Treehuggers dishonest in ANWR debate? No way!

From the Sierra Times:

The same left-wing activists who claim that the liberation of Iraq is really a “war for oil” are doing everything they can to prevent oil and gas drilling in ANWR or anywhere else within the United States. Many in the media are busy asserting that Alaskan Natives oppose ANWR drilling and that drilling poses a grave danger to Alaskan caribou herds. Neither of these statements is true. A typical example of media deceit on ANWR is this quote from MSNBC:

“Congress could soon approve drilling in the refuge, a move opposed by environmentalists who along with Inupiat Eskimos also oppose offshore arctic development because of possible risks to migrating whales and other wildlife.”

This passage strongly implies that the Inupiat are opposed to drilling ANWR—this is false. The Inupiat oppose only offshore drilling, which is not currently technically feasible in the ANWR area. Their support for ANWR on-shore drilling is explained on the website of the city of Kaktovik, AK (population 286)--the only human settlement in ANWR:

“The essence of the Kaktovik position is that we would support oil exploration and development of the coastal plain provided we are given the authority and the resources to ensure that it is done properly and safely. Without the necessary provisions to ensure this protection, we would not.”

How does MSNBC interpret the last sentence? Naturally, they interpret the conditional endorsement as definitive opposition!

OK, there must be other Native Alaskans opposed, right?

Leftists point to one of the very few native groups to oppose drilling—the Gwich’in—but do not note that they are located hundreds of miles south of ANWR on the other side of the Brooks Range. The majority of Gwich’in live in Canada. Another native group opposing oil drilling in ANWR is the native city of Point Hope, AK—700 miles from ANWR. The vast majority of Alaskan Native corporations support drilling as do the vast majority of Alaskans.

Leave it to the Canadians to try and mold our energy policy, eh? Damned hosers!

What about the wildlife? We want to remain dependent on the volatile Middle East's oil if it means we might not disrupt the screwing patterns of the snow gerbil or whatever the hell is out there, right?

Media accounts of ANWR feature photos of caribou and musk oxen frolicking in fields of wildflowers. The Artic slope looks like this for about one month of the year. A more realistic image of harsh ANWR environment can be found in the photo galleries of the Kaktovik, AK city website.

The Sierra Club claims that, “the harm to wildlife and this spectacular wilderness would be permanent and irreparable.” ANWR is 19 million acres – larger than Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, Connecticut and Delaware combined. If oil is found, less than 2,000 acres would be directly affected.

Caribou herds in Alaska’s existing North Slope drilling areas have actually increased in size since drilling began. Caribou around the Prudhoe Bay oilfield increased from about 3,000 in the 1970s to over 32,000 today. The Porcupine herd, which occupies the ANWR areas currently blocked from drilling, decreased in the same period. If they were truly concerned about the caribou, logically the Sierra Club should be demanding more drilling, not less.

Let's cut to the chase here: Who are the key players in this ANWR debate?

Their agenda is revealed in the “Earth Charter”, endorsed by the Sierra Club and many other so-called environmentalists, which reads: "the dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation.” They want to destroy the free enterprise system and replace it with a system that the Earth Charter says, “Promote(s) the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations” – in other words, socialism.

In order to destroy free enterprise, the eco-socialists are using false arguments about Alaskan natives, false images of life in ANWR and false claims about the effect of oil drilling on wildlife. Their real goal and its affect on the day-to-day life of millions of humans is contained in the preamble to the Earth Charter which reads: “when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more.”

There you go. They can't even debate honestly and factually about the topic without resorting to pathological lies.

One of the largest environmentalist groups around today is on record with a page right out of Das Kapital. Once the Soviet Union fell (and with it, the false pretense of communism's success), the displaced commies and socialists found a new home in the treehugger movement. After all, who could possibly be against the environment?

Answer: No one. No one is anti-environment. We expect common sense environmental solutions, not a rehashed and proveably failed leftist ideology that must be hidden from normal and proper-thinking America under the guise of "environmental stewardship."