| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:59 am House OKs Drilling |
|
| Quote: |
House Votes for ANWR Drilling
Thursday, April 21, 2005
WASHINGTON � The House voted late Wednesday to allow oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge as part of a broad energy bill that Democrats said would funnel billions of dollars to highly profitable energy companies while doing little to promote conservation or ease gasoline prices.
The bill's sponsors said oil from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (search), as much as a million barrels a day, will be needed to help curtail the country's growing dependence on oil imports. Opponents argued the oil wouldn't be available for a decade and even then at levels that would not significantly affect oil prices or imports.
The bill calls for $8.1 billion in tax breaks over 10 years, most of it going to promote coal, nuclear, oil and natural gas energy industries.
Development of the Alaska refuge has been a contentious issue for nearly a decade. Environmentalists fear a spider web of drilling platforms and pipelines would harm the area's polar bears, caribou, migrating birds and other wildlife.
Senate Democrats have pledged to filibuster any energy bill that would open the refuge to oil companies. An amendment to strip the Alaska refuge provision from the energy bill failed Wednesday night 231-200.
A final vote on the energy legislation is expected by the House on Thursday.
Rep. Ed Markey (search), D-Mass., who offered the ANWR amendment, noted that the bill does nothing to improve the fuel economy of automobiles, which he said use 70 percent of the country's oil, and that it was wrong "to then turn to the wilderness areas and say we need energy."
An attempt to require automakers to increase fuel economy to a fleet average of 33 miles per gallon over the next decade was defeated 254-177.
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (search), R-N.Y., a co-sponsor of the auto fuel economy proposal, said it would have reduce oil use by 2 million barrels a day � more than could be taken from ANWR � by 2020. He said it was "a bunch of nonsense" � as opponents claimed � that the increased fuel economy would cost the auto industry jobs, force consumers to buy smaller cars or reduce automobile safety.
"We don't need to micromanage our auto manufactures," countered Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich.
Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., acknowledged that ANWR was "a very unique place" that deserves protection but argued that its oil can be developed using modern drilling techniques without harming the environment and wildlife.
"We don't have to choose between providing the energy resources ... and protecting our environment," he said.
SEARCH
Click here for FOX News RSS Feeds
Advertise on FOX News Channel, FOXNews.com and FOX News Radio
Jobs at FOX News Channel.
Internships at FOX News Channel (Summer internship deadline March 1, 2005).
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
[email protected]; For FOX News Channel comments write to
[email protected]
� Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright � 2005 ComStock, Inc.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright 2005 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.
|
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:39 am |
|
All environmental concerns aside, I still think it's foolish to drill there. It could be much more valuable later.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:49 am |
|
A blow to protecting our future, 
|
|
|
Five - seveN
Rear Admiral
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 3567
Location: Shadow Moon
|
| Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:08 pm |
|
Essentially, you're right. Aaaaaaaand, why not leave this last bit of underground landscape ( ) untouched and invest the money into something durable, like atomic fusion energy (or even M/ARA! w00t. )?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:17 pm |
|
Again, good news.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Dirt
Exercise Boy
Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 2086
Location: a tree
|
| Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:19 pm |
|
Good for economy bad for nature,
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:22 pm |
|
| Dirt wrote: | | Good for economy bad for nature, |
Not really. It's only 2,000 out of 19 MILLION acres. Keep that in perspective  And why ? Could you really explain to me why you put it in posts that really have no reason to do so?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Dirt
Exercise Boy
Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 2086
Location: a tree
|
| Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:24 pm |
|
What about roads, pipelines, oil is gonna cause polutioooooon in the air... Well, gee, guess you are right
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:55 pm |
|
And the fact we have to change over some time, so might as well be sooner. Or do we suffer later in our lives?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:56 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | And the fact we have to change over some time, so might as well be sooner. Or do we suffer later in our lives? |
We should do both. Search for alternatives now, but while we're doing that, do what we can to get by now, like drill in Alaska. We need to do it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:06 pm |
|
I agree with that, but it is happening too slowly at the moment, with the government wanting support from the electorate as they are keeping a good economy now so they let big businesses do stuff like this.
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:07 pm |
|
It's a sad time. We should be putting resources into creating alternate energy sources, not drilling in a Wildlife refuge no matter how "little" land is used.
|
|
|
zero
Rear Admiral
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4566
Location: Texas
|
| Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:29 pm |
|
^ I totally agree. What is going to happenw hen we eventually run out of resources? We should already have other options, But I guess drilling in the wild is best!! 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:37 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | It's a sad time. We should be putting resources into creating alternate energy sources, not drilling in a Wildlife refuge no matter how "little" land is used. |
It's expensive. And we can't just do that. We need to use what we have at hand. And I don't really think that the government should be too involved in it, anyways.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:54 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: |
It's expensive. And we can't just do that. We need to use what we have at hand. And I don't really think that the government should be too involved in it, anyways. |
And what are we supposed to do when the oil there is used up? What then?
A short term solution helps no one.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:08 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: |
It's expensive. And we can't just do that. We need to use what we have at hand. And I don't really think that the government should be too involved in it, anyways. |
And what are we supposed to do when the oil there is used up? What then?
A short term solution helps no one. |
It won't be. Over 30 years we'll still be able to drill in those acres, they say. We should do both. We can't not do this, and just focus on the future. The present is our main focus, while looking at the future.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:57 pm |
|
If the present impacts the future badly then we shouldn't do it though.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:47 pm |
|
There are Pros and Cons to this. pro incluse us not being so dependnt on other countrys for Oil
|
|
|
Captain Patrick
Commodore
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2421
|
| Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:16 pm |
|
but the cons are that it will be hurting the wildlift and nature.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:19 pm |
|
| Lord Borg wrote: | | There are Pros and Cons to this. pro incluse us not being so dependnt on other countrys for Oil |
Yes, that's a key pro.
| Captain Patrick wrote: | | but the cons are that it will be hurting the wildlift and nature. |
Not much Keep in mind the 2000 acres. Sure, you got roads and such, but otherwise, hardly anything. And I don't know how, but this will supposedly bring more carabou. But keep in mind also that this land was SET ASIDE when Carter created ANWR back in the 70s
| Jeremy wrote: | | If the present impacts the future badly then we shouldn't do it though. |
It won't impact the future badly.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:06 pm |
|
| Lord Borg wrote: | | There are Pros and Cons to this. pro incluse us not being so dependnt on other countrys for Oil |
And yet, when equaled to the impact this will have on the land, the wildlife and global warming, this Pro is outweighed by cons.
| Republican_Man wrote: | And I don't know how, but this will supposedly bring more carabou. But keep in mind also that this land was SET ASIDE when Carter created ANWR back in the 70s
|
Research please, because I severely doubt that with the drilling, the emissions, the roads and vehicles, That it will happen.
| Republican_Man wrote: |
It won't impact the future badly. |
Global Warming anyone?
|
|
|
Dirt
Exercise Boy
Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 2086
Location: a tree
|
| Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:38 pm |
|
He's ignoring everything you say to him that makes sense, so why bother.
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:58 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: |
It won't impact the future badly. |
Global Warming anyone? |
I know. The polution is leading to holes in our ozone layer and is making the quality of our breathing air poor. Think about what this polution does to all he people with athsma. We could literally be killing people by doing this.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:27 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | Lord Borg wrote: | | There are Pros and Cons to this. pro incluse us not being so dependnt on other countrys for Oil |
And yet, when equaled to the impact this will have on the land, the wildlife and global warming, this Pro is outweighed by cons.
That's one pro. Another pro is that we will have cheaper oil overall. Those two pros outway the "environmental threats," because there is little threat to the environment because of this.
| Republican_Man wrote: | And I don't know how, but this will supposedly bring more carabou. But keep in mind also that this land was SET ASIDE when Carter created ANWR back in the 70s
|
Research please, because I severely doubt that with the drilling, the emissions, the roads and vehicles, That it will happen.
It was on the news.
| Republican_Man wrote: |
It won't impact the future badly. |
Global Warming anyone? |
Oh, yeah, I forgot. Global warming. Whoo! Big threat! (sarcasm) It's not a big threat, and drilling 2000 acres will HARDLY add to it. It's not really too big of a threat already.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Dirt
Exercise Boy
Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 2086
Location: a tree
|
| Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:34 am |
|
You know, if you keep on insisting it's only 2000 acres, then why bother to drill up that little amount anyway and just keep nature there,
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
