Alaska wildlife refuge's fate again hangs in balance (Seattle P-I)

[icymist]

Monday, February 28, 2005

Alaska wildlife refuge's fate again hangs in balance
Republicans renew the push for drilling, but big oil wavers

By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

WASHINGTON -- Even on its best day, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an austere place, a sprawling block of land on Alaska's northern edge the size of South Carolina that is sparsely populated and two steps beyond remote.

Yet ANWR is looming large in Congress again, touching off a fierce battle over competing goals of protecting the environment and increasing domestic production of oil and gas. The pace -- and the intensity -- is expected to pick up in the coming weeks as congressional committees begin considering legislation to allow drilling in ANWR.

<snip>

Republicans, emboldened by bigger majorities in the House and Senate, believe this is the best chance they've had to finally pass a bill since 1995, when Congress approved drilling only to have it vetoed by President Clinton.

Critics point to their own changes. Foremost is a pronounced lack of interest in ANWR from some big oil companies. BP, ConocoPhillips and ChevronTexaco have withdrawn from Arctic Power, the business coalition formed to lobby for drilling in ANWR. Among big oil companies, only Exxon Mobil Corp. remains.

<snip>

"For the sake of this economy and for the sake of national security, Congress needs to pass an energy plan and get it to my desk as soon as possible so we can become less reliant on foreign sources of energy," Bush said.

more:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/213821_anwr28.html

[Lorien]

1. Nice spin on ANWR; makes it sound like a wasteland

it is not; it's teeming with life, and is the breeding ground for caribou; a keystone species.

What American's don't understand is that the estimated reserves in ANWR would, at best, only fuel the state of California for a couple of months-and the project would take TEN YEARS! The TAXPAYERS would subsidize all of the road construction and infrastructure (who knows which crony would get that contract, probably Halliburtan)while one or more of *'s big donors would take all the profit. It's nothing more than a costly payoff at our expense!

Making American cars just 10% more fuel efficient would do a great deal more for us than any costly new drilling projects would, but that won't happen. It's all about BIG PROFITS NOW, and the auto manufacturers are in bed with the oil barons. We get taxed, pay more for fuel, and ruin the environment-all so BushCo's buddies can line their pockets; when will we say ENOUGH!?

[icymist]

2. Indeed! When will we say 'enough'!

I say 10% more fuel efficient isn't enough, let's go for 20%. We have the technology. We can do it and be a leader in the world for such.

[Lorien]

6. That's the truly sickening part

we HAVE the technology! Not only that, but we are no longer the innovators of great NEW technologies; we leave that to the Japanese and Europeans.

The days of America's superpower status are coming to an end. The deficit, the trade imbalance, our lack of innovation and imagination; we are swiftly becoming economically and morally bankrupt. We are becoming a nation of cowed consumers, not proud citizens.

[KDLarsen]

12. 10% more fuel efficient cars..

.. do you have a figure on the average mileage of normal family cars? I have an itch that a good part of that percentage could come from a switch to more fuel efficient cars that already do exist.

[Lorien]

14. I don't have one on hand, but I do know

that Ford's 2005 fleet gets significantly WORSE mileage than their 1920 fleet!

[KDLarsen]

15. That's insane!

I think my dad's car is pretty bad (it's a 1993 Ford Escort), and it goes 15 km/l (my conversion says 45 miles/gallon, but that sounds way off). My moms new car goes 20 km/l (which would be 60 going by the above calculation) - how does that compare to the cars sold in the US at the moment?

[illflem]

3. Like the way this headline put it

Bush Readying Backdoor Route to Drill Arctic Refuge
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/022605X.shtml

makes it sound like junior is bending ANWAR over a barrel and giving it to it from behind.

[maxsolomon]

4. ANWR rape: lets get it over with

even alaska liberals are for it (they love their oil brib.. i mean dividends!). my buddy in anchorage told me "most americans won't come within 3000 miles of ANWR in their lifetimes". so fuck it, i guess.

its going to happen.

the sooner the oil is mined, the sooner it will be burned, the sooner it will run out, the sooner the economic collapse & end of american hegemony will come, the sooner the earth can start healing.

[Lorien]

5. There ought to be some places on earth

that man doesn't come close enough to destroy!

We should NEVER just say "get it over with"; that's EXACTLY what the GOP wants! They want to beat us down, and every victory emboldens them to greater extremism. I heard one GOP senator say two years ago "nobody really thinks we'll get much of anything from ANWR; even the oil companies aren't enthusiastic about drilling there, but it's a SYMBOLIC DEFEAT of liberalism". So 'get it over with"? HELL NO!!

[blindpig]

7. in the meantime......

how many species will edge closer to extinction up there? I'll never go there but it's very important that such places continue to be, they are irreplacable. An earth left to rats, roaches and starlings is such an insult.....

[belpejic]

8. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

I've been a lurker here for several years, but this is a topic
that I'm passionate about so I feel compelled to post.

I went on a two week backpacking trip in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge last summer. (As an aside, please don't call
it ANWR -- referring to it as an acronym robs it of
significance.) Granted, I was mostly on the continental divide
of the Brooks Range and on the south slope. However, it was
one of the most remarkable trips I've ever taken. It's so
remote, so wild, so beautiful. Picture a remote landscape,
without trees, without trails, without humans, with jagged,
glacier-clad mountains rising from relatively low altitudes.

There are real concerns about development on the Refuge's
coastal plains. For one, many animals migrate over the summer
to the plains to reproduce and feed. Furthermore, because it's
so cold up there it takes the environment -- the flora, the
tundra -- much longer to heal. You can see shrubs in Arctic
Alaska that have taken decades to grow to their meager height.
In addition, the expansion of traffic up north, primarily over
the Dalton Highway, will only put more stress on a fragile
environment. Finally, some of the arguments put forth --
namely, that the development "footprint" would only
occupy a small number of square miles -- are completely
specious. My table takes up only a few square inches on my
floor, yet it occupies many square feet of available space in
my apartment.

When you really think about it, though, it comes down to
principles. Yes, drilling would produce a fairly significant
amount of oil. And yes, the environment would gradually
recover after all of the oil is pumped. Alaskans would benefit
in the near term from the additional economic activity.

However, drilling in the Refuge will not solve America's long
term energy needs. Furthermore, it's virtually impossible to
visit such unspoiled wilderness in the US today. I think it's
worth it to preserve such unspoiled beauty on conservation
principles alone. It's kind of like the debate on Social
Security -- it's really a debate about government programs and
principles, and not about factual merit. Similarly, this is
really a debate about unfettered development versus
conservation, and I'm definitely on the side of the latter.
Furthermore, the argument extends into energy policy -- for
example, why are we giving away our national treasures to
corporations rather than investing in alternate energy
sources?

I really encourage you to write your federal representatives
about this issue. I know that I'll take it seriously into
account when I vote both in primaries and general elections.

[Damien]

10. thanks for the perspective

i know most of us in the continental 48 have never (and many will never) see the refuge. It's great to get a personal perspective.

I know you said you've been a lurker, but since it was your first post,

Welcome to DU.
:hi:

[belpejic]

11. Thanks

Thanks, Damien. It's fun to be here!

[illflem]

9. Another big problem withe developing the Refuge

is that global warming has caused much of the tundra to thaw out longer and deeper making any road building efforts a major undertaking or major mess.

[ConsAreLiars]

13. These photos by Subhankar Banerjee are worth seeing

You can begin viewing here: http://wwbphoto.com/Photo1-61Icebergs.html