Posted on 11/15/2005 7:00:29 AM PST by FerdieMurphy
American petro-dollars continue flowing to terrorist-sponsoring oil producing states and American soldiers fight in what leftists call a “war for oil” in Iraq. In spite of this, Congressional debate on oil drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) is once again going down to the wire.
A group of 24 “moderate” Republican congressmen mostly from North East states joined Democrats on November 9 in stripping the House Budget Bill of a provision opening ANWR to drilling after hordes of home-district “environmental” activists lobbied them at their Washington offices. Senators, on the other hand, have voted 51-47 November 3 against the so-called “Cantwell Amendment” – thus keeping ANWR drilling authorization in their budget bill. The two conflicting versions now go to conference to be reconciled; President Bush has pledged to sign authorization for ANWR drilling should a bill reach his desk.
The same left-wing activists who claim that the liberation of Iraq is really a “war for oil” are doing everything they can to prevent oil and gas drilling in ANWR or anywhere else within the United States. Many in the media are busy asserting that Alaskan Natives oppose ANWR drilling and that drilling poses a grave danger to Alaskan caribou herds. Neither of these statements is true. A typical example of media deceit on ANWR is this quote from MSNBC:
“Congress could soon approve drilling in the refuge, a move opposed by environmentalists who along with Inupiat Eskimos also oppose offshore arctic development because of possible risks to migrating whales and other wildlife.”
This passage strongly implies that the Inupiat are opposed to drilling ANWR—this is false. The Inupiat oppose only offshore drilling, which is not currently technically feasible in the ANWR area. Their support for ANWR on-shore drilling is explained on the website of the city of Kaktovik, AK (population 286)--the only human settlement in ANWR:
“The essence of the Kaktovik position is that we would support oil exploration and development of the coastal plain provided we are given the authority and the resources to ensure that it is done properly and safely. Without the necessary provisions to ensure this protection, we would not.”
Leftists point to one of the very few native groups to oppose drilling—the Gwich’in—but do not note that they are located hundreds of miles south of ANWR on the other side of the Brooks Range. The majority of Gwich’in live in Canada. Another native group opposing oil drilling in ANWR is the native city of Point Hope, AK—700 miles from ANWR. The vast majority of Alaskan Native corporations support drilling as do the vast majority of Alaskans.
In Hawaii, where activists are working feverishly to reverse the two key pro-ANWR-drilling votes of Hawaii Democrat Senators Akaka and Inouye (pledged in exchange for Alaska Senators Stevens and Murkowski for the Akaka Bill, which would tribalize Native Hawaiians as Native Alaskans and American Indians), the Honolulu Weekly criticizes pro-drilling Alaskan Natives as “corporate”, denouncing one Native group as “the largest landowner in South East Alaska.” Other leftists denounce Hawaiian activists who accept Alaska-based funding. Apparently the only “real” Natives are the ones who line up with environmentalist dogma. In Alaska and Hawaii, ethnicity is being transformed into a political position.
Media accounts of ANWR feature photos of caribou and musk oxen frolicking in fields of wildflowers. The Artic slope looks like this for about one month of the year. A more realistic image of harsh ANWR environment can be found in the photo galleries of the Kaktovik, AK city website.
The Sierra Club claims that, “the harm to wildlife and this spectacular wilderness would be permanent and irreparable.” ANWR is 19 million acres – larger than Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, Connecticut and Delaware combined. If oil is found, less than 2,000 acres would be directly affected.
Caribou herds in Alaska’s existing North Slope drilling areas have actually increased in size since drilling began. Caribou around the Prudhoe Bay oilfield increased from about 3,000 in the 1970s to over 32,000 today. The Porcupine herd, which occupies the ANWR areas currently blocked from drilling, decreased in the same period. If they were truly concerned about the caribou, logically the Sierra Club should be demanding more drilling, not less.
Since most Alaskan Native groups support drilling and wildlife actually are doing better in the drilling areas, what is the real "environmental" goal?
Their agenda is revealed in the “Earth Charter”, endorsed by the Sierra Club and many other so-called environmentalists, which reads: "the dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation.” They want to destroy the free enterprise system and replace it with a system that the Earth Charter says, “Promote(s) the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations” – in other words, socialism.
In order to destroy free enterprise, the eco-socialists are using false arguments about Alaskan natives, false images of life in ANWR and false claims about the effect of oil drilling on wildlife. Their real goal and its affect on the day-to-day life of millions of humans is contained in the preamble to the Earth Charter which reads: “when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more.”
In a first world context this leads to recession and unemployment. In a third world context this leads to poverty, disease, and starvation. The only way forward for humanity and the environment is through economic development and improved technology. Prosperity leads to improved human health and also to improved natural environments. Poverty damages both. By pushing poverty-creating policies, the so called “environmentalists” are actually damaging the environment. For them, socialism is more important than the environment they claim to protect.
Gutless wonders!
I was so mad when I read they took ANWR off the table. What good does it do to elect Republicans who behave exactly like Democrats? Should make every one of them do without their cars for a couple of months if they think our own source of oil isn't important.
Not gutless wonders. They are voting their constituents desires. The North East is the last bastion of the old Republican party and anyone from that region who is an elected Republican should be viewed as a Democrat. That means of course that the Republicans do not have a true majority in either the Senate or the House.
Bingo.
And probably never will have again.
and why Dennis Hastert hasn't taken these 24 RINO's to the woodshed is a mystery to me.
in fact if Hastert is truly the Speaker of the House; he should grow a spine and take the ENTIRE HOUSE TO THE WOODSHED!
American troops are dying daily fighting a war while these clowns in DC sit on their hands and we continue to purchase crude oil from the Middleast???
Time for Congress to decide whose side they are on!
Semper Fi,
Kelly
After watching them behave like Democrats with the budget, open up the borders and fail to secure our energy future I don't believe I'll be voting for them again.
If other conservatives sit on their hands in 2006 and that means minority status, in name as well as fact, then the message will have been sent loud and clear.
It helps to restate the obvious at times for those who aren't paying attention.
Don't forget that the LSM is putting out videos of kayakers going down rushing streams and mountains and herds of caribou when they show "ANWR" when in truth the area to be drilled in looks more like a frozen Walmart parking lot and there are few if any animals around and definitely no tourists.
It would be nice if an outgoing oil executive held a new conference, pulled and Ayn Rand on them, and said, "Here's a shovel. If you all are so damn smart, you figure how to get oil out of the ground and turn it into gasoline. I quit."
Its baffling how some of the coldest states in the country keep voting people into office who make it harder for them to get the fuel they need to heat their homes.
Is there nothing the government/people of Alaska can do to force the issue? It is their state, after all.
A gravel pad would be constructed offshore. This has been done in Prudhoe Bay and is a large project but not difficult. Construction is done in winter when the ground is frozen, as well as the sea, and heavy equipment--front-end loaders, bulldozers and scrapers--can move freely without disturbing the muck of summer.
That would be too much.
And here I thought what passes for Reps in the Senate were the gutless wonders.
FReepmail me to be added or removed to the ECO-PING list!
I'm about as 'moderate' as it gets as far as environmental issues are concerned but I do not understand why we shouldn't drill there. It okay to exploit the environment in other areas (often times in more sensitive ecosystems) where environmental regulation is much less but we can't do it while doing it the right way. Pure hipocracy! Unless you consume 0 oil you have no right to criticize drilling.
Not one.
Offshore drilling often does more to relieve the pressure that causes natural seeps than it is a threat to beaches and tide pools. Cabrillo described the coast of California off Santa Barbara as black with oil. The Chumash tribe used to seal their boats with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.