Alaska Drillings

[Rikard_OHF]

This is a copy of TL's post about the drillings, a thread which was trolled
Mouse said in his last post "let get this post back on topic" but it was closed
so this if you're oppertunity to react on this issue, without flaming or trolling

if any mod thinks this thread should not have been made then delete it, but i think this issue might very well be discussedwithout such over the top language as was used in the Previous post

originally posted by Timber Loftis From NRDC website: The future of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could be determined in the next few days, when the U.S. Senate votes on a budget bill that the Bush administration and the Senate leadership have commandeered as a stealth vehicle for opening the refuge to oil drilling. BioGems Defenders played a key role in the Senate's defeat last April of an Arctic drilling measure, when we shored up the opposition with more than a million messages to Congress. But last month the Bush administration renewed its push to turn this critical wildlife sanctuary into an oil field, padding the budget it submitted to Congress for 2004 with estimated revenues from oil leases in the refuge, even though leasing there is illegal . Senate leaders folded these projections into a bill called the budget resolution, which serves as a blueprint that members of Congress follow as they assign funds for federal agencies and programs. If the budget resolution passes as written, it will call on Congress to rely on money that won't exist unless it also passes a law giving oil companies access to the refuge. Democratic senators plan to introduce an amendment to remove the Arctic leasing provision from the budget resolution, but it must pass by a full 51-vote majority

[Timber Loftis]

Actually, Rikard, Z closed it according to Mouse. You will note he deleted the "Bush lies" portion of the title. I do not know why, but I suspect there is something in that phrase that violated TOS. I have PM'ed Z and hope to hear back from him regarding it.

[Rikard_OHF]

Well lets hope this one wont get flamed and can just exist
i suspected that Z changed the topic which is why i called it "Alaska Drillings"

I'm against the drillings btw but you could prolly have guessed that [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 03-14-2003, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Rikard_OHF ]

[Mouse]

A small reminder (as if you needed it) - please confine your discussion to the subject matter of this thread, not speculation regarding why the previous thread was closed.

Carry on

[skywalker]

Just thought I'd post an update that the "Senate Rejects Oil Drilling in Alaskan Refuge"

Here are the vote numbers

I'm glad BTW. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Mark

[antryg]

Maybe I've just missed something in this ongoing debate. I thought it was supposed to be a National Reserve. To my way of thinking that means that we shouldn't even think of using/exploiting the oil reserves until there is nowhere else in the world to get oil.

Imagine this, admittedly, pessimistic scenario. The world is running out of oil and alternate fuels have not been found nor has there been a breakthrough in other motive power. Now the USA, which has always been dependent upon its technology for its armed forces has no way to move its tanks, planes or rockets. The USA is now vulnerable to attack by the teeming hordes of Vancouver Island whose army outnumbers the US in soldiers by a factor of 322 to 1.

That's just the pessimistic and paranoid viewpoint and to me that indicates we shouldn't be drilling. Personally I don't think we should be drilling there at this time. I believe that it really shouldn't be used until/if absolutely necessary. Then again I'm not a Senator from Texas. Can you guess how they voted?

[Azred]

I support opening any part of Alaska where oil may be found because this will reduce our dependence upon other parts of the world. I'm not saying that we should wall ourselves in and ignore the rest of the world, but it would be wise to limit our dependence (a potential liability/vulnerability).

[wellard]

Hot off the press, some very good news

The US Senate has narrowly rejected a plan to allow oil drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge.
The defeat is a major setback for President George Bush's administration, which had insisted that oil exploration in the 19m acre (7.7m hectare) Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would help safeguard America's supply of energy.

Despite intense lobbying by the White House, an amendment was passed on Wednesday by 52 votes to 48 removing the provision allowing drilling to commence from the 2004 budget resolution.

The vote was split largely down party lines.

Most Republicans were keen to start oil exploration in the area, in order to reduce the country's dependence on fuel imports.

But Democrats, a few moderate Republicans and environmental groups argued that the arctic wilderness should be left untouched, and oil exploration concentrated elsewhere.

[Timber Loftis]

Thank goodness some few Repug Senators still care enough about our children's children to preserve some untouched places for them. Thanks for adding today's news on the topic, Wellard. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

This is a battle we'll fight all over again next session, however.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Azred: I support opening any part of Alaska where oil may be found because this will reduce our dependence upon other parts of the world. I'm not saying that we should wall ourselves in and ignore the rest of the world, but it would be wise to limit our dependence (a potential liability/vulnerability).

Which is why we should set up all the equipment to begin drilling (which takes years), and then NOT use it. So long as the rest of the world will sell us their oil, we should buy it. National security dictates being ready to be oil independent at a moment's notice, but national security also dictates not using finite resources that we own until we have to.