Recent Posts

Unfortunately, fossil fuels are the "lifeblood" of today's economy. It has taken about 150 years to build up the infrastructure and supply chain for the petrochemical industry, but we don't have that much time for the transition required to not kill the planet. We have to do more than just "start" NOW. There will be many sacrifices and disruptions to come - get used to it! Improvise, adapt and overcome!

How true. We dont need the oil.

After a decade, you still owe me a coffee mug...lol

You Homeroids care to lead by example and only use power generated by renewables to heat your homes and light the rooms?

I would advise my environmentally concerned brothers and sisters on Cook Inlet to keep some things in mind. To start, while fossil fuels are on their way out, reality is, because our and the developing world's energy consumption is going to continue to rise for all the foreseeable future, it's going to be the better part of a century, probably longer before we can expect to see a serious reduction in fossil fuel consumption. I live off grid, I love the direction and future potential of renewables but reality is what it is. There are going to be several more generations of wells drilled in Cook Inlet before we can kick fossil fuel energy to the curb. We have a choice, do we focus our energies on the pie-in-the-sky, not actually going to happen anytime soon dream of no wells in Cook Inlet or do we deal with the reality that there WILL be wells in Cook Inlet, and they need to be made as safe as possible? I did a remodeling job for and became friends with an oil company executive years ago. His main job was dealing with regulators and sheparding permits through the regulatory process. He told me "I started my career working on the environmental side opposing the oil industry but then I got a family and went to work for the oil industry. My sentiments lie with the conservation side of the equation that I've spent most of my career figuring out ways to get around. The one mistake so many environmentalists make is they insist on not budging from their ideological line in the sand and frequently end up leaving the bargaining table with nearly nothing when we were prepared to give them considerable concessions if they worked with us. They do this again and again and again, they seen to never learn. A much better tactic would be to trade away what they are going to lose anyway(total ideological victory and shut down of the project or industry) for concessions and conditions from us. I've learned over the years that, no matter what, if I go through the full dance of the regulatory process, I'm going to get pretty much where I wanted to go, the only thing being decided by the regulatory process is how many hoops I/we will have to jump through and what, if anything, the environmentalists will end up with." I don't know a whole lot about Cook Inlet Keeper but I get a strong sense from your advertising that you have a "winner take all" mentality and thus probably lose most of your battles. This is both sad and unnecessary. We need EFFECTIVE environmental outcomes for the Cook Inlet, Alaska and the world, not an theoretical ideological purity maintained at the expense of little or no real world gains for the environment. "Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good" is a very wise, effective principle that I hope CIK can use to reach their highest effectiveness.