How Much Will Energy Prices Effect you and the Parks?

I prefer rentals (being that my car is 12 years old). I am surprised it made it to Columbus and back a couple of weeks ago.

It may cost more but you can't beat the piece of mind, plus it's a little cheaper to pre-pay for gas at most places.

BUT, like I said I am flying more this year, and cutting back on the long-distance driving. :-)

-Tina *** Edited 3/22/2005 11:25:00 AM UTC by coasterqueenTRN***

---

MAGXL200 said:
It has been scientifially proven that the drilling doesn't affect animal migration, and the amount of oil we will be drilling will greatly decrease our need of importing oil from other countries.

---

Until those supplies run out too. Then what?

---

coasterqueenTRN said:
I prefer rentals

---

Aye, me too. I don't own a car here; there's very little need for one if you live in the city in this country. It's cheaper for me to take taxis or rent when I need to go further than my two legs will take me.

---

MAGXL200 said:
It has been scientifially proven that the drilling doesn't affect animal migration, and the amount of oil we will be drilling will greatly decrease our need of importing oil from other countries.

---

First of all, show me the science. You can't because there is none. Let me bulldoze your house and then you can tell me it doesn't have an impact on where you live.

And here's a news flash... The oil in Alaska, at the peak of its production (which would take decades to achieve), would contribute less than 2% to the total oil consumption of the United States. That's right out of the fed's own analysis.

Buy a hybrid or take the bus to work. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than destroying one of the last great natural habitats we have in this country. Count your blessings, as Bannister said you don't know how good we already have it in this country. Set an example for all Americans and try looking a little further beyond your own nose.

Some of you might want to actually educate yourselves a little on the issue of ANWR.

http://www.anwr.org/

Thanks for the great response, Jeff.

Stuey, you're right, some people really should educate themselves on the issue of ANWR but pointing them to a website produced by Arctic Power - a group of pro-drilling business interests is not the way to do it.

Oil companies are global. The oil will be sold on the global market and has nothing to do with "energy security and everything about giving up a public resource to private business to exploit for their own profit.

If you're really concerned about energy supplies you'll give up this outdated love for unsustainable and environmentally detrimental oil.

It's amazing that you know all about my beliefs regarding oil and alternative energy sources from that reply. I don't care if cars run on Kool Aid. Second, I was just giving people an opportunity to see one side of the story they may not have seen. God knows we get enough of the other side. Also, you just assume that people on one side of this debate is dishonest and the other side is pure as snow just because you have one view of the issue. Some people here might actually want to see what the pro drilling side has to say. Not to mention the people of Alaska.

And as I said before, keep it for a rainy day.

Why does our president have a wild hair for poking holes up there? Might have something do do with his buddies in Texas, Great Britain, and Saudi Arabia.

Gee, you think? I can't understand how Americans can be so oblivious that they elected an oil tycoon. And you can't actually expect anyone to take seriously a Web site built by an organization that stands to profit from said exploitation of natural resources.

And guess who has a hand in the company that will be doing the drilling in alaska.

Our own president. Him and papa are bound to make lots of money off this deal.

Holes were poked up there before - Bush wasn't in office then...what's your answer to that?

There is 19,000,000 acres in the ANWR, the development/drill area is only 2,000 acres or one-one hundreth of one percent (0.01%) of the total area of the ANWR. The rest of the ANWR (99.99%) will still be purer than Ivory soap (99.44%).

But, like many other "hot-button" topics, this is one where both the sides will have to agree to disagree.

*** Edited 3/22/2005 5:24:51 PM UTC by redman822***

It's a matter of principle though... the net gain to the economy and availability of oil is so insignificant that it's not worth trashing any part of a natural reserve like that. You can call it a tiny percentage but you can't neglect to factor in all of the traffic in and out of there. Would you be OK with doing this the Grand Canyon? Yellowstone? The Columbia River Gorge?

---

redman822 said:
Holes were poked up there before - Bush wasn't in office then...what's your answer to that?

---

Not in the ANWR. And my answer to his not being in office then is that it's irrelevant. Now he is in office and wants to make money for his buddies.

But even with all the arguments for drilling up there, this should be a wake-up call to aggresively persue alternative energy. Hello everyone, we're so desparate, we'll develop resources in a place we set aside for our children's children? And that it's just a tiny part of it still doesn't sit well with me.

But alas, we probably will just have to agree to disagree.

The whole ANWR debate has been going on for at least the past 20 years and probably longer. This is not some emergency action necessary for the country. It's been on the mindset of certain people for a long time and now the political cards have been arranged in such a way to let it happen.

Yeah, they've been "poking holes" up there for a long time and ANWR is the only place that hasn't been touched. You've got enough "holey" areas so leave another "holy" area alone!

---

Jeff said:
It's a matter of principle though... the net gain to the economy and availability of oil is so insignificant that it's not worth trashing any part of a natural reserve like that. You can call it a tiny percentage but you can't neglect to factor in all of the traffic in and out of there. Would you be OK with doing this the Grand Canyon? Yellowstone? The Columbia River Gorge?

---

Mind if I jump on the soapbox with you?

This is an excellent point. "Oh, who cares, it's such a small area of land..." What a narrow view. I agree with Jeff; more people would care if it was in their own backyard, like Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Yosemite, etc.

The bottom line is that we as Americans are irresponsible. Simple as that. Hey, we're running out of oil. So instead of finding alternatives, we go and tap into one of the most beautful places on earth. Sure, it's only 'a sheet of paper on a tennis court.' But its the principle of the matter. That small sheet of paper will certainly get larger. Hey, mind if I piss on your lawn? It will only be in a very small area. -sarcasm-

I have several friends who own SUVs, and only ONE actually needs it, as he is a Real Estate Agent (although, one could argue that point as well). Most (notice I said most, not all) don't need them, other than to deplete our natural resources and pollute the air we breathe. Living in Los Angeles, I think I have a genuine gripe about that. We need to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, and now hybrids are more advanced than anyone could have imagined.

Ford has an SUV hybrid, and Lexus and Toyota will be releasing theirs within the next couple months. My next car will be a hybrid. For now I'm enjoying my 39mpg highway Corolla. And in several years, hopefully my car will be powered by hydrogen.
*** Edited 3/22/2005 6:16:55 PM UTC by Danimales***

---

Jeff said:
And you can't actually expect anyone to take seriously a Web site built by an organization that stands to profit from said exploitation of natural resources.

---

4. Unacceptable topics of discussion:
The Coasterbuzz forums are dedicated to foster the discussions of roller coasters and the amusement park industry. Sometimes topics are brought up that are not in anyway related this. These topics are deleted, because there are other places on the Internet to discuss these off-topic subjects. We don't talk about world peace or curing cancer here, we talk about coasters

But back to an acceptable topic of discussion... I find it funny how each time the topic of "spending money" comes up in relation to the theme park industry, there are a myriad of people who suddenly know everybody else's personal/financial situations.

The fact is that sometimes that extra $5 (or whatever the amount may be) could be the difference in a park visit for some people.

Danimales, funny you should mention Yosemite:

http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/hetchhetchy/history.asp

On a side note: I've often thought it would be really cool to have a free fall ride down the side of one Yosemite Valley's cliffs. But that just woundn't be right. ;)

*** Edited 3/22/2005 6:55:02 PM UTC by janfrederick***

Ok..one more bit of indoctrination :)

http://www.techcentralstation.com/032105F.html

I love the whole "everybody else is doing it so it doesn't really matter if we do" argument.

Aside from environmental impacts, these resources will be used up in a matter of time (non-renewable)..so just for the sake of keeping things running smoothly, looking into renewable sources of energy is a good thing. And while we're at it, persue something that impacts the planet minimally. Hey, we, the richest country on earth, should lead the way.

1. We are leading the way in alternatives R&D.

2. One is capable of being, at present, pro oil exploration AND at the same time be very much in favor of alternatives R&D. Let's face it, right now we still need oil for the next several years until that research is successful. You have to be realistic.

3. Why is it that the Sierra Club and similar groups are the only people capable of being virtuous and true when it comes to this stuff and people on the other side are automatically considered villains. It's not wise to just automatically believe the environmentalists but then turn around and immediately dismiss anything that others have to say. That's what religious fanatics are always accused of doing by the left.