Oh, man

[Lauderdale]

Rampuppy, You make some very good points and I agree that we can drill in ANWAR without trashing the environment.

I threw the truck "proof of need" thing and not using air-conditioning in just to stir the pot a bit.  I live in Florida and I have no idea how we got along without it back in the "good old days", yet I know we have to do something to conserve our natural resources.  By the way, Ford has a hybrid SUV, an Explorer I believe, almost ready for production.  But they also have a 490 hp Mustang due out this fall.  Which way do we go?

We need a more comprehensive energy policy in this country. But, if we depend on government to come up with one...we will be waiting for a very, very long time.

Every person who is thinking of buying a new car should write the marketing department of the auto manufacturers and let them know we demand more fuel-efficient cars.  Just imagine what would happen if consumers picked one week of the year when not one person walked into dealer showrooms.  That would be a very strong statement.  THEY WILL LISTEN...their business depends on selling cars and they will use their technological skills to produce what the public wants.

That said, I must confess that I am a bit of a hypocrite since I drive a 345 hp Mark VIII Lincoln that runs the 1/4 mile in 14.01 seconds...and I use the air-conditioning all the time.
.

 

[Finch]

right, exept do you know what a wildlife refuge is? a place set for wildlife, not for humans or their energy needs

 

[RamPuppy]

Hey Finch,

I can't recall where I read or heard the Montanna Shale deposit claim, and I probalby shouldn't have posted it without proof, but I do know i heard it on the radio once, it was a 'independent' sho (i.e. not republican or democrat) and I have seen it in writing, just not sure where.

And of course I know what a wildlife refuge is.

My point, and that which as been made before, is that .02 percent of the refuge is a very very small amount. Heck, why not just tack another .02 percent on somewhere else?

Let me put in in terms close to my heart. Reefkeepers employ a tank plumbed into their primary display tank called a 'refugium' (a refuge) this is a safe place for macro algae to grow, copepods, amphipods, and other invertebrates to breed. The purpose of this, is to add diversity to a closed system, something that can't happen in the main tank full of predators and herbivores, it provides a constant means of nutrient export, chemical balance, and food for small fish.

If I were to throw a tang in the refugium, it would eat all the algae, if I were to throw a Mandarin Dragonette in there, it would destroy all the copepods, these are two actions that defeat the purpose of a refugium. However, if I were to throw a small angler fish in, it would have a negligble impact on the refugium It would certainly eat some of the larger mysid shrimp, it would produce a little waste, but in the long run, the refugium will adapt to it's presence, and everything will survive, because that particular fish, while being a voracious preditor, won't strip the 'fuge of it's populations of beneficial flora & fauna... but it certainly is an UGLY fish.

Drilling in Anwar is ugly, but it IS an angler fish, not a tang or mandarin. It will not be the end of the refuge, it will be a small bump in the road so to speak.

 

[Flip_Side_the_Pint]

Quote[/b] ]And of course I know what a wildlife refuge is.

My point, and that which as been made before, is that .02 percent of the refuge is a very very small amount. Heck, why not just tack another .02 percent on somewhere else?

Let me put in in terms close to my heart. Reefkeepers employ a tank plumbed into their primary display tank called a 'refugium' (a refuge) this is a safe place for macro algae to grow, copepods, amphipods, and other invertebrates to breed. The purpose of this, is to add diversity to a closed system, something that can't happen in the main tank full of predators and herbivores, it provides a constant means of nutrient export, chemical balance, and food for small fish.

If I were to throw a tang in the refugium, it would eat all the algae, if I were to throw a Mandarin Dragonette in there, it would destroy all the copepods, these are two actions that defeat the purpose of a refugium. However, if I were to throw a small angler fish in, it would have a negligble impact on the refugium It would certainly eat some of the larger mysid shrimp, it would produce a little waste, but in the long run, the refugium will adapt to it's presence, and everything will survive, because that particular fish, while being a voracious preditor, won't strip the 'fuge of it's populations of beneficial flora & fauna... but it certainly is an UGLY fish.

Drilling in Anwar is ugly, but it IS an angler fish, not a tang or mandarin. It will not be the end of the refuge, it will be a small bump in the road so to speak.

that is geniuous, and I certainly understood all the references.. I'm saltwatersensei over at RC....

 

[Finch]

Quote[/b] ]Heck, why not just tack another .02 percent on somewhere else?

Really its a big place, ant its still a bit of land... Ah oh well its not as bad is it could be. As for the tacking land on somewhere else, remember most habitats now are quite fragmented, and that a .2 area like that alone without many other things essintialy becomes a island of habitat, and unless the cretures are mobile, its really a ded end of eventual inbreeding, too small to support a viable population of many things... eben a plant like Ginsing needs more area for a viable breeding population, other than a stand of dwindling relics...

 

[RamPuppy]

good point Finch.