, just a tiny speck of it.

11/8/2007 2:37:57 PM

Just a tiny speck for drilling...

then some more for roads

then some more for pipelines

then some more for infrastructure.


In other news, my chair has four legs which are one inch square at their base. Therefore my chair only takes 4 square inches of floor space.

11/8/2007 3:25:13 PM

Not to be pickey, but as far as the carpet is concerned you are only using a few square inches.

Animals can cross roads and pipelines, so they are not an impediment. Deer manage to survive in Raleigh, so I suspect they will do fine if all they have to avoid is one freight truck or jeep a day.

11/8/2007 3:42:11 PM

Raleigh (or an oil refinery) may be hospitable to some wildlife, but it's certainly not an ideal situation, and when we can do without, we should.

11/8/2007 3:45:45 PM

We have too many deer as it is

11/8/2007 3:52:08 PM

And the alternative, boon? I guess we just do without the oil, we can use Ethanol instead! As such, don't build a 200 acre drilling platform, let us instead build 2,000,000 acres of farms to grow corn. I'm sure the wildlife will much prefer having the entire forest bulldozed than be forced to live in a less than ideal forest with a single two lane dirt road running through it.

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 4:00 PM. Reason : .,.]

11/8/2007 3:59:48 PM

That's obviously a false dilemma.

There's a middle ground, and our future certainly doesn't hinge on opening up our wildlife refuges for short-term gain.

11/8/2007 4:40:17 PM

If there is middle ground then why did you present the slippery slope case?

11/8/2007 5:07:24 PM

The middle ground is nukes but you faggots keep cockblocking.

11/8/2007 5:09:12 PM

Quote :

"opening up our wildlife refuges for short-term gain."

How's that a slippery slope if it's the exact issue being discussed?

"Hey, if you open up wildlife refuges for oil, before you know it, they'll be opening wildlife refuges for oil!"

11/8/2007 9:22:47 PM

Who said it was short term gain?

11/8/2007 10:11:01 PM

Hockeyroman himself said "to find a finite supply of dead dinosaurs that won't be viable for another 10 years". This is not a "short term gain" but a long term investment to provide the energy needed for civilization to the next generation.

11/8/2007 10:21:56 PM

^^I'm sorry, I assumed you were correctly labeling your fallacies.


But regardless, it's not a stretch to say that 10 years of cheaper gas is a short term benefit when we're talking about refuges that were set aside for our great*infinity grandchildren


^ So the next generation can reap the 10 years of cheaper gas? This is still indisputably a short-term gain when compared to the loss of national treasures.



[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 10:28 PM. Reason : ,]

11/8/2007 10:25:31 PM

Geez, did you just fall off the turnip truck yesterday? It will take 10 years before the first barrel of oil is produced. After that it will usually take more than 70 years after that for it to produce its last barrel of oil. Some wells are still producing after over 120 years of continuous operation.

But the longevity of wells is not my point. My point is that no wildlife preserve would be destroyed by simply building a road across it. Nearly all mamals do not mind narrow un-fenced roads. The trees certainly do not care.

So, please, under what theory would allowing the exploration and drilling of oil in a national wildlife refuge destroy it? These things burn down regularly due to lightning strikes! Whatever we do to it would be a blessing by comparison.

11/8/2007 11:19:30 PM

Quote :

"So, please, under what theory would allowing the exploration and drilling of oil in a national wildlife refuge destroy it? These things burn down regularly due to lightning strikes! Whatever we do to it would be a blessing by comparison."

wow. just wow.

11/8/2007 11:21:04 PM

I have come to expect this kind of 'humans-first' nonsense from LoneSnark despite that fact that he tends to make some sense on issues that don't involve trying to spin the destruction of habitats. The very idea that we even need places called "National Wildlife Refuges" sickens me. A wildlife refuge; a place protected from plundering by man so that natural inhabitants may thrive. Yet you get these green-eyed cash fanatics who try and minimalize the impact that such things like oil rigs would have. Boone said it correctly, first it's the test holes being drilled, then it's a road, and then a fence, and then a pipeline not to mention the massive construction undertaking.

The oil output from the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge has already been discussed and no figure out there showed that drilling here would do a damn thing for "securing energy independence for the next generation". Sean Hannity actually made me realize that this is all a reason for the right to be able to poke at leftist tree huggers (as if it's a bad thing) painting them as America hating, economic obstructionists.

11/9/2007 3:42:08 AM

Quote :

"'humans-first' nonsense "

many would say putting animals and trees ahead of yourself and your family is nonsense, but if you hate humans...

11/9/2007 10:19:05 AM

Quote :

"Boone said it correctly, first it's the test holes being drilled, then it's a road, and then a fence, and then a pipeline not to mention the massive construction undertaking."

It still has yet to be explained to my how such activity would destroy the natural environment beyond the tiny area that is being turned to our uses? Do deer and fauna drop dead from the sound of distant construction crews?

This is not a "Human first" argument, merely a technical one. Why do you tollerate the clearcutting of thousands of square miles of the far more biologically diverse mainland 50 states for farming but condemn cutting a corner out of some wildlife refuge for oil production? The former destroys far more trees and animals than the latter. Or have I misunderstood and you condemn farming in any given area far more? If so then this is an idiological debate, you prefer animals to people and I prefer having both.

11/9/2007 10:26:18 AM

Quote :

"But regardless, it's not a stretch to say that 10 years of cheaper gas is a short term benefit when we're talking about refuges that were set aside for our great*infinity grandchildren "

I mean, I guess if it helps your argument of "short term" you can pretty much assign any arbitrary length of time you want, right?

11/9/2007 10:26:43 AM

Quote :

"If so then this is an idiological debate, you prefer animals to people and I prefer having both."

That's pretty much what it comes down to.

11/9/2007 11:05:12 AM

Quote :

"It still has yet to be explained to my how such activity would destroy the natural environment beyond the tiny area that is being turned to our uses? Do deer and fauna drop dead from the sound of distant construction crews?"

Ok, apparently building the infrastructure for oil drilling in a wildlife refuge isn't ridiculous enough for you at face value, so here are some possible scenarios:

Scenario 1: "Oops, my pregnant dog/cat got loose." This could easily destroy the balance of a habitat. It's happened plenty of times before.

Scenario 2: Oil spill. The possibility of this is more than sufficient to ban drilling.

Scenario 3: Rats from tankers make it onto the mainland. Seriously-- this has destroyed local ecosystems before.

Scenario 4: Unknown... a) roads cut off X essential part of the ecosystem from Y essential part of the ecosystem, ecosystem collapses. b) Drilling creates Z byproduct that gets into the ecosystem. c) noise disturbs Q animal's habits. There are always unintended consequences to disturbing an ecosystem. Who knows what could go wrong? Do one does-- that's why you set aside small area that you just don't develop. Period.


And not to mention, this would set a precedent. Wildlife refuges would be permanent sanctuaries for our national treasures... unless, you know... there was some temporary benefit to be reaped from it not being a permanent sanctuary.



[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 11:32 AM. Reason : http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28362]

11/9/2007 11:25:21 AM

Why would the rich greedy oil company CEO's want to detroy a natural habitat when they know they need natural habitats to go hunting in with their other rich buddies while they're planning on how to fuck the US public out of more money?

11/9/2007 11:38:00 AM

1: I doubt a cat or dog would survive long in the frozen north.
2: oil spills associated with pipelines are small and easily managed if built correctly, so just write strict fines into the sale of the right-of-way
3: lots of rats going to be running along the pipelines?

4a) roads are crossable, especially dirt roads with little traffic. Most animals even manage in dense suburban environments such as Raleigh, just check the number of dead deer along 440. What evidence do you have to suggest northern animals are so much less hardy than their southern counterparts?
4b) easy, environmental regulation to keep Z out of the ecosystem. Probably a good idea to keep it out of southern ecosystems too, since down here we even have Humans drinking the water.
4c) again: how stupid do you think animals are that "noise" coming from several miles away will kill them?

This is not our first dog-and-pony show. Mankind has done nothing but dive into the unintended consequences of disturbing ecosystems. We grant people degrees in environmental science. We are not as daft as you suggest, we know what the impacts will be: negligible. A few dead animals along the roadway, 200 acres of clearcut trees for slant-drilling platforms, noise pollution.

If you ask me, the optimal solution is to auction off whatever part of the habbitat the oil companies want and use the money to set asside more forest land in the southern 50 states. Oil bearing northern land would fetch a high price; could buy and set aside many times that acreage of non-oil bearing land down south. But no, some politicians long ago set asside some land up north, best not change anything, even if it results in more acreage of more diverse habbitats being protected.

11/9/2007 1:29:45 PM

a) You're arguing that things that have happened/are happening elsewhere couldn't possibly happen in future. "Unforeseen" is just that.

b) I think you're entirely missing the point of a wildlife refuge. They're not there to ensure the animals "manage" to survive. They're there to preserve original habitat. Developing the land doesn't achieve this end, nor does selling one off and creating another in previously developed land.

11/9/2007 1:40:28 PM

a) if it has happened or is happening elsewhere then it is by definition not "unforseen".

b) Again, we are not selling off the refuge, just 0.1% of it.

Now this is interesting. What makes you think that land is "original habitat"? This is not an old growth forest; the average lifespan of these trees is less than 100 years. As such, from an engineering perspective replacing one refuge with another will be indestinguishable within 100 years time since the animals surely don't mind relocating.

We as humans value natural habitat. It looks pretty and we can go hiking. Animals are cute, so we want to keep them around. There is nothing sacred about "original habitat" unless you yourself attach a religious precept to it. But please do not spout your religious principles to us and expect us to accept them as sacrosanct.

11/9/2007 2:51:11 PM