Offshore drilling OK'ed in Alaska.

[Arctic Dave]

http://www.adn.com/money/industries/oil/story/1044468.html

[derby378]

1. Congratulations, Sarah Palin, you just screwed over Alaska

Shame on the Department of the Interior for caving in. :mad:

[Bobbieo]

7. Salazar was a Big Mistake!!!! He likes lobbyists too well.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Oh fucking wonderful.

I am so disappointed.

[JonQ]

3. I found this rather humorous in the article:

"But the potential offshore development is of concern to Natives and environmentalists. Natives along the northern coast worry the noise of offshore development could chase away bowhead whales and other subsistence foods."

If you put in one of those evil oil wells we won't be able to kill whales anymore, oh the inhumanity!

[Arctic Dave]

4. When you don't have the luxury of a Wallymart on every corner

and live a subsistence lifestyle then it makes a lot of sense.

[JonQ]

5. Other things do live in the ocean

than whales, many of which are safe to eat. The whale hunts are preserved more as a cultural tradition than an absolute necessity.

Besides, I'm sure if it were presented that way (as being absolutely essential to survival) the oil companies would be willing to fly in a few cows every year for them to snack on in exchange for dropping their protests.

[Arctic Dave]

6. Actually they eat just about every thing that walks, flies or swims by.

[JonQ]

13. So they shouldn't mind some variety

whales are not an essential part of anyones diet. The japanese claim they have to hunt them for much the same reason (diet/culture) and they are pretty much despised for it.

[Arctic Dave]

15. You need to take a trip to the arctic and see it for yourself.

Japan has one thing the Arctic does not, a growing season in which you can supplement your diet.

[mopinko]

11. snack on?

oh the humanity is right. so, you put whales above people, then?

[JonQ]

12. I put whales above lunch

if there were literally no other options then go ahead and eat the whales. Of course there are other options, so that's not an issue.

[NickB79]

14. At -50F, a diet high in fat is essential to survival

And if you are a subsistence hunter in the Arctic Circle, large sea mammals are the only source of that fat.

[JonQ]

17. No, false

mammals are not the only animals with fat in the arctic.

And whales are not the only mammals present.

[NickB79]

23. I specifically stated that whales are high in fat

All animals have some fat to them, but only sea mammals have the thick blubber that is most highly sought after. Of those, the primary species to hunt in the Arctic are seals, walruses, and whales of various species.

If you're trying to keep your family alive through a harsh winter, you hunt the species that gives you the most bang for your buck, so to speak. And in the Arctic, that would be sea mammals like whales. One day of hunting seals or whales could keep your family fed for weeks, vs hunting caribou and ptarmigans weekly or even daily.

If the Inuit had better alternatives, they would have found them in the thousands of years they've been hunting in the region.

[mopinko]

16. not talking about lunch.

talking about survival. you ever been to alaska?

[JonQ]

18. So you believe that whales are the only food source avialable?

Quick, get them to stop eating seals, walrus, caribou, fish and the rest. Those don't exist.

[mopinko]

19. well, i am sure they have all those things at wally world.

i think you have never had to kill your food, and so you are not really in a place to judge. they eat what they can get. there is no mickey d's, no walmart, etc.
wake up.

[JonQ]

20. So you really don't think

they have any alternative food source?

It's whale burgers or starvation?

I have to ask, do you know anything about these people?

[mopinko]

21. do you?

enough. welcome to ignore.

[JonQ]

22. That'll work

[NickB79]

24. Why are whales taboo, but not seals, walrus, caribou, etc? nt

[JonQ]

25. Because . . .

the bowhead whale (the primary whale they hunt) is listed as threatened with extinction. Caribou, walrus, seals are not.

It isn't about taboo it's about not putting greater stress on a population that has already faced a crash due to (drum roll please) whale hunting.

If whales were not facing any threat I'd say knock yourself out. It's odd that I have to be the only person on here arguing *against* slaughtering endangered animals.

It's like saying if cows are ok to eat then why not pandas?

[bhikkhu]

8. I hate to say - but I'm in favor of it

Its been a big over-hyped political tool for both sides for way too long, while there's been little exploration at all.

Enough unbiased geologists think there's just not much oil to find there that I'd just as soon get the thing over with. If there's nothing, then game over. If there's a pile of new oil, the odds of it not being found and brought up in our lifetime were pretty close to zero anyway.

[GliderGuider]

10. I'll join you in that.

The sooner we get the hype over and done with the happier I'll be. Drilling a few more dry holes aren't going to damage the global environment much more than we have already.

[Nihil]

9. Great.

We have one thread on Alaska about them coming up with shortsighted
plans to "protect" their pipelines from the damage caused by melting
permafrost and a second showing how they want to increase the amount
of fossil fuel being consumed (which adds to the melting permafrost).

:argh: