Another Republican Defeat - No Drilling in Alaska

Remove all ads!

The Democrats in the Senate prevented the passage of a bill that would allow for oil drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve. This is actually one of the few issues that I agree with Republicans. The area they want to open up in the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve represents only about 1% of the total area. I don't think it will have a serious effect on the wildlife, and the vast majority of the refuge will remain intact. However, Democrats threatened to filibuster the bill, and Republicans fell 4 votes short to stop the fillibuster. You can read the full story here.

That having been said, I think it was quite snakey the way the Republicans tried to pass this bill. Along with allowing drilling in the wildlife reserve, the bill also had legislation for funding Iraq, additional Katrina relief, and subsidies for poorer families with their heating bills. All of those other pieces of the legislation are popular with Democrats and Republicans alike. It is called "political blackmailing" because the Republicans hoped that Democrats would vote to pass the bill because the vast majority of the bill was acceptable to them. However, Democrats threatened (and apparently succeeded) in filibustering the bill unless the language regarding ANWR was removed.

 

Also, note that the Alaska drilling provision was initially part of the budget bill, but was removed from there because it was clear that it is not going to pass. (the budget bill barely passed today, with Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote). Then, at the insistence of Sen. Stevens of Alaska, it was attached to the military spending bill.

It surprises me that one senator has so much power that he can add to a bill whatever he wants, even if it has nothing to do with the original purpose of the bill.

 

I must say that I agree with Aldeth 100% on this one. While the proposed drilling would have been an unpopular decision due to the environmentalists complaints I believe that it would have been the correct decision. The oil there is valuable and the amount of wilderness area that would be lost is really not that significant.

Oh well, I guess I shouldn't complain too much - this is good for Canada as it will help keep the value of our oil higher.

 

We're going to run out of cheap petrol soon enough anyway so drilling into a few polar bear caves is only delaying the inevitable. We should be looking for alternatives rather than desperately trying to squeeze out the last few drops of petrol out of the ground.

1% isn't that small. There are only 100 1%s, after all. To put it another way, if there were only 100 polar bears left in the world, we probably wouldn't kill one just to get some petrol because we'd say they were really rare.

 

It's not one senator with so much power. All bills have to go through one or more committees. Any senator on the committee that the bill passes through can recommend changing (either adding or subracting) language to the bill. If the other members of the committee agree to the change, that change is made. I do not think this represented an abuse of power, but merely meant he was on the right committee to make the change.

 

@ Harbourboy - the same logic that you use would then hold for mining metals, minerals etc. We consume a certain amount of natural resources to maintain our lifestyle so it is always a matter of considering how to most efficiently obtain these resources while using up only an acceptable amount of the natural environent.

Of course we should be looking towards more sustainable energy resources but in the mean time we might as well use the resources that we have available to us.

Is that small patch of wildlife reserve worth so much more than any other area that we are using?

 

I don't know much about it, but wasn't it suppossed to be some kind of "strategical reserve"? Like a patch only to be used when the rest of the oil had ran out...?
I totally agree with Hboy. Instead of spending money on the military or on farm subsidies, you should research some new electricity or whatever powered vehicle.
This may be a bit off topic, but if damage is done to nature, wouldn't it be logical to use the same money from oil into a land-recovery program or something? Just a thought.

 

**considers renaming thread "Another American Defeat - No Drilling in Alaska"**


No drilling = No pipeline

No pipeline = No tankfarm construction

No tankfarm construction = No road and rail construction

No road and rail construction = No new seaport

No new seaport = No new tanker traffic

No new tanker traffic = No new source of domestic crude for west coast refiners

No new source of domestic crude for west coast refiners = Increased dependence on foreign oil

Increased dependence on foreign oil = Loss of GNP, Improvement to infrastructure and jobs

Loss of GNP, Improvement to infrastructure and jobs = Billy getting laid off from the graveyard shift at the 7/11 and going on unemployment

it's a savage, little "circle of life" people.

[ December 22, 2005, 01:08: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

 

Hacken: you forgot to add: " and Billy will become an alcoholic and beat his wife. So, if you oppose drilling in the arctic, you support domestic violence."

Most probably, what will happen is that the profits of oil companies won't be quite so big. If anybody in the government would be serious about reducing dependence on oil imports... can you say improve car mileage?

[ December 22, 2005, 15:48: Message edited by: khaavern ]

 

A better way to think? Go for the oil, and take down the wilderness. When the oil is gone, so are the profiteers - and so is the wilderness. Both are gone for good (with the profiteers that much richer). Leave the wilderness there - in a world that is losing its natural places at a fast clip to industrialization - and it stays there for good (for everyone to profit). Maybe its time to get off the "oil can."

 

@ Liriodelagua

No that's different - you're thinking of the strategic reserve, but this is a new oil source. We do have a strategic reserve of somewhere around 1 million barrels of oil. What this proposal would do is open up a small percentage of a wildlife reserve in Alaska to drilling for new oil sources.

 

The environmentalists made the same stink in the 70's when the plan was to drill in the ANS...fortunately, for all for us, they lost the battle to prevent it. They screamed and cried that the Alaskan wilderness would be destroyed, that oil spills would poison the ground, that indigenous herds would be "fenced off" from the migration routes, blah-blah-blah...

None of this happened.

The ANS has been protected...and has supplied us with a source of crude. In ways, by having some better roadways and infrastructure built, it's allowed scientist to better study and help conserve the flora and fauna.

The Exxon-Valdez was a case of negligence/accident and could have happened anywhere - don't try to go there.

And who is this boogey-man I keep hearing about with the ubiqitious name "oil company"? Am I correct in understanding that some of you have a problem with them being profitable? You have a problem with an industry that's a backbone of America helping to keep America economically strong? If it burns your onion that they're making money...outsmart the bastards...buy stock!

And Oh my, I've gotten tired of hearing people beat on the "SUV drum". Sure, there are SUV beasts like the Hummer and Escalade, but they're a finite portion of the SUV market. The vast majority of SUV's have fuel economy ratings that approach or rival that of comparable sedans. For example...Ford Taurus (mid sedan), 20mpg city - 27mpg hwy...Ford Escape (small-mid suv), 22mpg city - 26mpg hwy. I'm no big fan of Ford, I just happened to have those numbers at my fingertips.

Or what about a family who's able to get by with one vehicle instead of two because they have a large SUV?

All in all this is a lost chance to create jobs, enrich our economy while responsibly using a resource at our disposal.

Good thing we still own Iraq. Better not pull out yet...

 

Don't even go there, especially after Enron. You should know better. These guys are crooks and think nothing of ripping off the American people. Look what they did in California. BTW, most of them are not even American. The only thing they have done is make America weaker and embroiled us in a part of the world we don't even need to be in. And would not be if Americans became less delusional about their lifestyles. Take away the oil problem and you have a better, safer and stronger America. Oh, but then we would not have all those big-ass pick-ups and SUVs that soak up all that oil. Better to keep our sons and daughters dying over in some far-away country for the "right" to be gluttons.

 

"Coming soon to a forum near you...a thread where Chandos and I take off the gloves over the merits of Oil Companies"

But for now, I won't start a new debate so close to Christmas...

 

Yeah. Nice work going there: comparing a light SUV with a relatively heavy car. How about we look at averages: from the EPA website: "since 1996, the three-year moving average fuel economy for cars has ranged from 24.2 to 24.7 mpg, while that for trucks has ranged from 17.6 to 18.0 mpg." (here trucks include SUVs, vans, and pickup trucks). So there is about a 6 mpg difference between the average SUV and average car.

This may not seem much, but if one considers that gasoline consumption is about 2/3 of the total oil consumption in the US, improving the fuel efficiency by 15% (going from a 21 mpg average which holds for the current vehicle fleet, to a 24 mpg average obtainable with a car-only fleet), you'd reduce the total oil consumption in US by 10%; or the imports by 20%. (since US imports about 50% of its oil now).

Compare this with what you'd get from ANWR. IIRC, it has been estimated that the oil there would cover US' needs for 6 months. Spread over a period of 10 years - that would come to provide about 5% per year. So it's half of what improving mileage standards could give you; and after 10 years it runs out.

You must be kidding here, right? The vast majority of cars on the road in the US have exactly a one person occupancy rate. Also, you'd need a pretty large family to need more than one car.

 

Or two parents with jobs, or some kid who wants his own car, or... You can get up to "needing" several cars if you push it.

I spit on both political sides (not including SPers unless you're a Congressman ) of this fight. Why? Because it's just that, a fight. Neither is reasonable or attempts to see the other's side (as usual), so they just duke it out for dominance instead of working together to find a compromise. I don't really care which way this turns out.

 

Well excuse me if I decide that I would rather have my pick-up. I just can't fit all my tools and other equipment in one of those little aluminum cans you want us to drive around in Chandos.

 

While I agree with most of what you're saying here, I would guess that the vast majority of families do have more than one car. In fact, I can't think of any family that has only one vehicle. Most household have two people working, and unless they both work at the same place, two vehicles is a necessity. Now I do admit that if you're stirctly talking about transporting the family, yeah, it would have to be pretty big to need more than one vehicle.

 

I did not say that pick-ups or SUVs should be outlawed, only that such choices are now moral issues, rather than just issues of utility. You should drive whatever it is you require. Nevertheless, be aware that people are dying to keep us supplied with oil. The crux of my point is: Are we going to tear up every stone on earth to get the oil? Invade every country that has oil? Or are we going to look for a better alternative?

During WWII people went without some things; they conserved. It was a moral choice because the fate of our nation, and others, depended on making such moral choices. We keep hearing that we are at war. But where is the conservation? And for the people fighting over in Iraq it is a real war. Yet, one would not know it by the way Americans continue to extravagantly use oil, with no regard for the consquences. What are the moral choices that we confront with our dependence on oil and its use during wartime, and the supposed war on terror?