Arctic Drilling Plan Won’t Solve Problem
This is just a copy of an editorial in my local paper. The Reading Eagle-Times in Reading, PA.
March 25, 2006
Arctic drilling plan won’t solve problem
The Issue: The U.S. Senate passes a budget resolution that includes a provision for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
Our Opinion: Instead of drilling for oil in the Arctic refuge, we should be putting more effort into developing alternative en-ergy sources.
Efforts to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling have become, in the words of one opponent of the move, a recurring nightmare.
Last week, the Republican-controlled Senate, by a razor-thin margin, passed a budget resolution that includes a provision for drilling in the refuge.
Several Republicans voted against the resolution, and it passed only because Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat, agreed to vote for the resolution after being promised up to $10 billion in projected revenues from drilling in the Arctic refuge and other sources to help rebuild the Gulf Coast. Landrieu was the only Democrat to vote for the resolution.
Despite the Senate’s narrow approval of the provision, there is no guarantee it will pass the House. Last fall, moderate House Republicans succeeded in pulling a similar provision from a budget bill that had been approved by the Senate.
The moderate Republicans were upset over cuts made by the Bush administration in programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and student loans. They showed their displeasure by blocking the provision, which has been a major legislative priority for President Bush since he took office.
Things haven’t changed much since the fall. In a recent letter to the House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, the group of 24 moderate Republicans, calling themselves the Main Street Republican Partnership, said they still oppose drilling in the refuge and warned Nussle that the issue could split the party.
The only reason the Senate passed the provision last fall was because it was part of a budget measure, and according to Senate rules, it could not be blocked by a filibuster.
That was not the case on the five previous occasions that the matter had come before the Senate in as many years. Each time Senate Republicans failed to find the 60 votes needed to end threatened filibusters. During those years, it had been the House that had approved each drilling proposal.
This effort to put oil derricks in the refuge is a bit puzzling given Bush’s declaration in his state of the union speech that we need to break our addiction to oil.
If the GOP leadership and the Bush administration would put as much effort into encouraging the development of alternative energy sources as it does to drilling in the wildlife refuge, our chances of breaking that addiction would be a lot greater.
Even if Bush and the GOP were to succeed in getting the refuge measure passed this time, it would take as least a decade before the first drop of oil from Alaska’s coastal plane reached U.S. markets. And most experts agree there is not enough oil in the Arctic to meet America’s energy needs for a full year.
Environmentalists are concerned that the drilling would spoil one America’s most pristine natural landscapes.
The concerns are well-founded. Earlier this month a pipeline burst near Prudhoe Bay dumping more than 250,000 gallons of oil onto the tundra in what is being called on of the worst recorded spills on Alaska’s northern slope.
Eventually we’re going to have to face the reality that oil is a finite resource and that it is running out.
Exactly when it will run out no one knows for sure, but the longer we wait to develop alternate forms of energy, such as hydrogen and solar power, the more difficult the transition will be.
"Eventually we’re going to have to face the reality that oil is a finite resource and that it is running out. Exactly when it will run out no one knows for sure, but the longer we wait to develop alternate forms of energy, such as hydrogen and solar power, the more difficult the transition will be."
SO true.
Reading Eagle
March 25, 2006
Arctic drilling plan won’t solve problem
The Issue: The U.S. Senate passes a budget resolution that includes a provision for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
Our Opinion: Instead of drilling for oil in the Arctic refuge, we should be putting more effort into developing alternative en-ergy sources.
Efforts to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling have become, in the words of one opponent of the move, a recurring nightmare.
Last week, the Republican-controlled Senate, by a razor-thin margin, passed a budget resolution that includes a provision for drilling in the refuge.
Several Republicans voted against the resolution, and it passed only because Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat, agreed to vote for the resolution after being promised up to $10 billion in projected revenues from drilling in the Arctic refuge and other sources to help rebuild the Gulf Coast. Landrieu was the only Democrat to vote for the resolution.
Despite the Senate’s narrow approval of the provision, there is no guarantee it will pass the House. Last fall, moderate House Republicans succeeded in pulling a similar provision from a budget bill that had been approved by the Senate.
The moderate Republicans were upset over cuts made by the Bush administration in programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and student loans. They showed their displeasure by blocking the provision, which has been a major legislative priority for President Bush since he took office.
Things haven’t changed much since the fall. In a recent letter to the House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, the group of 24 moderate Republicans, calling themselves the Main Street Republican Partnership, said they still oppose drilling in the refuge and warned Nussle that the issue could split the party.
The only reason the Senate passed the provision last fall was because it was part of a budget measure, and according to Senate rules, it could not be blocked by a filibuster.
That was not the case on the five previous occasions that the matter had come before the Senate in as many years. Each time Senate Republicans failed to find the 60 votes needed to end threatened filibusters. During those years, it had been the House that had approved each drilling proposal.
This effort to put oil derricks in the refuge is a bit puzzling given Bush’s declaration in his state of the union speech that we need to break our addiction to oil.
If the GOP leadership and the Bush administration would put as much effort into encouraging the development of alternative energy sources as it does to drilling in the wildlife refuge, our chances of breaking that addiction would be a lot greater.
Even if Bush and the GOP were to succeed in getting the refuge measure passed this time, it would take as least a decade before the first drop of oil from Alaska’s coastal plane reached U.S. markets. And most experts agree there is not enough oil in the Arctic to meet America’s energy needs for a full year.
Environmentalists are concerned that the drilling would spoil one America’s most pristine natural landscapes.
The concerns are well-founded. Earlier this month a pipeline burst near Prudhoe Bay dumping more than 250,000 gallons of oil onto the tundra in what is being called on of the worst recorded spills on Alaska’s northern slope.
Eventually we’re going to have to face the reality that oil is a finite resource and that it is running out.
Exactly when it will run out no one knows for sure, but the longer we wait to develop alternate forms of energy, such as hydrogen and solar power, the more difficult the transition will be.
"Eventually we’re going to have to face the reality that oil is a finite resource and that it is running out. Exactly when it will run out no one knows for sure, but the longer we wait to develop alternate forms of energy, such as hydrogen and solar power, the more difficult the transition will be."
SO true.
Reading Eagle
posted by Kevin | 10:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home