Posted on 01/05/2007 2:21:09 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Opponents of oil drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge are going on the offense after playing defense for a quarter of a century. They want the new Democratic Congress to make an oft-challenged drilling ban permanent.
Legislation introduced in the House on Friday would make the oil-rich 1.2 million-acre coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge a permanently protected wilderness and end repeated efforts to open the area east of the Prudhoe oil field to energy companies.
"The consensus is that there should not be drilling in the refuge, so the logical next step is to pass legislation which turns it into a wilderness," Rep. Edward Markey (news, bio, voting record), chief sponsor of the legislation, said in an interview.
Markey has introduced similar legislation in each of the last three congressional sessions. However, the House has approved drilling in the refuge a half dozen times, only to see the effort die in the Senate were supporters couldn't muster the 60 votes to overcome a likely filibuster.
This time, with Democrats in the majority and a number of moderate Republicans on record as opposed to drilling, Markey believe he has a good chance in the House to go one step farther and declare the refuge permanently off-limits to oil development.
A co-sponsor of the bill is Rep. Jim Ramstad (news, bio, voting record), R-Minn.
Cindy Shogan, executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League, also says this time is different.
"What's changed is we won't have those daily assaults" from pro-drilling forces, she said. "We are definitely on the offense."
Environmentalists said they plan to mobilize the same people that have fought drilling proposals in past years behind the Markey-Ramstad legislation.
Two years ago, when Republicans expanded their majorities in both the House and Senate, the likelihood of opening the refuge to oil development gained new momentum. It already had been a top energy priority of President Bush since 2001.
"Many people had written the obituary for the refuge," said Melinda Pierce, legislative director of the Sierra Club. But a concerted push by pro-drilling forces fell short.
Now Markey believes the momentum is going the other way.
"We now have a majority of House members that have publicly said they oppose any drilling in the refuge. In the previous Congress we were battling the Republicans in the majority who wanted to drill."
Environmentalist know that in the Senate they will need 60 votes to get the wilderness designation, with the filibuster threat coming from Republicans this time. Sen. Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska, who has battled to open the refuge to oil drilling for a quarter century, has not given up.
The coastal strip of ANWR, as the refuge is commonly referred to, is believed to contain 10.5 billion barrels of oil, approaching the size of the Prudhoe Bay field to the west. At peak production the refuge could supply 1 million barrels a day by 2025, according to the Interior Department.
On the other hand, to environmentalists and conservationists the refuge's coastal strip represents the ultimate wild place to be protected. They compare it to the Serengeti in Africa because of the wildlife that abound: polar bears, musk oxen, caribou and millions of migratory birds that fly there as part of their annual migration.
Drilling proponents argue that modern technology can limit the footprint on the coastal tundra and develop the oil without disturbing the wildlife.
Bush, who called for opening the refuge during his 2000 presidential campaign, repeatedly has said its environment can be protected alongside oil rigs. He views the refuge's oil as essential to lessening America's dependence on foreign energy sources.
Markey disagrees.
"Our addiction to oil is real (but) drilling in the refuge would amount to a declaration that we remain in denial about this addiction," he said.
"There are some places in our world that are so rare and so special, that we have a responsibility to protect them."
During construction of the Pipeline in the 70's, a popular bumper sticker was "LET THE BASTARDS FREEZE IN THE DARK." If the shoe fits in 2007, so be it...
She spoke with a forked-tongue.
I guess that explains his overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq...
Are you kidding? Most Alaskans, both Republicans and Democrats strongly support drilling.
The revenue from oil drilling has lifted many communities out of the stone age. Without it they have virtually nothing.
What is so galling is that the eniviros have convinced the public that nuke energy, any oil drilling anywhere, is just horrid and offensive. It doesn't make a difference that many nations are doing just the above. Including the EU nations. Not drilling in the Gulf, off the NE coast, off Fla. and Ca. is criminal. It would ace out OPEC and keep us independent for centuries. As for being addicted, try telling car owners that. And what about coal? Oh no, not that ugly stuff. So we lose out on all those resources because many have swallowed the lie that any other type of energy but the sun is just evil!!
What is so galling is that the eniviros have convinced the public that nuke energy, any oil drilling anywhere, is just horrid and offensive. It doesn't make a difference that many nations are doing just the above. Including the EU nations. Not drilling in the Gulf, off the NE coast, off Fla. and Ca. is criminal. It would ace out OPEC and keep us independent for centuries. As for being addicted, try telling car owners that. And what about coal? Oh no, not that ugly stuff. So we lose out on all those resources because many have swallowed the lie that any other type of energy but the sun is just evil!!
Amazing.
Probably a valid point if ANWR were part of Alaska. But it's FedGov territory and has nothing to do with Alaska.
"Drill Interns - Not Anwar!"
So much for energy independence.
Then 86% of Nevada has nothing to do with Nevada?
Vast stretches of land acquired by FedGov beyond the original Thirteen States have remain under FedGov admin and control. The various States these territories happen to be inside of have little to say or do about it. For example, ANWR is inside the boundary of the State of Alaska but Alaska does not administer ANWR nor will Alaska see anything more than 10% of the tax revenue. The 90% will go to DC and be reallocated to FedGov projects mostly in other States. They say Alaska is the largest State, yet Alaska is far down the list because FedGov has retained most of it.
How is it that we would expect you to put some "Bush's Fault" dig in this thread. I guess it is simply you, doing what you do best.
"And what about coal? Oh no, not that ugly stuff. So we lose out on all those resources because many have swallowed the lie that any other type of energy but the sun is just evil!!"
I was driving my "eeeevil" car around the other day, when I had to stop at a railroad track in the liberal city of Madison, WI. Car after car after car filled with coal rolled by.
It warmed the cockles of my widdow heart, LOL!
He deserves the banner.
You're joking right?
I think you need to educate yourself on this topic.
Alaska's people benifit greatly when it comes to jobs, revenue etc. from development of oil reserves in ANWR.
That why over 75% of Alaskans support drilling in ANWR.
Check it out.
http://www.anwr.org/people/people.htm
I don't know about your numbers but the fact remains Alaskans will benefit from drilling in ANWR which is why 75% of them support it, which was my original point.
The situation in Alaska, and in the West, is not at all as you believe. But, we don't need to keep going over this again and again.
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.