Artic refuge saved for another year.

[TheDude]

"Fantastic news! Late last night, after months of intense pressure from millions of pro-environment activists like you, the House leadership dropped its plan to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of the budget bill.

In the end, they were forced to retreat after some 22 courageous Republican Congressmen stood their ground and promised to vote against their own party's budget if it sacrificed America's greatest wildlife refuge. With every single Democrat also opposing the budget, the leadership blinked.

It was the kind of showdown at high noon that restores one's faith both in democracy and the sanctity of America's natural heritage.

Make no mistake: we must now remain vigilant. Senate and House negotiators could still revive the Arctic drilling provision when they hammer out a final budget measure next month (the Senate version of the budget includes Arctic drilling).

If that happens, we'll be calling on you to shore up Republican moderates in the House who have promised to oppose and defeat any such last-ditch ploy to sneak Arctic drilling into the final budget legislation.

But last night's development is a stunning setback for President Bush, for Congressional leaders, and for the oil lobby -- all of whom vowed that 2005 would be the year they finally pried the Arctic Refuge out of the clenched hands of the American people.

And it is a huge -- and I mean HUGE -- victory for all of us in the environmental community.

Just one year ago, Washington insiders were saying that Arctic drilling was a done deal. President Bush was claiming a post-election mandate to industrialize the Arctic Refuge, and the pro-oil contingent of the Republican Party had just tightened its majority grip on both houses of Congress. You couldn't find a pundit anywhere who would give us a wisp of a chance.

But millions of people like you did the impossible! Petition by petition, phone call by phone call, contribution by contribution, you helped us turn the tide in one of the toughest uphill political battles of the past decade.

Although this battle may not be over, yesterday was a red letter day for the Arctic Refuge -- the greatest day since it was first protected by Congress 25 years ago -- but it is much more than that, too. It is a triumph for America.

November 9, 2005 was the day that nature prevailed over corporate greed, that beauty triumphed over a dead-end energy plan. It was the day we reminded Washington that preserving wilderness is a core American value
-- and that we intend to keep it that way.

I know we can count on your help next month if Senate and House leaders dare to bring Arctic drilling back to the floor for a vote."

Sincerely,

John H. Adams
NRDC Action Fund

Just a little good news for those who care about the enviroment.

 

[pepperman]

That is good news, but i think eventually the drilling will go ahead it's only a matter of time!!!!!

 

[Calabrio]

How is this a good thing?

The psychological impact on the world oil markets alone justify opening up that small parcel of land in the ANWR. This is a bad thing. And in blocking this, they have obstructed the congress from cutting oover $50 Billion from the budget.

 

[fossten]

No, no, Calabrio, you don't understand. This is perfect for Deville and his libwack friends. This way they get to appease their envirowack friends while at the same time bashing the President for high gas prices and dependence on foreign oil.

By the way, that story is falsified spin. The reason the 22 Republicans stood up against the bill is because the leadership f-ed up and erased some spending cuts from the bill, which gutted the true intent of the bill, which was to improve fiscal responsibility.

 

[raVeneyes]

By the way, that story is falsified spin. The reason the 22 Republicans stood up against the bill is because the leadership f-ed up and erased some spending cuts from the bill, which gutted the true intent of the bill, which was to improve fiscal responsibility.

Wait wait... LOL... wait... So the leadership f-ed up and removed spending cuts from the bill, but left in the biggest national debate?

Sounds to me like the leadership isn't really concerned with how much the American public spends each year, rather they're more concerned that the arctic national wildlife refuge sits on top of billions of dollars they'd be quickly able to take advantage of for themselves and their cronies...

LOL

Thanks for the peek in to the conservative leadership's thought process

 

[TheDude]

No, no, Calabrio, you don't understand. This is perfect for Deville and his libwack friends. This way they get to appease their envirowack friends while at the same time bashing the President for high gas prices and dependence on foreign oil.

By the way, that story is falsified spin. The reason the 22 Republicans stood up against the bill is because the leadership f-ed up and erased some spending cuts from the bill, which gutted the true intent of the bill, which was to improve fiscal responsibility.

Lol... I truly think you you go against any issue if it has any sort of liberalness to it.

By the way, if we were to drill every last drop out of there we would still be dependant on foreign oil. Not that you care, but we would.

F#$% the enviroment, after all, we won't have to live in the cesspool we make, our grand kid's will. Good attitude Fossten.

 

[TheDude]

Sounds to me like the leadership isn't really concerned with how much the American public spends each year, rather they're more concerned that the arctic national wildlife refuge sits on top of billions of dollars they'd be quickly able to take advantage of for themselves and their cronies.

Exactly

 

[Iancusp]

i dont understand why taking the oil would be such a problem
all they have to do is just drill in certain areas y not take the oil im gettin tired of these crazy gas prices

 

[Calabrio]

The issue goes back to your complete lack of economic understanding.

The idea isn't to rely entirely upon the ANWR to meet all of the oil needs in this country. The idea is to increase production which would then cause the global price to drop. And, in an emergency, it would provide an source of energy.

The enviromental impact of this move is miniscule. Despite being demonized by the anti-capitalist enviromentalists, no one intends to drill in lush populated forests or disturbing some densely populated landscape. We're talking about the tundra.. It's a friggin' wasteland. In addition, it's only a tiny piece of that vast wasteland that would have to be developed.

These people who oppose drilling here are hypocrits. When gas is cheap, they complain that it's too inexpense and encourages wasteful behavior. When fuel is expensive, they use it as a political club to attack the President with. When ideas are presented that will result in lower fuel prices, they oppose them. There's no solution unless we can build a wind mill powered Honda in the near future.

Build refineries.
Increase drilling.
These are necessary to address the short term problems.
And provide tax incentives to companies working to develop alternative fuels.
Long term strategies are ten years into the future, at best.

Oh, look... those are some of the elements of the BUSH energy plan.

 

[raVeneyes]

i dont understand why taking the oil would be such a problem
all they have to do is just drill in certain areas y not take the oil im gettin tired of these crazy gas prices

The primary concern is that taking oil out of the ground is not a clean process. Even forgetting very public very visible accidents like the Valdez oil spill, and the Alaskan oil pipeline rupture, just the basic process of oil drilling pollutes the environment around the site quite a bit. Oil drilling releases toxins in to the atmosphere and puts them in to the local ecology. The local ecology is what environmentalists are concerned about though. Much of this area is a unique environment in the world...duplicated no where else, with unique flora and fauna that can not be found anywhere else. Every time humans have gone to an area of the planet and significantly changed the environment, we've found out later that it was a bad idea, either for the world as a whole or, in an even more ironic twist, locally for whatever we were trying to accomplish in the first place (i.e. mudslides in california because of deforestation and placing homes in bad areas, or the changes to the ecosystems of many of the northeast's rivers due to industrial waste/damming and the resulting toxic food supply).

It's a messy process and rather than tap in to another oil supply we should leave nature unspoiled and find an alternate source of fuel.

Not to mention the fact that drilling the arctic would not affect oil prices in the least.

The only thing that would benefit this country is to find an alternate fuel source (like bio diesel) and sell our oil to countries like China.

 

[MonsterMark]

I love liberals. Let's go steal everyone else's oil in the world instead of using our own. Now I need to add the term selfish to the liberal dictionary.

Selfish hypocrites = liberals.

http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm
TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR
1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are 4.2 billion dollars.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 943,000 barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2004 the US imported an average of 58% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $150 billion in oil imports and over $170 billion including refined petroleum products. That¹s $19.9 million dollars an hour! Including defence costs the number would be nearly a trillion dollars.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.

9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

 

[MonsterMark]

Just a little good news for those who care about the enviroment.

Save the Arctic Ground Squirrel. Look at him. He is soooo cute. How can he survive with all the oil rushing thru that pipe over his hole?

Please donate to: Save the Squirrel. Call 1-800-LIB-ERAL. Do it now before it is too late.

 

[raVeneyes]

I love liberals. Let's go steal everyone else's oil in the world instead of using our own. Now I need to add the term selfish to the liberal dictionary.

Selfish hypocrites = liberals.

What?

Is that directed at me?

Because I don't see anything about stealing oil from anywhere else in my side of the argument

 

[MonsterMark]

What?

Is that directed at me?

Because I don't see anything about stealing oil from anywhere else in my side of the argument

Not directed at you. I do not condone nor contribute to personal attacks.

What I love about liberalism is the cause and effect.

Like Brin and Page from Google. Here are some fine liberals and environmentalists who drive, of all things, Toyota hybrids. They even give employees $5000 a pop to buy these cars. Life is so good. See, we are helping the environment.

But then the hypocrite that lurks in all liberals surfaces its selfish head. The boys run out and buy a 767 airliner. I don't even mind the $50 million plus they are spending 'fixing' it up. What bother me is the amount of 'fuel' these two will now consume ~ to satisfy their selfish needs. They could have simply hopped on a plane that was already going where they needed to go, BUT NO, they have to go when and where THEY want.

I posted this as a little insight into the mind of the selfish hypocrite.

 

[TheDude]

Save the Arctic Ground Squirrel. Look at him. He is soooo cute. How can he survive with all the oil rushing thru that pipe over his hole?

Please donate to: Save the Squirrel. Call 1-800-LIB-ERAL. Do it now before it is too late.

Ya, f*&% the animals, f*&% the enviroment & f*&% the future. Like I said, we won't have to deal with the mess we make, future generations will. F*&% the future generations too! Funny, if you think about it, thats a form of 'Taxation without representation'. We make the mess, their going to have to pay to fix it.

If everything you posted where true, it isn't a terrible plan. But do you really think when they start drilling they will be content with only taking just a little? Don't worry though, it will happen eventually and it won't just be a small amount of drilling. That entire region will slowly turn into a toxic dump; pollution has a way of spreading.

 

[TheDude]

But then the hypocrite that lurks in all liberals surfaces its selfish head. The boys run out and buy a 767 airliner. I don't even mind the $50 million plus they are spending 'fixing' it up. What bother me is the amount of 'fuel' these two will now consume ~ to satisfy their selfish needs. They could have simply hopped on a plane that was already going where they needed to go, BUT NO, they have to go when and where THEY want.

You mean people shouldn't have what they can afford? Watch it, you're gonna turn Fossten on you for such communistic ideas.

 

[Calabrio]

It's interesting how so many people are opposed to any degree of energy independence. On a forum where we all own large V8 automobiles of all places.

If you don't support drilling in the middle of nowhere, where do you support?
Offshore? Where else?

You can't have your cake and eat it to. If you want to have some degree of energy independence and inexpensive fuel, then you have to support the means necessary to drill and refine it.

This is the hypocracy of the socialist enviromentalist left. They oppose drilling for more petroleum. And they oppose nuclear power. They also oppose the use of the bio-diesel. They pretend the energy needs of the country can be met with windmills and solar panels. Too bad that's a fairy tale.

 

[Calabrio]

You mean people shouldn't have what they can afford? Watch it, you're gonna turn Fossten on you for such communistic ideas.

I'm sure MonsterMark supports the right of those guys to buy whatever ridiculous jet plane they want. But to condemn the rest of us for not buying those ridiculous Prius cars is the height of hypocracy.

If you want to be some kind of enlightened enviromentalist, you really should live the life all the time. "Do as I say, not as I do." And a 767 is about as extreme an example as anyone could possibly think of.

 

[TheDude]

You can drill into every inch of this planet, but the price at the pump for a gallon of gas will not go down in a significant way. Do you really think Exxon (or any oil comp) will say "Hey, we have a huge surplus of oil now, let’s lower the price.” Do you really think they care more for you than their profits? Only way to be dependant from foreign energy sources is to invest into alternative fuels. That or go invade an oil rich country and claim complete sovereignty. Maybe we could annex Iraq?

 

[TheDude]

If you want to be some kind of enlightened enviromentalist, you really should live the life all the time. "Do as I say, not as I do." And a 767 is about as extreme an example as anyone could possibly think of.

You're absolutely right on that part. I have no idea what the google guys said, but if they are being hypocrites, then F them. As far as the 'Do as I say, not as I do', im with you there, there are plenty of examples of that going on, most religious people for one.

 

[FreeFaller]

Honest answer to the letter...

My species didn't claw it's way to the top of the food chain to tiptoe around mother nature. We can drill there and do it responsibly. We don't have to wipe out mother nature to take advantage of the resources available in the ANWR. By our mere presence on this planet we impact the environment. Everything we do and touch requires some sort of resource from this planet. What should we do...go back to living in caves? How about you turn your car and walk yourself to and fro if your so bloody concerned about mankinds inevitable destruction of Earth.

There are plans to make underwater "wavemills" that would harness the power of oceanic currents...but I suppose that would be a bad idea too since a few friggin plankton and a turtle might get shook up.


...oh but look at the google ad on the bottom of the page. Your stance is supported by Barbara Boxer...nuff said.

 

[TheDude]

Honest answer to the letter...

My species didn't claw it's way to the top of the food chain to tiptoe around mother nature. We can drill there and do it responsibly. We don't have to wipe out mother nature to take advantage of the resources available in the ANWR. By our mere presence on this planet we impact the environment. Everything we do and touch requires some sort of resource from this planet. What should we do...go back to living in caves? How about you turn your car and walk yourself to and fro if your so bloody concerned about mankinds inevitable destruction of Earth.

There are plans to make underwater "wavemills" that would harness the power of oceanic currents...but I suppose that would be a bad idea too since a few friggin plankton and a turtle might get shook up.


...oh but look at the google ad on the bottom of the page. Your stance is supported by Barbara Boxer...nuff said.

Becareful when mentioning any kind of 'evolution' theory, it's touchy in here.

I agree with you that we do not have to wipe out mother nature to claim resources, unfortunately, doing it the clean way cost some extra money and the oil companies don't want their profit margins messed with. It's cheaper to do it the dirty way, if you don't believe me, look around at world wide polution problem we face.

 

[fossten]

Lol... I truly think you you go against any issue if it has any sort of liberalness to it.

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT.

By the way, if we were to drill every last drop out of there we would still be dependant on foreign oil. Not that you care, but we would.

Don't you mean, not that YOU care? It's supposedly your lib leaders in Washington who are complaining about the oil prices and our foreign dependency.

F#$% the enviroment, after all, we won't have to live in the cesspool we make, our grand kid's will. Good attitude Fossten.

You make this reckless statement knowing NOTHING about environmental issues with regard to oil. You're just spouting talking points. If you want to debate the environment versus production, LET'S GET IT ON. I CAN'T WAIT.

 

[fossten]

You mean people shouldn't have what they can afford? Watch it, you're gonna turn Fossten on you for such communistic ideas.

Despite your 'personal reference', I understand what Bryan is doing. He's pointing out hypocrisy, not condemning luxury. And he's doing it in a way that is sarcastic, using the absurd typical liberal tactic of criticizing wealth to illustrate absurdity at the same time. Quite brilliant, actually, and not surprising that it went over your head, nor is it surprising that you'd offer up a response far less brilliant than his.

 

[barry2952]

That was lame David.