Senate Approves Oil Drilling in ANWR

[sgtmac_46]

Man, you sure love this argument.

When ever someone suggests 'conserving' something, you argue: 'You Hate Bush - You Hate Bush'.

upnorthkyoso is arguing GEOLOGY.

I have been arguing taxation to modify behavior.

'You Hate Bush - You Hate Bush'.

Anyone who suggests a policy in conflict with what the president wants, there goes the 7starmantis rallying cry

'You Hate Bush - You Hate Bush'.

Doesn't matter that it was a Republican Congressman that removed ANWR drilling from a budget bill? (Why the hell was it attached to a budget bill anyhow?).

'You Hate Bush - You Hate Bush'.

Doesn't matter that it is the most popular Republican Senator decrying United States santioned Torture.

'You Hate Bush - You Hate Bush'.


Sycophant!

Too much coffee?

The facts are here, we just have to look at them.

This thread is really just becoming a "Yes it is" vs "No its not" argument. Its been shown in this thread that:

1) We are way too dependent on foreign oil
2) There is oil in ANWR that will make a difference (could be 25% of domestic production)
3) We need to produce more oil domestically for now
4) We need to address conservation methods
5) We need to address alternative fuels
6) Opening of ANWR for oil and gas exploration would help our dependance issue
7) No one solution is going to fix the problem, we must hit it from many angles.

7sm

Good suggestions. There isn't a reasonable observer of this issue that doesn't understand that the US needs to extricate itself from the need for foreign oil. That alternative fuel sources are a necessary, but not immediate, answer to dependence is also clear. We need a stop gap solution until we can do the necessary research to end our need to burn fossil fuels at all.

 

[7starmantis]

Well said, I think this thread has been very productive.

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

I'd have to agree. Thanks everyone.

:asian:

 

[arnisador]

Yes, it's interesting to see the varying opinions, and many facts were brought to light--many of which I hadn't known beforehand.

 

[mrhnau]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051219/ap_on_go_co/congress_rdp

House lawmakers opened the way for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as one of their last acts of an all-night session Monday bringing their legislative year to a close.

Maybe its not dead yet! Looks like it was attached to a defense bill though...

The ANWR provision was attached to a major defense bill, forcing many opponents of oil and gas exploration in the barren northern Alaska range to vote for it. The bill, passed 308-106, also included money for hurricane relief and bird flu preventive measures.

thoughts?

MrH

 

[Makalakumu]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051219/ap_on_go_co/congress_rdp



Maybe its not dead yet! Looks like it was attached to a defense bill though...



thoughts?

MrH

The Oil Lobby is working hard to ram it through before the 2006 election cycle. That amendment won't have a chance then.

 

[michaeledward]

Hopefully, the few brave Congressmen who said three weeks ago that Drilling in ANWR should be considered on its own, will continue to voice that concern.

I haven't heard Donald Rumsfeld saying our troops in Iraq need to have the ANWR opened to exploration. Why is this on a defense bill?

 

[7starmantis]

Its how politics is done....might as well get used to it.

7sm

 

[mrhnau]

Why is this on a defense bill?

May as well ask why Bird Flu and Katrina money is on the bill. I second 7sm.

 

[michaeledward]

So, because it can not gain acceptance on its own ...

We support putting on a bill that funds the military, during a time of war.

I dare those people who wish to vote against this to try and do it now. The Republican (Oil) Party will attack you with that vote next November, and pat ourselves on our backs for our cleverness.

Boy, you citizens sure are stupid if you let us put this crap over on you, time and time again. Ha Ha Ha.

 

[mrhnau]

So, because it can not gain acceptance on its own ...

We support putting on a bill that funds the military, during a time of war.

I dare those people who wish to vote against this to try and do it now. The Republican (Oil) Party will attack you with that vote next November, and pat ourselves on our backs for our cleverness.

Boy, you citizens sure are stupid if you let us put this crap over on you, time and time again. Ha Ha Ha.

Its been done in the past by both sides. It will be done again in the future by both sides. Lets hear you crying when the Dems do it for some piece of legistlature you like. I imagine you are not upset about Katrina funding, or probably not over bird flu funding.

Either way, this is one of the reasons I'm a big fan of line-item veto. However, in this case, its irrelevent.

edit: Its impractical to have legislation for every possible funding opportunity. For some key pieces of funding though, it might be nice to have seperate spending bills...

 

[arnisador]

Its how politics is done....might as well get used to it.

I have to agree. It's distasteful in many ways, yet it's also a tool for politicians to get their projects through...and some of those projects are good ones.

 

[mrhnau]

I have to agree. It's distasteful in many ways, yet it's also a tool for politicians to get their projects through...and some of those projects are good ones.

How about an admendment to limit floaters? Perhaps a percentage of the total bill? Say 25% of the major emphasis of the bill? Maybe each seperate add-on can max out at 1% of the total bill?

Weeding out some of the waste happens when the two houses debate the contents of the bill, but having greater power for each house to remove certain items might be beneficial.

 

[michaeledward]

While this vote occured in the House, it certainly has Senator Stevens fingerprints all over it.

Senator Stevens had promised to resign from the Senate if the two Bridges to Nowhere were taken out of the highway bill.

Senator Stevens Flip-Flopped on that. Damn!

Anyhow, as Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, and on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, anyone who is against this vote will no doubt find funding problems in their state in the future.

My good Congressman, Charles Bass, a Republican, voted against this Defense Bill because of the ANWR provision.

Cheers for Charlie Bass.

artyon:

Can't tell you how much it bothers me to do that ... but credit where credit is due.

 

[Marginal]

While this vote occured in the House, it certainly has Senator Stevens fingerprints all over it.

Senator Stevens had promised to resign from the Senate if the two Bridges to Nowhere were taken out of the highway bill.

Senator Stevens Flip-Flopped on that. Damn!

Did he? Last I heard, mention of the bridges themselves had been quietly dropped while the funds were not.

 

[michaeledward]

Did he? Last I heard, mention of the bridges themselves had been quietly dropped while the funds were not.

Well, that sounds like a flip flop to me .... but, I only have the experience of what Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Laura Ingraham told me was a flip-flop during the last election cycle.

Let's see.

• Senator Coburn wanted to block $453 Million Dollars for two "Bridges to Nowhere".
• Senator Stevens said ... "If the Senate decides to discriminate against our state ... I will resign from this body."
• The earmarks for the Bridges has disappeared.

If that isn't a 'flip-flop', perhaps, Rush Limbaugh, and Laura Ingraham will have to explain to me why it is not. Because it sure looks like one to me.

Although you are correct, the funding has remained in the national bill, and is now controlled by the Alaskan Governor .... so, what might we see there ...

• Senator Murkowski (R-AK), happens to own land on one of the 'Nowhere' Islands.
• Governor Murkowski (R-AK), now has the decision on how the $453 million dollars will be used.
• Isn't it odd, that the Senator and Governor share the same last name? Well, it could be because the Governor is the Senators' Father.
• Anyone wanna bet on whether there is a bridge to Gravina Island ten years from now?
• Legislative slight-of-hand, folks. Legislative slight-of-hand.

 

[7starmantis]

Wow...just wow.

 

[arnisador]

My understanding is that the mention of the bridges went away and an equivalent amount of cash was given to Alaska for 'unspecified purposes' (like, say, a bridge or two).

 

[michaeledward]

Well, it seems the Senate did not pass a provision to approve drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Who knew ?

Raise a glass to Senator Frist - He voted against it, although, his vote was a defensive tactic, that keeps open a possibility of repeating a roll call on this issue.

(of course, if he were to do that, it would make him a flip-flopper)

 

[arnisador]

So...is it over? It sounds like good news for caribou-lovers.