Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is likely to be approved soon by the Senate. Bush has been drooling over this since 2000, and it’s closer to reality now than ever before. Same as they did last year, the Republican leadership has inserted this bill into a major budget measure, which can’t be filibustered. Last year this tactic almost worked — until several Republican senators defected and voted against the drilling.
This year, with a larger majority in the Senate, Republicans are on the verge of realizing their longtime wet dream of raping the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
As they’ve been doing for several years, they’re trying to frame this as a national security issue — any oil we get from Alaska is oil we won’t be buying from OPEC. During the 2002 midterm elections, the mouth-breathing wing of the Republican party was actually accusing drilling opponents of loving Osama bin Laden and hating the 9/11 victims.
It’s been shown that improvements in gas mileage, and increased use of mass transit, would save more oil than the amount estimated to be in ANWR. But somehow this same national security paranoia never comes up when legislators are trying to pass energy conservation measures.
Go figure.
posted by Tom Harper @ 12:12 AM
10 Comments:
I usually just pass on by this blog after a quick scan to see what your topic of the day is, but this used to be a pet issue of mine. Drilling in ANWR is very misunderstood. I'm dating myself with this data but...Back in 1987 while working on my undergraduate degree I wrote a research paper on the effects of oil exploration (some say exploitation) on the ecosystem around ANWR where drilling has been going on for years. I focused mainly on the caribou herd and damage to the tundra permafrost. More on next post.
As it turned out the caribou population actually increased in size and became healthier than it was previously. Same story for the predator packs of wolves in the area. The actuall sites were small and left a mere toeprint on the landscape. The main detractor was the roads that were build between the sites. But new understandings on the problem and seasonal use of the roads only when they can use packed snow instead of mud have greatly reduced if not eliminated the effects of the roads. More...
So...Using the environment is a bogus reason to object to oil drilling in ANWR.
Did you know that the US actually imports more oil from Canada than any other nation. Most of this oil comes from the same oil field as ANWR, just on the east side of the border. Maybe there is an alterior motive for the massive effort to stop us from using our own oil. The ultimate reason is not the environment, it's all economics and politics in someone else's best interest.
By the way, in 1987 I thought I was a democrat ( I didn't know the difference between a liberal and conservative) so...I trust my research, I hope you will at least give it some thought and not just dismiss it as propaganda.
Have a nice day.
Hurricane Bob, thanks for your explanation, you stole my fire. However, I would submit, liberals DO know the facts but simply choose to ignore them. Have you seen some of the ads against ANWAR drilling? They show some of the truely beautiful expanses of Alaska, NOWHERE NEAR THE ANWAR PROPOSED DRILLING AREA, then tell people that drilling in ANWAR would destroy this (the beautiful area shown). The liberals have left the realm of being misguided on this issue, and entered the realm of MALICIOUSLY LYING. With all this talk about trying to relate to the "moral values" voters, maybe liberals should learn that HONESTY is a moral value.
Correction ANWAR = ANWR
Btw, I heard that Caribou were actually seen sticking close to the pipe for warmth during the really cold months.
Hurrican Bob: Thanks for your comments. I certainly hope you're right, since the drilling sounds like a done deal.
Nice to hear from you again, fm_illuminatus. Glad to see you're still in top form.
Thank's thhofpa22. :)
The facts are the Canadian domestic oil supply is exclusively guarenteed to the United States under NAFTA. In other words Americans will pay no more than a Canadian for the oil they use. Most producers of this Domestic North American oil supply are American Coporate interests who are keenly aware of the potential profit currently out of their reach in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. Previous generations thought enough of the future to protect the land from exploitation. As long as Canadian reserves meet the national energy needs of America, what possible reason can justify ripping apart a National "reserve"?
It is obvious nothing more than greed even at the expense of a National treasure is at work here.
Anonymous, did you fail to read the previous posts? I think I already established that this so called "national reserve" you are trying to protect is a DESOLATE WASTELAND in habited by some pipe loving caribou and artic wolves, and Hurricane Bob established that the ecosystem of this DESOLATE WASTELAND seemed to be in some ways even BETTER OFF after the pipe project. You need to get with the program "anonymous". Or, are you purposely trying to deceive someone?
Post a Comment
<< Home