TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Senate rejects oil drilling in Alaska wildlife refuge
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Senate rejects oil drilling in Alaska wildlife refuge
| quote: |
| WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate on Wednesday narrowly rejected oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge, rebuffing the Bush administration on a top energy goal it had hoped to win with a wartime security appeal. Despite intense lobbying by pro-drilling senators and the White House in the hours leading up to the vote, Democrats mustered the support needed to remove a drilling provision from a budget resolution expected to be approved later this week. An amendment offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, to strip away the provision passed 52-48. Development of the millions of barrels of oil beneath the 100-mile coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern Alaska has been a key part of President Bush's energy plan. Environmentalists contended drilling there would jeopardize a pristine area valued for its wildlife. All but five Democrats voted against refuge drilling. There were eight Republicans who joined the Democrats in favor of barring oil companies from the refuge. With one or two senators holding the balance, both sides stepped up their lobbying to try to sway anyone thinking of shifting. Freshman Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minnesota, under intense pressure, signaled he might vote in favor of drilling. But in the end, Coleman, who succeed the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, an ardent opponent of drilling, sided with the Democrats. Drilling supporters failed last year to open the refuge to the oil industry because they couldn't get 60 votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, although the House approved oil development. This year, Republicans made the measure part of a budget resolution, which is not subject to filibuster, forcing Democrats and a handful of anti-drilling GOP senators, to try to strip the provision from the budget document. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, argued that Congress in 1980 made a commitment that the oil beneath the coastal plain -- part of a 19-million-acre refuge -- eventually would be tapped. Stevens and other drilling supporters also said that with government-imposed restrictions and the use of modern technology the oil could be pumped without harming the coastal plain's wildlife. "We're not using a lot of land," said Stevens, maintaining that the "footprint" left by the oil wells would be less than 2,000 acres. Environmental concerns But environmentalists countered that the footprint would be scattered over 1.5 million acres of coastal tundra, disturbing polar bears in their dens, affecting calving grounds for caribou and interfering with millions of migratory birds that swoop down on the plain each summer. In the hours before the vote, the White House stepped up pressure on Republicans who might be wavering. With war looming in Iraq, proponents of pumping the oil in the refuge have focused on energy security, arguing the ANWR oil would help America reduce its reliance on precarious foreign supplies. It's the largest untapped reserve of oil in North America, declared Stevens. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-New Mexico, said lawmakers must not "throw away" the refuge's oil. "It's almost impossible to prove that ANWR will be damaged" by development he said. Democrats disagreed, arguing the refuge's oil was not nearly enough to significantly impact imports. "While endangering one of the most pristine areas in the world, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would do nothing to make our country more energy independent," said Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. He said none of the oil would flow out of the refuge for 10 years. Boxer argued that the United States could save more oil than the refuge would produce "by just getting the SUVs to have the same fuel economy as autos." "This is a national treasure," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, one of the Democrats who successfully blocked attempts to lift the drilling ban last year. "God only gave us 3 percent of the world's oil. The Middle East has about 65 percent ... and a 2 percent difference for the destruction of the wilderness does not solve America's problem." How much oil is beneath the refuge's coastal plain is uncertain because only one exploratory well has been drilled and its results have not been made public. The Interior Department estimates that the plain could have anywhere from 5.7 billion barrels to 16 billion barrels. Environmentalists argue that much less oil than that -- no more than about 3.2 billion barrels -- is likely to be useful for oil companies to pursue. Major oil companies, in fact, have begun to lose interest in the refuge. The United States uses about 20 million barrels of oil a day. Democrats who voted against Boxer's amendment were John Breaux and Mary Landrieu, both of Louisiana; Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye, both of Hawaii, and Zell Miller of Georgia. All five had voted in favor of drilling last year as well. The eight Republicans who voted against oil development were Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine; Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island; Gordon Smith of Oregon; Mike DeWine of Ohio; Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois; John McCain of Arizona, and Coleman |
Me too ... I wouldn't mind paying a few extra pennies for gas to preserve Alaska. I really hate Bush's environmental policies.
As one that's been to Alaska I say to bad this happened.
I wouldn't mind giving up some Animal refuge if it helped American energy independence.
It's ironic how the world turns around a three letter word....O I L...
People are ready to go to war because of it...
People are ready to take innocent lives because of it....
People are unwilling to change because of it...
Go'vt's are willing to lie to their own people because of it...
best American news of the day!
heh...there's no real need to drill in alaska anyways. once Saddam goes down, you can put a US flag over the map of Iraq = US oil fields
>JM<
| quote: |
| Originally posted by JM heh...there's no real need to drill in alaska anyways. once Saddam goes down, you can put a US flag over the map of Iraq = US oil fields >JM< |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tranced_out It's ironic how the world turns around a three letter word....O I L... People are ready to go to war because of it... People are ready to take innocent lives because of it.... People are unwilling to change because of it... Go'vt's are willing to lie to their own people because of it... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by JM heh...there's no real need to drill in alaska anyways. once Saddam goes down, you can put a US flag over the map of Iraq = US oil fields >JM< |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by JM heh...there's no real need to drill in alaska anyways. once Saddam goes down, you can put a US flag over the map of Iraq = US oil fields >JM< |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider I don't get your argument. The US senate REJECTED the application to drill in Alaska. I think you need a new pair of eye glasses. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tranced_out ...it's not just abt drilling in Alaska. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tranced_out I think you need a new brain...it's not just abt drilling in Alaska. R u blind abt the current situation in the world. Abt why the American gov't went into Afghanistan and now in Iraq. Ohh yea u r blind... |
dude it's all interconnected. u'r missing the bigger picture. do u think they would have gone to war to take control over the oil reserves of central asian countries. or gone to war against Iraq, if they had been allowed to drill in Alaska, which by the way has an abundance of oil reserves...
This American gov't is all about the oil and nothing else. so u see it does relate to this topic. 
Possibly, but can we have at least one thread where Iraq, WOMDs, etc. aren't mentioned?
up yours Dick Cheney...what a turd.
at least he gets to rake in the millions as halliburton cleans up Iraq!
and all from the comfort of home, no international travel necessary! shudder|
Rejection of the drilling was one of the two pieces of positive news today:
A man with an I.Q. of 67, who was on death row for murder, was taken off the "row" by direct order of John Ashcroft. Numerous legal organizations and ethics professors had argued that killing a legally retarded man constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and in a rare moment of clarity, Ashcroft agreed.
I guess Republicans are giving progressives a millimeter of concessions in an effort quell any possible political dissent.
(BTW, The Clinton administration oversaw the execution of Ricky Ray Rector a few years back, a man with a 65 IQ who saved part of the pecan pie from last meal "for later.")....
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Konijn Island (BTW, The Clinton administration oversaw the execution of Ricky Ray Rector a few years back, a man with a 65 IQ who saved part of the pecan pie from last meal "for later.").... |
It was wierd though, that Bush wanted a majority of republcians both in the House and the Senate so his plans and agenda could be passed out, but even so, the Alaska Drilling was rejected, which Im happy for
It was wierd though, that Bush wanted a majority of republcians both in the House and the Senate so his plans and agenda could be passed out, but even so, the Alaska Drilling was rejected, which Im happy for
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Konijn Island Rejection of the drilling was one of the two pieces of positive news today: A man with an I.Q. of 67, who was on death row for murder, was taken off the "row" by direct order of John Ashcroft. Numerous legal organizations and ethics professors had argued that killing a legally retarded man constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and in a rare moment of clarity, Ashcroft agreed. I guess Republicans are giving progressives a millimeter of concessions in an effort quell any possible political dissent. (BTW, The Clinton administration oversaw the execution of Ricky Ray Rector a few years back, a man with a 65 IQ who saved part of the pecan pie from last meal "for later.").... |
I'm very glad the US Senate refused to drill in Alaska... but who knows, maybe they'll change their minds in the future.
It's really too bad that people are so bent on squeezing the planet of every drop of oil, to the detrimental expense of wildflife and ecology, nay life itself, to feed overinflated energy needs. Shouldn't even be called "needs"... rather, energy superfluities.
We should be pursuing alternate energy sources! Now for a reply to JM's:
| quote: |
| Originally posted by JM heh...there's no real need to drill in alaska anyways. once Saddam goes down, you can put a US flag over the map of Iraq = US oil fields >JM< |
I still think Alaska should be Canadian again.
| quote: |
| [i] Actually JM, don't be narrow-minded. Try to see things from all perspectives, and I mean this - what about the Iraqi's? If the US plants their flag over the oil fields (which might have already been done), isn't this infringing on Iraq's ownership of their own natural resources? You can't just steal someone's oil like that. It's absolutely wrong. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Mental Exodus I still think Alaska should be Canadian again. |
| quote: |
Article I His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, agrees to cede to the United States, by this convention, immediately upon the exchange of the ratifications thereof, all the territory and dominion now possessed by his said Majesty on the continent of America and in adjacent islands, the same being contained within the geographical limits herein set forth, to wit: The eastern limit is the line of demarcation between the Russian and the British possessions in North America, as established by the convention between Russia and Great Britain, of February 28�16, 1825, and described in Articles III and IV of said convention, in the following terms: 4 �III Commencing from the southernmost point of the island called Prince of Wales Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes north latitude, and between the 131st and 133d degree of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich), the said line shall ascend to the north along the channel called Portland Channel, as far as the point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude; from this last-mentioned point, the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast, as far as the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude (of the same meridian); and finally, from the said point of intersection, the said meridian line of the 141st degree, in its prolongation as far as the Frozen Ocean. 5 �IV With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding article, it is understood� 6 �1st That the island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia� (now, by this cession to the United States). 7 �2d That whenever the summit of the mountains which extend in a direction parallel to the coast, from the 56th degree of north latitude to the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude, shall prove to be at the distance of more than ten marine leagues from the ocean, the limit between the British possessions and the line of coast which is to belong to Russia as above mentioned (that is to say, the limit to the possessions ceded by this convention), shall be formed by a line parallel to the winding of the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of ten marine leagues therefrom.� 8 The western limit within which the territories and dominion conveyed are contained passes through a point in Behring�s Straits on the parallel of sixty-five degrees thirty minutes north latitude, at its intersection by the meridian which passes midway between the islands of Krusenstern of Ignalook, and the island of Ratmanoff, or Noonarbook, and proceeds due north without limitation, into the same Frozen Ocean. The same western limit, beginning at the same initial point, proceeds thence in a course nearly southwest, through Behring�s Straits and Behring�s Sea, so as to pass midway between the northwest point of the island of St. Lawrence and the southeast point of Cape Choukotski, to the meridian of one hundred and seventy-two west longitude; thence, from the intersection of that meridian, in a southwesterly direction, so as to pass midway between the island of Attou and the Copper Island of the Kormandorski couplet or group, in the North Pacific Ocean, to the meridian of one hundred and ninety-three degrees west longitude, so as to include in the territory conveyed the whole of the Aleutian Islands east of that meridian. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.