The answer to your first question (what kind of people do they get to write this stuff?), is people who are very knowledgeable, active, and experienced members of their niche community. If you’d like to learn more about my own background and credentials, I invite you to read my bio.

Although I do not live in Alaska, and although you may consider me an “outsider,” keep in mind what the “N” stands for in ANWR. As much as it may seem like to you, the ANWR is not owned by the state of Alaska, it is owned by the federal government. That means the decisions involving whether or not the land is developed must be made in a way that takes national interests into account. And as much as you apparently have a distaste for people who live on paved roads (and I can assure you, my road is just as unpaved as yours), they have just as much a right to oppose oil development in ANWR as you do to support it.

You are probably right that Senator Stevens has done more than I in reducing money sent to foreign soils, on a macro level. But on a micro (personal) level, I would argue that I have sent a lot less money overseas than ANY member of the U.S. Senate.

But keep in mind, Gary, that the country exporting the most petroleum to the United States is not Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iraq – nor any of the other “people who hate every vestige of the political freedoms, we here in the US enjoy” – it is Canada. And I’m sure my Canadian readers will back me up when I say, I’m pretty sure Canada does not hate our political freedoms.

I want to be certain there is fairness in the political process that gets our energy policy constructed. Without a fair (and legal) political process, how can we expect the political system to produce an energy policy that a majority of the people will be happy with.

With all of that said, let me say I agree with you when you write:

“Terms like bridge to “no where”, ignore the last 100 years in their own state, where all of their own bridges that were built in the past were bridges to “no where”.”

But I was not hear 100 years ago, and if I were, I’m pretty sure I would be taking a similar stance. It is not our duty, nor our obligation, to develop every square inch of this country – and THAT is the point.

So, if you don’t mind, I’d like to take you up on your invitation to come to Alaska. And I can guarantee you that I would prefer being there with my fly-rod in hand my dog by my side, than sitting in any living room watching soaps or writing about “who the next Paris Hilton’ will be.”

Thanks for your comment.

F. Knossen

People like to lump “big oil” into a single entity, but the fact of the matter is that not all oil companies have the same interests – in fact they are quite competitive in many areas. Think about this carefully – IF there is enough oil in ANWAR to have a moderating impact on world oil prices, who stands to lose the most if that resource is developed? (Hint: if you are selling 1-10 million barrels of oil per day, every dollar decrease in the price has a significant impact on your daily income.)

Secondly – claiming that renewable energy companies have little political influence is simply ignoring reality. Some of the biggest names in business are huge beneficiaries of renewable energy subsidies like the Production Tax Credit.

GE, Siemens, BP, ADM, Cargil, Chevron all have large renewable energy divisions. Who do you think manufactures wind turbines? How about CFLs? Where does the 51 cent per gallon ethanol credit end up? If there is a feed in tariff for solar, who gets the money when the home owner buys his solar panels?

One more thought about the interests of “big oil” when it comes to drilling in hard to reach areas – here is a quote from Amory Lovins from a recent appearance on Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now!

“You know, I’ve worked for major oil companies for about thirty-five years, and they understand how expensive it is to drill for oil.”

Perhaps some of the oil companies really do not want to drill, but they would prefer for the government to tell them no. That way, they continue to make their $8-12 billion in profits each quarter selling oil from old wells, save the money that they would have to invest in challenging new production, and get to put the blame on “the environmental lobby” for preventing them from drilling.

The world is a complex place full of corporations and individuals who do not always reveal their complete motivations.

Disclosure – I am a nuclear advocate with significant (at least to me) investments in companies that will profit if the use of atomic fission increases. I also happen to breathe from our common atmosphere and believe that will also improve if my investments succeed.

As far as the house built by oil, if this writer were able to get his head out of his A–, he would find that Senator Stevens, not only was instrumental for oil development in Alaska, but has done more than this writer, in reducing the money sent to foreign soils, to people who hate every vestige of the political freedoms, we here in the US enjoy. The same freedoms, these pen heads (owners) enjoy to express their demented views. I invite Mr. Pen writer, to come to Alaska, not Anchorage, where there are paved streets like he is used to, but the real Alaska. Let him look at this pristine frozen tundra, and the thousands of animals, suffering from both being half eaten by predators, hunger because they can't find enough food to survive on. After traveling the Alaska Pipeline, and seeing all of the shelter it provides to wildlife, these Pen owners might decide that they would prefer to go back to their comfortable state, sit in their nice warm dry living room and watch their favorite soaps again. Maybe they will write a novel or who the next Paris Hilton will be.

I think people with your background and interests have a ton of "common sense" to contribute to the movement… we need more like you talking to us (and we need to be listening). In short, I'm glad you commented… I hope you continue to do so.

Jeff