home

Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:15:21 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Senate has rejected Arctic drilling for oil and the bill passed by the House last week. A press release by the Alaska Wilderness League praises the Senate (received by e-mail):

"We congratulate all the members of the U.S. Senate who have stood up to Senator Stevens’ attempts at blackmail. It was a national disgrace that Senator Stevens was willing to hold funding for our troops hostage just to cut a deal for Big Oil. We congratulate the moderate members of Congress for voting the will of their constituents and fending off Stevens’ giveaway to the oil companies. We are proud to have preserved one of our last remaining wilderness areas for our children and future generations."

< Bush and Executive Activism | Cheney Casts Tie Vote to Pass Spending Bill >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling | 34 comments (34 topical)
    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:26:45 PM EST
    Good. Excellent. A thousand times over. We waste more energy and resources in a day than we'd need to last a month or more if we used them wisely, judiciously and respectfully to mother earth, which can only take so much.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:31:48 PM EST
    There are some operating "brains" in DC after all. Huh! Who woulda thunk?

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:34:11 PM EST
    Hell, we oughtta be mining our own poop. Oh wait, prisons in RAWANDA already are. And I realize the irony, difficulty, and just plain oddness of the origin of this story. I mean, genocide prisons in Rawanda are doing this? And we're not?

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:38:02 PM EST
    Dadler, You know, we have a huge untapped reservoir of natural gas right here. In the WH...

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:40:33 PM EST
    All we need to do is seal the windows and doors... and pump the air out... ^^ 0 0 ___

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Edger, The ol' blue flame never had such meaning. Whew.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 01:10:13 PM EST
    Dadler, somethin' stinks about this subject... ;-)

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#8)
    by Johnny on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 01:25:43 PM EST
    Holy smokes! Why does the congress hate America? Don't they realize that by not drilling the anwar, we are caving into the turrusts?

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#9)
    by Slado on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 01:27:50 PM EST
    The senate did not reject the move. A minority in the senate is filibustering it. There is a difference. This like the patriot act is just political manuevering by the minority party. On this matter if the patriot act is so horrible why is Patrick Lehey asking for an extension? I don't care either way. Eventually the president will compromise or the dems will give in. They are purely motivated by politics. I'm just trying to understand them. I ask you if the vote on spending/tax cuts is so grave why didn't they fillubuster it? Joseph Liberman called the stand against ANWAR heroic? So keeping Kariboo from being exposed to offshore pipelines is obviously worth more effort then stopping such an agregious spending bill from effecting actual people? It seems pretty simple. The minority senators will go out of their way to shut down bills to protect citezens from hypothetical violations of their constituional rights, stop bills so that kariboo can roam free but when it comes to stopping spending bills that actually effect real people. No that's too much. No time to be "heroic" now.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 01:31:03 PM EST
    Also... Preserving the refuge for "our children" The artic wildlife refuge is an artic wasteland. If you take your children there you should be put in jail.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 01:38:37 PM EST
    Of course the picture attached is not from the area to be drilled....

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 01:40:32 PM EST
    You ever spent any time in the Arctic, Slado? I put in a year at a DEW Line site early '80's. It's cold, flat, not many trees taller than 1 inch, but it is also one of the most "alive" places on earth. Huge biodiversity, native peoples, plants, flowers, animals, birds, fish. Clean, pristine, unpolluted, and beautiful. Everyone should see it. Even, especially, your children.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#13)
    by Slado on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 01:44:34 PM EST
    The wildlife refuge is larger than the state of South Carolina. The coastal plane, where they think the oil is, and which was specifically reserved when Congress created the refuge as a future source of our petroleum supplies is, again, larger than several small states. It's 1.9 million acres. And we're talking about developing several thousand out of that 1.9 million. Once again the dems are using emmotional political pandering to score points. Anyone with a brain realizes that we should drill for oil if the only thing that will be effected is ice. But instead the left shows pictures of beutiful mountains and caribou (sp?) that don't even exist where the drilling would take place. If you just hate oil say so but to falsely present an argument is silly.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 01:50:59 PM EST
    ...to falsely present an argument is silly. Especially if the argument is that it would make any kind of useful addition to the energy supply...
    Original plans to extract as much as 11 billion barrels of oil from beneath ANWAR’s coastal plain—enough to fuel American cars, trucks and SUV’s for nearly one and a half years... MORE...
    one and a half years... big deal.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 01:53:04 PM EST
    News Flash! Democrasts filibuster funding for troops. Why does the Left love bears more than Marines?

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#16)
    by Slado on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 02:13:03 PM EST
    The amount of oil is debatable. Whether or not thier are mountains or any living life form in the area we will actually drill is not. I'm sure the right is a little optimistic in their assumptions of oil but the caribou coalition is equally as pessemistic. We won't know how much oil is there until it dries up. I'd trust the oil men on the amount as compared to someone who doesn't even know there aren't any caribou where they will drill.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 02:21:39 PM EST
    Makes perfect sense to me Slado. Destroy forever an entire ecosystem so you can drive your car for 16 months...

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 02:41:56 PM EST
    There are arguments and interests on both sides of this debate over ANWAR, and the value of oil versus the value of an undisturbed ecosystem and the people and animals who call it home. Personally, I don't think we need the oil that is in ANWAR. I'd rather the place was left alone. I've been in the arctic. Others, who've not been there, do not. Here is a PBS/Jim Lehrer Newshour broadcast from November 02/05, both video and transcript, on this subject.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#19)
    by ras on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 02:51:29 PM EST
    The Left wants to avoid risk to the environment by shipping oil from halfway around the world instead, usually in single-hulled tankers? I'll see you an Exxon and raise you a Valdez.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#20)
    by Slado on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 02:54:08 PM EST
    Bravo Ras How do all these eco purists get to ANWR? Do they take adog sled and take artic buggies that run on ethonal to et around? What do they use to heat their igloos? Solar panels? Drill!

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#21)
    by BigTex on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 02:59:01 PM EST
    ANWR can be broken down into three different zones. 1) Where carribou go every year. 2) Where carribou go some, but not every year. 3) Where carribou never trod. Why not simply drill in the 3rd area? This gets around the significant wildlife concern, and allows for drilling. Both sides get what they want.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 03:05:08 PM EST
    Big Tex, on the surface that seems reasonable. However, like anywhere else on earth there is much more to it. Caribou are very high on the food chain in the arctic. There is an entire ecosystem beneath and laterally to them, and many many more types of life there. We don't need the oil. If a case can be made that we need 1 1/2 years worth of oil then the economy, and the whole society, is in much more serious trouble than we think. Drilling ANWAR won't fix that.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimcee on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 03:21:16 PM EST
    I have no problem with drilling in ANWAR. There seems to be support for it by a slight majority of the Inuit population who actually live there. The idea that this would destroy the caribou population is a rather specious argument considering the Trans-Alaska Pipeline has had the opposite effect. The caribou herd near there has expanded about 40% since it was opened 30yrs ago. Appartently they get amorous around the heated pipline, go figure. What I do find interesting is that the Inuit that oppose the exploration use petrol-powered snowmobiles and rifles to maintain thier 'traditional' way of life. Overall, the 2000 acres that are proposed for development would be just a small piece of land and the only access roads in would be ice roads and would have little lasting effect on the countryside. The quest of the Left to stop any exploration there seems more ideological than enviromental but then again the enviromental movement is green on the outside and pink on the inside and less interested in results than in arbitrary denouncements of oil companies and capitalism in general. By the way, caribou make really good eating unlike the whales that the Inuit kill with abandon. Funny how the enviromental movement cares less about whales than they do about the more numerous caribou.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#24)
    by Al on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 04:02:01 PM EST
    The drilling would affect the migration route and the birthing and nursing grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd. This is not only bad news for the herd, but also for the local population who depend on the herd for food. Jimcee, the Inuit consumption of whales is entirely sustainable. Anyone familiar with the issue is much more concerned with the Japanese "scientific" whaling activities.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#25)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 04:36:43 PM EST
    Hey Ras, You think that oil is coming here? Gawd you are such a mark. The arctic oil will be sold to the overseas markets, which yield more profits. Plus we have to keep the owners of those singled hulled tankers employed. They don't call it black energy. They call it black gold.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimcee on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 04:48:48 PM EST
    Al, If the porcupine herd only bred on that particular 2000 acres of tundra I would agree with you but if that were the case the Inuit would have killed off the herd years ago because the caribou would have been so stupid that they wouldn't have fled to safer calving grounds. Caribou are in the same family as deer and deer have no problem adapting to changing habitats as was proven by the increased incidence of car/deer collisions in the last few years. As I said before the herds around the Trans-Alaska pipeline have increased not decreased since its construction. As far as whales are concerned, because you are more concerned about Japanese whaling (as I am myself) than you are about Inuit whaling, which also uses modern techniques just makes you a hypocrite. Sorry but the Caribou herd arguement is not really rational. If they become endangered because they are denied an area smaller than Central Park then the Inuit villages, where they park thier gasoline driven snowmobiles should have killed off the herd years ago. 2000 acres is a small plot of land ecologically speaking.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#27)
    by ras on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 07:10:20 PM EST
    Che/Charlie, You have confirmed, then, that the idea of drilling ANWR in order to reduce overall risk to the environment (by reducing the number of potential Exxon Valdez-like incidents) is a good one provided that the ANWR oil is not shipped out to Asia. Perhaps a few policy-makers read the blogs? Hmmm, they'll say, all we have to do now is reassure the people that the oil will indeed be piped, not shipped. Sounds like a simple amendment, if even that. Thx for helping.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 12:55:21 AM EST
    Hey instead of destroying the last 5 percent of the arctic slope that hasn't been drilled...why dont we drill in the 1/3 part of their backyards that the wingnuts don't use?

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#29)
    by Slado on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 07:23:27 AM EST
    Ernesto wingnuts would drill in their living room if they thought there was oil there. The problem is governmental regulations and enviro wackos make it impposible. No inconcistancy on the right when it comes to oil.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 09:02:25 AM EST
    Slado, just be thankful for the safety net that protects you and your neighbors from the those self-destructive tendencies that you cannot control.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimcee on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 04:18:36 PM EST
    Charlie Boi, Are you a Kingstonian? I love that town. I met Don Cherry there at his old joint downtown. He was doing a meet and greet with Rollie Melanson (sp?) who at the time was playing in my home town for the AHL NJ farm team. I had a lot of fun that night. Although I do have to say that the most fun I had playing hockey in Canada was as a kid and we won the Ottawa South Lions Club Tourney. As 14 year olds we were spit on and sworn at by local parents and spectators who should have known better. They changed my childish impression of Canucks as being polite and nice. Reading your nonsense just re-enforces those old impressions.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#32)
    by Sailor on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 04:45:50 PM EST
    Although I do have to say that the most fun I had playing hockey in Canada
    Uhhh, well OK ... now back on topic; You can't drill any place w/o a way to get there (see roads), a way to get it out (see roads and pipelines), and incredible destruction of the environment. If they said they wanted to mine coal there, would folks be as sanguine?

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimcee on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 08:21:13 PM EST
    Kdog, I'm concerned about the rain-forest myself and economic presures drive local people to make bad choices enviromentally for the right reasons, to feed thier families. It is a tough nut to crack economically speaking. Much of the land is cleared originally for the lumber, exotic and otherwise, and then is turned into Gov't subsidized farms. The soil isn't really sustainable for long and the subsidies encourge detremental agriculture which destroys the rainforest and the cycle continues. The WTO tried to address the subsidizing situation in Hong Kong but they were shouted down by the European Union. The Rainforest deal is a really tough nut to crack. Perhaps Lula can come up with a compromise as he has become a bit more rational now that he has become a little less friendly with Hugo Chavez.

    Re: Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling (none / 0) (#35)
    by Sailor on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 03:49:29 PM EST
    Jimcee, there are open threads for 'waxing nostalgic.' I was just pointing out there were better and more appropriate forums for you to hold those exchanges. If you worked for a local furniture company that only select cut a few trees you weren't a lumberjack, just a guy w/ a chainsaw. BTW, how did those trees exit the forest? No 'collateral damage' there I suppose. I worked as a choker setter in the Pacific NW. I know that the companies I worked for clear cut. We wiped out mountain tops to harvest doug fir, polluted those remote valleies with our trucks and donkeys' engines and made dust bowls which resulted in mountainsides washing away and clouded the clear valley streams. 101 Redwood, one of the companies I worked for, paid an EPA fine every month rather than stop using their TeePee burner. The valley (Willets) was choked with smoke everyday. When I worked in the Gulf of Mexico on production platforms and drilling rigs I could see the slicks everyday from tankers and wells as I flew around the field. 'Ice Roads!?' Yeah, like they're really gonna stop pumping during the summer. 5k to 150k people transferring in and out of the area, habitation for them, food shipments, equip deliveries. The area will be a hellhole, just like every area that drillers (or lumberjacks) have violated.

    Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling | 34 comments (34 topical)