This topic was recently debated in my Economics class. Should America drill for oil in Alaska even if 1) it could damage the national parks, 2) it would not effect the global market much, and 3) there is a very small supply of it?

What are your thoughts and why?

I liked Pickens plan overall. I think it's well past time to rely on oil mainly. If we are not proactive in finding renewable resources as well as some other non-renewable resources in the meantime, we are just fooling ourselves, and we will wind up paying the price, when we must convert. I happen to be conservative too, but I think this is sad that with our technology that we remain complacent on oil. Yes, it has the largest bang for the buck, as far as price per BTU, as well as BTU per kg, but it's not going to last, and the price is only heading upwards. As far as tapping Alaska, it's just a temporary solution to an ongoing problem. I think we need to use less and start aiming for only renewable resources.

there's ways we can drill that will have minimal impact on the environment. oil needs to be dropped eventually, but until hydrogen is more economical, drill away!

I for one think we should save it, who knows what world event could totall cut us off. We import over 50% of our oil we use in this country and we may need that later.

An example we can all relate to: In 2142 the PAC and EU are fighting over some of the little oil left on the planet due to the ice age. Im not saying we are going into an ice age but a world event could caus us to need that oil.

Baby Seal blubber has a decent BTU value if burned. We could harvest them, toss 'em in a meat grinder and siphon off the blubber. I think PETA will like this.

Also, I worked on hydrogen cells in my research at school. They are not a viable energy source, just a carrier. Solar polar, wind power, geothermal, water power, burning wood, and baby seals are the main renewable resources. There are some up and coming sources like collecting methane from dumps and zoos, harvesting algea, and methanol from bacteria as well.

Depends what you mean by PETA brim...I like to think it stands for the: People for the Eating and Tasting of Animals. I prefer this over the traditional meaning.

I wonder if PETA blubber also have a good BTU value?

Well, its going to take decades maybe even a century to totally switch our society from petroleum oil and gasoline, to other renewable resources. So I think wed better start ASAP. The entire infrastructure of the country will need to change. Manufacturing, transportation, food production, corporate office buildings, heating/cooling. So the sooner we start the better imo.

We need to keep that oil there on reserve, however there will be massive societal impacts with ditching fuels for an electrical delivery system (harvesting power from wind, waves, other renewable resources w/e) for example stock auto racing will have a totally new demographic, instead of just being "rednecks" in their big trucks the sport would also attract many people who are into electronics and such, even now NASCAR racing doesn't represent current automotive technology they still use carbureted engines, so maybe that won't change. just a thought, this is one of the reasons it may take well over a century to make the change. People are too stubborn and on top of that the market penetration of this technology won't reach many people whom which we may classify as "rednecks" (lets face it id rather have a car i know how to fix). luckily we have 80% of the world fooled into believing that global warming is real (and not just something al gore invented) so you have that to use to convince a switch to occur! (don't flame me for my global warming comment either way its leverage to use whether or not global warming is true)

It's not global warming that is really the issue. My thermodynamics professor was the former dean at John Hopkin's Chem E dept, and did not believe in global warming. He was one of the most informed and smartest dudes I knew. Most of the studies that have been done have been fatally flawed or extrapolated past the point of confidence. I think it might be real, but it might not, and I don't think anyone has proven much of anything either way. I also think that regardless of that issue, it is a good idea not to wind up like China, where their street cops life expectancy is 41 years old, because of exposure to the air pollution.

I don't think it would take more than 20 years to get the majority converted to 'green' or renewable resources if we put our nose to the grindstone doing it, but the main issue is this: we cannot use as much once we do. There is not enough renewable power generated currently to do everything we want it to. We, as a society, live beyond our means. Many people would rather not give up their 300 horsepower or how many appliances they are able to use at once, in order to live in a sustainable environment. Why? Because it is not urgent.

To me, we live like a rich boy whose daddy gave him too much. He starts with seemingly endless money, and lives on a $4 million budget, but only makes $100,000 a year. Eventually, his wealth is gone, and there is no way to get it back, and he has nothing to pass on to his kids.

We have a lot of oil (enough to get us through our lifetime) and coal and natural gas. But it ends somewhere (definitely in the next 250 years, which is nothing in the history of mankind). Then everything is gone, and it's not coming back.

We are supposed kill to survive and cut trees for warmth and use the resources for survival, but we take too much just for pleasure, and we have all confused wants for needs.