Senate Votes to Allow Arctic Drilling

[gldstwmn]

1 hour, 2 minutes ago Politics - U. S. Congress

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Amid the backdrop of soaring oil and gasoline prices, a sharply divided Senate on Wednesday voted to open the ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, delivering a major energy policy win for President Bush.

The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster — a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies.

The action, assuming Congress agrees on a budget, clears the way for approving drilling in the refuge later this year, drilling supporters said.

The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to what is believed to be billions of barrels of oil beneath the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the northern eastern corner of Alaska.

Environmentalists have fought such development and argued that despite improve environmental controls a web of pipelines and drilling platforms would harm calving caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the coastal plain.

Bush has called tapping the reserve's oil a critical part of the nation's energy security and a way to reduce America's reliance on imported oil, which account for more than half of the 20 million barrels of crude use daily. The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said.

"We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell D-Wash., a co-sponsor of the amendment that would have stripped the arctic refuge provision from the budget document. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist," she said.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., argued that more oil would be saved if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels and expanded oil development in the deep-water Gulf where there are significant reserves.

"The fact is (drilling in ANWR) is going to be destructive," said Kerry.

But drilling proponents argued that modern drilling technology can safeguard the refuge and still tap the likely — though not yet certain — 10.4 billion barrels of crude in the refuge.

"Some people say we ought to conserve more. They say we ought to conserve instead of producing this oil," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., "But we need to do everything. We have to conserve and produce where we can."

The vote Wednesday contrasted with the last time the Senate took up the ANWR drilling issue two years ago. Then, an attempt to include it in the budget was defeated. But drilling supporters gained strength last November when Republicans picked up three additional seats, all senators who favored drilling in the refuge.

[gldstwmn]

How they voted:

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---49
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCain (R-AZ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---51
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00052#position

[strandinthewind]

I fall on the side of drill it now and get it over with. the sooner there is no fossil fuel, the sooner other fuel sources will be a viable option - why prolong the inevitable :shrug:

[77Rumours77]

STUPIT BITCHES! :mad: :mad: :distress: :( :(

[ryan8472]

I got a letter from Chris Dodd saying that he opposed arctic drilling. And then he votes for it. Asshole. :distress:

[amber]

I am crying. literally. :mad:

[heyjupiter678]

And the US Geological Survey says there's very likely only a six-month supply of oil there. Possibly ruining a national treasure for six months of oil?

Yep, that sounds about right for this administration. :rolleyes: :distress:

[dissention]

Can't say I'm surprised. This country has been **** for five years, I see no reason why it won't continue to be for many more years to come.

[strandinthewind]

And the US Geological Survey says there's very likely only a six-month supply of oil there. Possibly ruining a national treasure for six months of oil? Yep, that sounds about right for this administration. :rolleyes: :distress:

See, I disagree with the word ruin - no study suggests it will be ruined :shrug: But, I guess people will think that. I agree it will be altered, but that hardly is ruined, which I define as devastated, unihabitable, etc. I think maybe growing up in the oil rich SW Louisiana, I just know what I have seen with my own eyes, which is it is possible not to ruin (true def) an ecosystem with drilling for oil. But, people will think what they may.

[amber]

And the US Geological Survey says there's very likely only a six-month supply of oil there. Possibly ruining a national treasure for six months of oil?

Yep, that sounds about right for this administration. :rolleyes: :distress:
"WASHINGTON -- More than 1,000 leading U.S. and Canadian scientists called on President Bush today to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling. In a letter to the President, the scientists questioned assertions that oil could be safely extracted from the Refuge and urged President Bush to "support permanent protection of the coastal plain's significant wildlife and wilderness values." Read the letter.

The scientists said oil development could seriously harm caribou, polar bears, muskoxen and snow geese -- among other wildlife. They warned it could disrupt the fragile ecosystem of the coastal plain, which they said could lead to even more widespread injury to wildlife and its habitat. The signers categorically rejected the notion that the impacts of drilling could be confined to a limited footprint, as pro-drilling forces claim, noting that the effects of oil wells, pipelines, roads, airports, housing facilities, processing plants, gravel mines, air pollution, industrial noise, seismic exploration and exploratory drilling would radiate across the entire coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge.
"The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge encompasses 1.5 million acres of key wildlife habitat vital to the integrity of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We urge you, Mr. President, to permanently protect the biological diversity and wilderness character of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from future oil and gas development," the letter concludes.

The scientists who signed the letter are experts in the fields of ecology, wildlife and conservation biology, natural resources management and cultural anthropology. They include Edward O. Wilson, winner of the National Medal of Science and two Pulitzer Prizes for his landmark books on social biology.

"Hundreds of scientists are telling President Bush that throwing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge open to oil companies will harm wildlife and permanently disrupt the wild nature of this unique place. It simply does not make sense to destroy the Arctic Refuge for oil that won't lower prices and won't make a noticeable dent in our dependency on foreign energy, when it's so much easier to get the same amount of energy through common-sense conservation steps," said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife."

[strandinthewind]

"WASHINGTON -- More than 1,000 leading U.S. and Canadian scientists called on President Bush today to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling. In a letter to the President, the scientists questioned assertions that oil could be safely extracted from the Refuge and urged President Bush to "support permanent protection of the coastal plain's significant wildlife and wilderness values." Read the letter.

The scientists said oil development could seriously harm caribou, polar bears, muskoxen and snow geese -- among other wildlife. They warned it could disrupt the fragile ecosystem of the coastal plain, which they said could lead to even more widespread injury to wildlife and its habitat. The signers categorically rejected the notion that the impacts of drilling could be confined to a limited footprint, as pro-drilling forces claim, noting that the effects of oil wells, pipelines, roads, airports, housing facilities, processing plants, gravel mines, air pollution, industrial noise, seismic exploration and exploratory drilling would radiate across the entire coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge.

"The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge encompasses 1.5 million acres of key wildlife habitat vital to the integrity of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We urge you, Mr. President, to permanently protect the biological diversity and wilderness character of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from future oil and gas development," the letter concludes.

The scientists who signed the letter are experts in the fields of ecology, wildlife and conservation biology, natural resources management and cultural anthropology. They include Edward O. Wilson, winner of the National Medal of Science and two Pulitzer Prizes for his landmark books on social biology.

"Hundreds of scientists are telling President Bush that throwing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge open to oil companies will harm wildlife and permanently disrupt the wild nature of this unique place. It simply does not make sense to destroy the Arctic Refuge for oil that won't lower prices and won't make a noticeable dent in our dependency on foreign energy, when it's so much easier to get the same amount of energy through common-sense conservation steps," said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife."

It will be altered, but that is price we pay for using oil. If you (general) are that pissed about it, live on candles and walk everywhere :shrug: I mean we use oil. Thus, I think it is rank hypocrisy to suggest that the rest of the world or even states use their oil but just not Alaska. And we are all guilty of it. I mena who does not use oil :shrug:

Note - this is not an attack on Amber :cool:

[amber]

The oil isn't coming for ten years, in that amount of time alternatives are easily feasible, we already have the technology. But no, lets **** where we live, devastate the region for generations, for six months of oil, even though it is easily avoided. @*&^%!$#%^&%$&^%$^%&&%$#$^&*(^&%%$%&*!!!!

[strandinthewind]

The oil isn't coming for ten years, in that amount of time alternatives are easily feasible, we already have the technology. But no, lets **** where we live, devastate the region for generations, for six months of oil, even though it is easily avoided. @*&^%!$#%^&%$&^%$^%&&%$#$^&*(^&%%$%&*!!!!


Better yet, let's ruin the Middle East first then **** where we live? I mean I just do not get why Alaska is more important to people than the Middle East or the rest of America for that matter. Yet, despite our protesting this newest drilling project and the decades long cry for alternate fuel sources, who here realy alters their lives to conserve a significant amount of oil. I suggest no one. I mean did anyone think twice about buying a plane ticket to Stevie to save oil or that her concerts consume lots of power - I know I did not.

Again, it will not be devastated :shrug: at least how that word is defined by www.merriamwebster.com

[amber]

It will be altered, but that is price we pay for using oil. If you (general) are that pissed about it, live on candles and walk everywhere :shrug: I mean we use oil. Thus, I think it is rank hypocrisy to suggest that the rest of the world or even states use their oil but just not Alaska. And we are all guilty of it. I mena who does not use oil :shrug:

Note - this is not an attack on Amber :cool:
You are a very smart man, but i'm not sure if you have studied environmental issues as well as you should. And for the cost of doing this, we could make HUGE strides in alternative fuel. I just don't really think you know all the ramifications here. But, I don't want to attack you, or argue with you. so, I apologize. I'll just go find bunches of evidence.

[amber]

Better yet, let's ruin the Middle East first then **** where we live? I mean I just do not get why Alaska is more important to people than the Middle East or the rest of America for that matter. Yet, despite our protesting this newest drilling project and the decades long cry for alternate fuel sources, who here realy alters their lives to conserve a significant amount of oil. I suggest no one. I mean did anyone think twice about buying a plane ticket to Stevie to save oil or that her concerts consume lots of power - I know I did not.

Again, it will not be devastated :shrug: at least how that word is defined by www.merriamwebster.com
It will be devestated. At least how it is defined by environmental scientists, ecology, etc. okay, I really can't argue with you about this, sorry again.

[strandinthewind]

You are a very smart man, but i'm not sure if you have studied environmental issues as well as you should. And for the cost of doing this, we could make HUGE strides in alternative fuel. I just don't really think you know all the ramifications here. But, I don't want to attack you, or argue with you. so, I apologize. I'll just go find bunches of evidence.

I agree, but who really uses those. Who here has an alternate fuel car - they are pretty much available throughout the US now? Who here thinks "I will not use my comp. tonight so I can do my part to conserve" - if all computer users did that one night out of a year that would be huge. Yet, no one does it. Thus, I say drill drill drill and get it over with because the reality is it will never end before then. Also, for every study that says what your purport, there is another that is contrary :shrug:

[dissention]

The amount of oil that the U.S. Geological Survey estimates could be recovered from the Arctic Refuge would amount to less than a six-month supply for American consumers. Even less natural gas occurs under the Refuge relative to U.S. demand.

At no time would oil from the refuge be expected to amount to more than 2 percent of U.S. demand. It will take 7 to 10 years for any oil to make it to market. 95% of the Alaska's North Slope is already available for oil and gas exploration and development.

Even if the highest predictions of oil in the refuge were to come true, oil from beneath the refuge would provide no more than a blip on the global oil market and would therefore have a negligible impact on the price of oil. Nor would drilling for oil in the refuge address our country's long-term energy problem.

http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/04/04022002/reu_46823.asp
U.S. government study says Alaska drilling is harmful
Tuesday, April 02, 2002

Opening Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling could harm caribou, snow geese, and other wildlife, a new U.S. government study said Friday, despite the Bush administration's assurances that oil exploration would have little impact.

The report, written by the Interior Department's U.S. Geological Survey, was published 10 days before the U.S. Senate is due to launch a contentious debate on whether to allow drilling in the pristine refuge on Alaska's northern coast.

According to the government report, drilling in the refuge could especially hurt the Porcupine River caribou herd, which travels some 400 miles from Canada's Yukon Territory to the Alaskan coastal plain for calving in May and June. The herd, which has dwindled to an estimated 123,000 animals, uses the entire coastal plain area which the Bush administration wants to open to drilling.

Pregnant caribou avoid roads and pipelines and calves have ''repeatedly shown to be sensitive to disturbance," it said. "Oil development will most likely result in restricting the location of concentrated calving areas, calving sites, and annual calving grounds," the report said. "Expected effects that could be observed include reduced survival of calves during June, reduced weight and condition of (pregnant) females, and reduced weight of calves in late June."

While Bush and many Republicans have repeatedly endorsed drilling, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said recently that it would take about two decades before any crude oil pumped from the refuge could reduce U.S. oil imports.

Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said the new report showed why drilling is a bad idea. "The administration should take to heart the conclusive scientific findings of the U.S. Geological Survey and finally put aside plans to drill in the pristine wilderness of the Arctic," Kerry said in a statement.

[amber]

http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticrefuge/facts2.asp
"Toxic spills and air pollution from permanent, year-round operations are destroying Alaska's fragile North Slope.
Once part of the largest intact wilderness area in the United States, Alaska's North Slope now hosts one of the world's largest industrial complexes, spanning some 1,000 square miles of once-pristine Arctic tundra. Prudhoe Bay and 26 other oilfields include the following:

28 oil production plants, gas processing facilities, and seawater treatment and power plants
38 gravel mines
223 production and exploratory gravel drill pads
500 miles of roads
1,800 miles of pipelines
4,800 exploration and production wells
All of this activity is taking place in an exceptionally fragile region. Because of the very short summer growing season, extreme cold at other times of the year, and nutrient-poor soils and permafrost, vegetation grows very slowly in the North Slope. Any physical disturbance -- bulldozer tracks, seismic oil exploration, spills of oil and other toxic substances -- can scar the land for decades. The National Academy of Sciences concluded it is unlikely that the most disturbed habitat will ever be restored and the damage to more than 9,000 acres by oilfield roads and gravel pads is likely to remain for centuries.

A close look at how four decades of this sprawling oil development has destroyed Prudhoe Bay dispels the myth that drilling can take place in the nearby Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain without permanently damaging the landscape and the wildlife that depends on it.




A toxic spill every day
Each year, the oil industry spills tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil and other hazardous materials on the North Slope. In fact, every day there is on average at least one spill either in the oil fields or at the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. From 1996 to 2004, there were some 4,530 spills of more than 1.9 million gallons of diesel fuel, oil, acid, biocide, ethylene glycol, drilling fluid and other materials. In the Arctic, the environmental damage from oil spills is more severe and lasts longer than in more temperate climates. Diesel fuel, for instance -- the most frequently spilled substance on the North Slope -- is acutely toxic to plants. Even after decades have passed, tundra vegetation has been unable to recover from diesel spills.




Oil operations pollute the air with tons of emissions

Each year, oil operations on Alaska's North Slope emit more than 70,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog and acid rain. (That's three times more than Washington, D.C.'s annual NOx emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.) Plumes of pollution from Prudhoe Bay have been detected in Barrow, Alaska, nearly 200 miles away. And pollutants from drilling operations, natural gas facilities and incinerators also have been detected in snow in the Prudhoe Bay area.
Although the overall impact of these air pollutants on Arctic ecosystems remains largely unknown, some Arctic species are known to be especially sensitive to air pollutants at levels below national air quality standards. North Slope oil facilities also release greenhouse gases, which are a major contributor to global climate change. Each year, they emit 7 million to 40 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and 24,000 to 114,000 metric tons of methane. Emissions climb even higher as North Slope oil is transported by tanker, refined, and eventually burned in engines or power plants.




Hazardous waste contaminates water and wetlands

For years, old reserve pits holding millions of gallons of drilling and other wastes pocked the North Slope. The pits typically contained a variety of toxic metals, as well as petroleum hydrocarbons and other harmful substances. Thanks partly to litigation by the Natural Resources Defense Council, handling methods for the waste in these reserve pits have improved.

While the oil industry has closed many of the pits, more than 100 remain to be cleaned. And, despite advances in disposal methods -- in which most drilling wastes are ground up and re-injected into wells -- problems remain. In 2000, for instance, British Petroleum (BP) was ordered to pay $22 million in civil and criminal fines and establish a new environmental management program because its contractors had illegally disposed of hazardous wastes containing benzene and other toxic chemicals. These crimes only came to light because a whistle-blower reported them to the EPA.

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation still lists more than 100 contaminated sites associated with oil industry operations on the North Slope. These sites contain a variety of toxic materials, including acids, lead, pesticides, solvents, diesel fuel, caustics, corrosives and petroleum hydrocarbons. Leakage from some sites has contaminated the surrounding tundra wetlands and waterways, which likely will be ruined for decades."

[strandinthewind]

It will be devestated. At least how it is defined by environmental scientists, ecology, etc. okay, I really can't argue with you about this, sorry again.

With all due respect, you are wrong at least in the scope of how devastate is defined http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=devastate Again, we are all hypocrites because we can bitch and complain all we want, but none of us does anything significant about it.

[strandinthewind]

http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticrefuge/facts2.asp
"Toxic spills and air pollution from permanent, year-round operations are destroying Alaska's fragile North Slope.
Once part of the largest intact wilderness area in the United States, Alaska's North Slope now hosts one of the world's largest industrial complexes, spanning some 1,000 square miles of once-pristine Arctic tundra. Prudhoe Bay and 26 other oilfields include the following:

28 oil production plants, gas processing facilities, and seawater treatment and power plants
38 gravel mines
223 production and exploratory gravel drill pads
500 miles of roads
1,800 miles of pipelines
4,800 exploration and production wells
All of this activity is taking place in an exceptionally fragile region. Because of the very short summer growing season, extreme cold at other times of the year, and nutrient-poor soils and permafrost, vegetation grows very slowly in the North Slope. Any physical disturbance -- bulldozer tracks, seismic oil exploration, spills of oil and other toxic substances -- can scar the land for decades. The National Academy of Sciences concluded it is unlikely that the most disturbed habitat will ever be restored and the damage to more than 9,000 acres by oilfield roads and gravel pads is likely to remain for centuries.

A close look at how four decades of this sprawling oil development has destroyed Prudhoe Bay dispels the myth that drilling can take place in the nearby Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain without permanently damaging the landscape and the wildlife that depends on it.




A toxic spill every day
Each year, the oil industry spills tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil and other hazardous materials on the North Slope. In fact, every day there is on average at least one spill either in the oil fields or at the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. From 1996 to 2004, there were some 4,530 spills of more than 1.9 million gallons of diesel fuel, oil, acid, biocide, ethylene glycol, drilling fluid and other materials. In the Arctic, the environmental damage from oil spills is more severe and lasts longer than in more temperate climates. Diesel fuel, for instance -- the most frequently spilled substance on the North Slope -- is acutely toxic to plants. Even after decades have passed, tundra vegetation has been unable to recover from diesel spills.




Oil operations pollute the air with tons of emissions

Each year, oil operations on Alaska's North Slope emit more than 70,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog and acid rain. (That's three times more than Washington, D.C.'s annual NOx emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.) Plumes of pollution from Prudhoe Bay have been detected in Barrow, Alaska, nearly 200 miles away. And pollutants from drilling operations, natural gas facilities and incinerators also have been detected in snow in the Prudhoe Bay area.

Although the overall impact of these air pollutants on Arctic ecosystems remains largely unknown, some Arctic species are known to be especially sensitive to air pollutants at levels below national air quality standards. North Slope oil facilities also release greenhouse gases, which are a major contributor to global climate change. Each year, they emit 7 million to 40 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and 24,000 to 114,000 metric tons of methane. Emissions climb even higher as North Slope oil is transported by tanker, refined, and eventually burned in engines or power plants.




Hazardous waste contaminates water and wetlands

For years, old reserve pits holding millions of gallons of drilling and other wastes pocked the North Slope. The pits typically contained a variety of toxic metals, as well as petroleum hydrocarbons and other harmful substances. Thanks partly to litigation by the Natural Resources Defense Council, handling methods for the waste in these reserve pits have improved.

While the oil industry has closed many of the pits, more than 100 remain to be cleaned. And, despite advances in disposal methods -- in which most drilling wastes are ground up and re-injected into wells -- problems remain. In 2000, for instance, British Petroleum (BP) was ordered to pay $22 million in civil and criminal fines and establish a new environmental management program because its contractors had illegally disposed of hazardous wastes containing benzene and other toxic chemicals. These crimes only came to light because a whistle-blower reported them to the EPA.

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation still lists more than 100 contaminated sites associated with oil industry operations on the North Slope. These sites contain a variety of toxic materials, including acids, lead, pesticides, solvents, diesel fuel, caustics, corrosives and petroleum hydrocarbons. Leakage from some sites has contaminated the surrounding tundra wetlands and waterways, which likely will be ruined for decades."

Play fair and cite the ones that say the contrary :shrug:

[SuzeQuze]

With all due respect, you are wrong at least in the scope of how devastate is defined http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=devastate Again, we are all hypocrites because we can bitch and complain all we want, but none of us does anything significant about it.

Besides tell my senators I want them to vote against this which they didn't f*cking do.

[amber]

With all due respect, you are wrong at least in the scope of how devastate is defined http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=devastate Again, we are all hypocrites because we can bitch and complain all we want, but none of us does anything significant about it.
With all due respect, big money has been holding back alternative fuel research from the public for decades.

[strandinthewind]

Besides tell my senators I want them to vote against this which they didn't f*cking do.

I feel your pain. I do not want to drill for oil ever again. But, that is not reality. Again, we have raped the Middle East and are still raping it - not to mention China, Argentina, and other areas. Yet, we are all up in arms when it is done here :shrug: That is my I in a totally cynical manner say, drill it all now - the sooner the better for the environment.

[strandinthewind]

With all due respect, big money has been holding back alternative fuel research from the public for decades.

I agree - but my point is you, me, and everyone else talk a great game about how much we hate it, but we use it as evidenced by the examples I gave above :shrug:

[amber]

Play fair and cite the ones that say the contrary :shrug:
Any scientist worthy of the name wouldn't ignore all this evidence. Can you really say that all these toxic substances aren't extremely harmful and believe it? Can you really see the decline of wildlife reproduction and ignore it? honestly, since you are saying these things, I just think that you are turning a blind eye, and that arguing with you is futile. :shrug: With all due respect. And I think you are using "what is reality" to say it's okay. We make reality. That's probably what people said when Jim Crow was in effect. It takes people not accepting what is reality, but trying to change it for what is right, for change to come. And people who throw up their hands and say "I can't do anything, so why bother to try" hold that back.

[strandinthewind]

Any scientist worthy of the name wouldn't ignore all this evidence. Can you really say that all these toxic substances aren't extremely harmful and believe it? Can you really see the decline of wildlife reproduction and ignore it? honestly, since you are saying these things, I just think that you are turning a blind eye, and that arguing with you is futile. :shrug: With all due respect.

I turn a blind eye to nothing. Again, post the article advocating safer drilling. But we need oil - all of us and we all use it essentially with relatively little care or regard for what it does to the environment to get it. Again, who here who has a car actually walks instead of drives. If anyone answers that in the affirmative - do you do it in the rain or for more than a mile? I think most do not. Why? Well, because that is inconvenient :shrug: Not using oil is not a viable alternative until there is no more left. So, I say drill it all now - why should Alaska be spared the ravages thust upon the rest of the world and this nation and I still say that the harm will be relatively minor due to the advances in drilling tech.

[dissention]

Again, who here who has a car actually walks instead of drives.

Uh...Amber. :woohoo: But I don't think she has a car.

I'm still furious over not getting my hybrid. They called me to tell me it had come in, but when I went to the dealership, they said it had been a mistake and I was still way down on the list. :cool: It's now been a year on that ****ing list.

[amber]

I turn a blind eye to nothing. Again, post the article advocating safer drilling. But we need oil - all of us and we all use it essentially with relatively little care or regard for what it does to the environment to get it. Again, who here who has a car actually walks instead of drives. If anyone answers that in the affirmative - do you do it in the rain or for more than a mile? I think most do not. Why? Well, because that is inconvenient :shrug: Not using oil is not a viable alternative until there is no more left. So, I say drill it all now - why should Alaska be spared the ravages thust upon the rest of the world and this nation and I still say that the harm will be relatively minor due to the advances in drilling tech.
You are wrong about the harm, did you read the articles? And - I do not drive. If you care to read it, here is an article why drilling in the arctic would not be cost effective at all.
http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/Arctic-Refuge-Drilling-or-Clean-Energy-Executive-Summary.pdf

[SuzeQuze]

I feel your pain. I do not want to drill for oil ever again. But, that is not reality. Again, we have raped the Middle East and are still raping it - not to mention China, Argentina, and other areas. Yet, we are all up in arms when it is done here :shrug: That is my I in a totally cynical manner say, drill it all now - the sooner the better for the environment.

You're not being "realistic" you're just being cynical. Reality is what we make of it. The "arctic refuge" is supposed to be an area of preservation for animals which are totally helpless against this greed and destruction (I did not say total destruction). I don't know much about oil in China and Argentina. The Middle East has helped rape itself. The wells are in the desert and they are not new, they already exist. It's not the same thing.

[amber]

Uh...Amber. :woohoo: But I don't think she has a car.

I'm still furious over not getting my hybrid. They called me to tell me it had come in, but when I went to the dealership, they said it had been a mistake and I was still way down on the list. :cool: It's now been a year on that ****ing list.
I'd be interested to know why it takes so long to produce these cars - since the technology is already in place (the factories, equipment, etc) it seems they could get them out faster, no? *suspicious*

[SuzeQuze]

Uh...Amber. :woohoo: But I don't think she has a car.

I'm still furious over not getting my hybrid. They called me to tell me it had come in, but when I went to the dealership, they said it had been a mistake and I was still way down on the list. :cool: It's now been a year on that ****ing list.

I walk to work and have a car so I could drive but I don't. :p

Those jackasses, make Diss a hybrid, dammit!

[strandinthewind]

You are wrong about the harm, did you read the articles? And - I do not drive. If you care to read it, here is an article why drilling in the arctic would not be cost effective at all.
http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/Arctic-Refuge-Drilling-or-Clean-Energy-Executive-Summary.pdf

Again, play fair and post the ones for it :shrug: They are out there - but you post only one side :shrug:

I think you think I relish the idea of harming even a little but the Artic area. I do not. I just am calling a spade a spade by noting ther we (myself included) talk a great game, but we all do not really do anything about it :shrug: If just 5% of America refused to use oil in any fashion or for that matter turned exclusively to alt. fuel sources that are out there, the oil industry would have no choice but to support these other fuel sources. Yet, America, along with the rest of the world do not do this :shrug:

[amber]

You're not being "realistic" you're just being cynical. Reality is what we make of it. The "arctic refuge" is supposed to be an area of preservation for animals which are totally helpless against this greed and destruction (I did not say total destruction). I don't know much about oil in China and Argentina. The Middle East has helped rape itself. The wells are in the desert and they are not new, they already exist. It's not the same thing.
right, and as usual, people fail to understand that when you harm an ecosystem, it's not just the animals that suffer (cause, for whatever reason, many people don't give a sh** about animals) it is us. We are at the top of this food chain. We are not independent of it, we are part of it. Hello? Hello?

[strandinthewind]

You're not being "realistic" you're just being cynical. Reality is what we make of it. The "arctic refuge" is supposed to be an area of preservation for animals which are totally helpless against this greed and destruction (I did not say total destruction). I don't know much about oil in China and Argentina. The Middle East has helped rape itself. The wells are in the desert and they are not new, they already exist. It's not the same thing.

I agree to an extent, but my point is why is it okay to say the hell with these other places but Alaska is somehow sacred. I mean animals live in the desert :shrug: Certainly they were effected by this. Morevoer, that oil was transfered through pipelines and then by boat. To me, it is all the same and it is hypocritical to suddenly say from the comfort of our oil based lives "but Alaska should be saved" for relatively little harm compared to the drilling that occured just ten years ago.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Those jackasses, make Diss a hybrid, dammit!

He already is an alien :laugh:

BTW - do you work close to where you live or do you walk several miles everyday and in the rain :shrug: If you do - great and I stand corrected but still suggest you are the very limited exception to the rule.

[SuzeQuze]

I agree to an extent, but my point is why is it okay to say the hell with these other places but Alaska is somehow sacred. I mean animals live in the desert :shrug: Certainly they were effected by this. Morevoer, that oil was transfered through pipelines and then by boat. To me, it is all the same and it is hypocritical to suddenly say from the comfort of our oil based lives "but Alaska should be saved" for relatively little harm compared to the drilling that occured just ten years ago.

Well, I see that you are gone to me. Hopeless. :shrug: :laugh: I don't know why you don't get it.

[strandinthewind]

right, and as usual, people fail to understand that when you harm an ecosystem, it's not just the animals that suffer (cause, for whatever reason, many people don't give a sh** about animals) it is us. We are at the top of this food chain. We are not independent of it, we are part of it. Hello? Hello?

Is that just the animals in that part of Alaska becuase if not, what about all those animals that suffered in some part just from the oil it took to produce this discussion?

[dissention]

I'd be interested to know why it takes so long to produce these cars - since the technology is already in place (the factories, equipment, etc) it seems they could get them out faster, no? *suspicious*

Because the sale of gas would dip a bit if the hyrbids were sold and used on a mass level. :nod: It's all about money. Same reason we supposedly haven't found cures for some illnesses and diseases; drug profits would go down because people would be cured and then wouldn't be buying medication after medication after medication to alleviate this and that. :)

[strandinthewind]

Well, I see that you are gone to me. Hopeless. :shrug: :laugh: I don't know why you don't get it.

I get it. I get that all drilling should stop now and in fact should have stopped decades ago. My point is we as a society did not care enough to make that happen and really still do not unless it pertains to Alaska, which is somehow sacrosanct.

[amber]

Again, play fair and post the ones for it :shrug: They are out there - but you post only one side :shrug:

I think you think I relish the idea of harming even a little but the Artic area. I do not. I just am calling a spade a spade by noting ther we (myself included) talk a great game, but we all do not really do anything about it :shrug: If just 5% of America refused to use oil in any fashion or for that matter turned exclusively to alt. fuel sources that are out there, the oil industry would have no choice but to support these other fuel sources. Yet, America, along with the rest of the world do not do this :shrug:
I tried to find some, but I haven't yet. Although they are alluded to in the article I put there. And debunked. And we are not more vocal because many people think the way you do. As you will notice, when more people started to care, they started to make hybrid cars. And even that was veeery slow compared to how many people did care from way back. We just have to keep pushing, hard, for the change to come, because there are clearly many monied interests against that change. That is part of the reason why your attitude infuriates me (In a non offensive way). You can probably get a hybrid car, did you sign up for one? It is at least one way to put your money where your mouth is. Well, apparently not your mouth, but you see what I mean.

[SuzeQuze]

He already is an alien :laugh:

BTW - do you work close to where you live or do you walk several miles everyday and in the rain :shrug: If you do - great and I stand corrected but still suggest you are the very limited exception to the rule.

:laugh: People think I'm nuts because I walk in rain/snow/etc. I'm about 1 1/2 miles from the office so I walk 3 miles a day, up hill, in the rain/sleet/snow, with no shoes... ;) The only time I don't walk is when I need my car for appointments and such. Or, if it is raining sideways. Guess I better get on one of those hybrid lists. But I want a convertible! Dammit.

[strandinthewind]

I tried to find some, but I haven't yet. Although they are alluded to in the article I put there. And debunked. And we are not more vocal because many people think the way you do. As you will notice, when more people started to care, they started to make hybrid cars. And even that was veeery slow compared to how many people did care from way back. We just have to keep pushing, hard, for the change to come, because there are clearly many monied interests against that change. That is part of the reason why your attitude infuriates me (In a non offensive way). You can probably get a hybrid car, did you sign up for one? It is at least one way to put your money where your mouth is. Well, apparently not your mouth, but you see what I mean.

I did not buy a hybrid car because I am lazy. I readily admit that. Who here has the same sand? And do not limit that to cars. Apply it to all aspects of life. Who here really puts themselves out to conserve electricity. Who here walks everywhere. Who here has said, I am not going here because I think the plane burns too much fuel. I suspect no one :shrug:

[amber]

Because the sale of gas would dip a bit if the hyrbids were sold and used on a mass level. :nod: It's all about money. Same reason we supposedly haven't found cures for some illnesses and diseases; drug profits would go down because people would be cured and then wouldn't be buying medication after medication after medication to alleviate this and that. :)
Exactly. But I guess some people don't believe that, or don't care. :shrug: I'm almost sure the hybrid car sales are being held up by *someone* - look at all the people on the waiting list who want one :shrug: As of now, you can't convince me that they can't produce more of them, faster. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

:laugh: People think I'm nuts because I walk in rain/snow/etc. I'm about 1 1/2 miles from the office so I walk 3 miles a day, up hill, in the rain/sleet/snow, with no shoes... ;) The only time I don't walk is when I need my car for appointments and such. Or, if it is raining sideways. Guess I better get on one of those hybrid lists. But I want a convertible! Dammit.

I think VW is making a diesel bug conv. that gets like 50 MPG - but I could be wrong :cool:

[SuzeQuze]

I get it. I get that all drilling should stop now and in fact should have stopped decades ago. My point is we as a society did not care enough to make that happen and really still do not unless it pertains to Alaska, which is somehow sacrosanct.

Okay, I see your point. Phew, I thought you'd become completely heartless. I do care. I would never have gotten an SUV and, frankly, I was shocked by how many people jumped on that bandwagon without batting an eye regarding fuel economy. Americans are very egocentric and most don't care about other countries and it really sucks. Somehow we need to make sure people are more educated regarding how we are impacted by what happens everywhere, not just here. Why everyone matters should be a topic of daily discussion. As Suze says, "people first".

[strandinthewind]

I am going to get on this DAMN plane - thus using more gas :laugh:

But, I suppose I will conserve energy by logging off and stopping positing - see my part - however insignificant :cool:

[SuzeQuze]

I did not buy a hybrid car because I am lazy. I readily admit that. Who here has the same sand? And do not limit that to cars. Apply it to all aspects of life. Who here really puts themselves out to conserve electricity. Who here walks everywhere. Who here has said, I am not going here because I think the plane burns too much fuel. I suspect no one :shrug:

:wavey: I walk all the time! Seriously Jason, some people are actually mindful of this stuff. My Dad always made me turn off lights and such. I still make an effort to do that. Come back into the light, Jason. :)

[dissention]

I did not buy a hybrid car because I am lazy. I readily admit that. Who here has the same sand? And do not limit that to cars. Apply it to all aspects of life. Who here really puts themselves out to conserve electricity. Who here walks everywhere. Who here has said, I am not going here because I think the plane burns too much fuel. I suspect no one :shrug:

I conserve electricity like you wouldn't believe. :shrug: I will not put a light on during the day, my appliances are Energy Star, etc.

I don't even let the water run when I brush my teeth.

[amber]

I did not buy a hybrid car because I am lazy. I readily admit that. Who here has the same sand? And do not limit that to cars. Apply it to all aspects of life. Who here really puts themselves out to conserve electricity. Who here walks everywhere. Who here has said, I am not going here because I think the plane burns too much fuel. I suspect no one :shrug:
Moderation is a huge step, especially considering the giant population. Aside from distant travel, (by the way, traveling in a way that transports many people at once is far more efficient than cars, which hold very few people) if we all took the steps to conserve in the ways that technology has made available to us (hybrid cars, energy efficient appliances, public transpo, etc) that would be a huge reduction in resources consumed. It is absolutely not an "all or nothing" proposition. And each step that people take towards this aim dominoes the amount of energy efficient technology that will be made available to us, researched, etc. And, I walk or take public transpo everywhere. Except, yes, to see Stevie.

[amber]

I am going to get on this DAMN plane - thus using more gas :laugh:

But, I suppose I will conserve energy by logging off and stopping positing - see my part - however insignificant :cool:
No part is insignificant, which is what I hope you will think about. :) If every one of this huge population made efforts, it would decrease consumption dramatically. :nod:

[dissention]

Seriously Jason, some people are actually mindful of this stuff.

No, just us big city elitists. :p :laugh:

[SuzeQuze]

...

I don't even let the water run when I brush my teeth.

Neither do I. I totally don't get that! You don't need the water running. How do you even start such a habit?

[amber]

I conserve electricity like you wouldn't believe. :shrug: I will not put a light on during the day, my appliances are Energy Star, etc.

I don't even let the water run when I brush my teeth.
me neither. that kind of small stuff drives me bonkers. When my friend's kid was running the hose, just for fun, I was gritting my teeth. She hates motherly advice (hates, as in, the wrath could "rain" *her name, haha* down upon me) but i was like - "he's wasting water. this is a great opportunity to give him a lesson in conservation :mad: " and "you know, that amount of water would hold an african family for a week" etc. :lol: I totally turned into an "ecobitch" :lol: . And when my friends daughter was playing in the faucet outside, just for fun, for like, 5 minutes, I was livid. She put a stop to it, but the dad still lets her. Anyways, rant, rant. :rolleyes:

[dissention]

me neither. that kind of small stuff drives me bonkers. When my friend's kid was running the hose, just for fun, I was gritting my teeth. She hates motherly advice (hates, as in, the wrath could "rain" *her name, haha* down upon me) but i was like - "he's wasting water. this is a great opportunity to give him a lesson in conservation :mad: " and "you know, that amount of water would hold an african family for a week" etc. :lol: I totally turned into an "ecobitch" :lol: . And when my friends daughter was playing in the faucet outside, just for fun, for like, 5 minutes, I was livid. She put a stop to it, but the dad still lets her. Anyways, rant, rant. :rolleyes:

My grandmother owned a condo and the condo managers had rules about using water, it was hilarious. But that's how I learned to conserve water. :laugh: You weren't allowed to water your lawn, you could only wash your car using your hose once every two weeks, etc. I remember when my grandmother bought one of those refrigerators with an ice machine and water faucet built into it and she said "I'll go to get an ice cube and those ****ers will be banging on my door, just you watch." :laugh:

[SuzeQuze]

No, just us big city elitists. :p :laugh:

Crazy liberal behavior I tell ya. What could we be thinking? Conservation is un-American!

[macfanken]

Again, who here who has a car actually walks instead of drives. If anyone answers that in the affirmative - do you do it in the rain or for more than a mile?

I've used my car maybe three times in the last few months. I walk EVERYWHERE, sometimes in the rain. If I need to go more than a few blocks, I take public transit.

[amber]

My grandmother owned a condo and the condo managers had rules about using water, it was hilarious. But that's how I learned to conserve water. :laugh: You weren't allowed to water your lawn, you could only wash your car using your hose once every two weeks, etc. I remember when my grandmother bought one of those refrigerators with an ice machine and water faucet built into it and she said "I'll go to get an ice cube and those ****ers will be banging on my door, just you watch." :laugh:
That's funny. But another thing that infuriates me is when i see lawns being watered in the middle of the day in the heat of summer. :mad: Hello, people, water in the evening, it's not that hard! Especially at those big business complexes, where there are tons of sprinklers, just squirting away! :mad:

[amber]

Crazy liberal behavior I tell ya. What could we be thinking? Conservation is un-American!
I'm from a small town. :) My mom just happened to major in environmental science... :woohoo: Also, I'm human with a sense of logic and compassion. so that helps. :laugh:

[SuzeQuze]

I'm from a small town. :) My mom just happened to major in environmental science... :woohoo:

I love your mom! :blob1:

[amber]

I love your mom! :blob1:
yeah...I wish I'd payed even more attention when she was blathering on... :lol: JK - she started school again when I was...3? so...

[SuzeQuze]

yeah...I wish I'd payed even more attention when she was blathering on... :lol: JK - she started school again when I was...3? so...

Well, my dad came from a poor family so he is all about conserving everything. They were poor because my grandfather died when he was just 32 and left behind his wife and 5 kids. Dad was only 12. :distress:

My dad is in the process of insulating his house to conserve energy. He bought a new fridge that he didn't need because they told him it would conserve energy. Of course, he does these things not to save the planet, but to save a buck. :laugh: But he does think of the planet too.

So he taught me to conserve and it stuck with me. :cool:

[SuzeQuze]

I'm from a small town. :) My mom just happened to major in environmental science... :woohoo: Also, I'm human with a sense of logic and compassion. so that helps. :laugh:

Oh yeah, and I am from a small town too. It's just now I live in the city. But I never felt like I belonged in that small town.

[amber]

Well, my dad came from a poor family so he is all about conserving everything. They were poor because my grandfather died when he was just 32 and left behind his wife and 5 kids. Dad was only 12. :distress:

My dad is in the process of insulating his house to conserve energy. He bought a new fridge that he didn't need because they told him it would conserve energy. Of course, he does these things not to save the planet, but to save a buck. :laugh: But he does think of the planet too.

So he taught me to conserve and it stuck with me. :cool:
that's really good. That's the whole thing, it does save money. :shrug:
yeah, small towns are boring. But now I like it, cause mine is really, really pretty. :) Still nothing to do, though. :laugh:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I have been reading and following this all day...and the worst part of all of this is 3 Democrats voted NAY, and had they not voted NAY it would have passed and the provision would have been taken OUT of the budget...The fact that there was bi-partisan support (to some extent) to take this amendment out of the budget and not allow it....which was NEEDED...6 republicans going against their party and voting with democrats, and Senator Landrieu (D) of LA and the 2 dem Senators from HI were all it would have taken..

I have personally met Landrieu, and she is quite a nice lady..although she has seriously made me a little mad..lol..Generally she is opposite of President Bush on every issue..I wouldnt even really consider her much of a moderate Democrat...with her strong opposition to the war in iraq, this social security proposals, anti choice judges..etc. So I'm kind of surprised at Sen. Landrieu, she told me PERSONALLY that she would in the Senate do ANYTHING she could do to put up some sort of resistance in this Congress...This was in October, and I think at that point everyone sort of new the Republicans would gain a sizable majority in Congress...She told me she would do whatever it takes...but for some reason on this issue she did a turn around...went against the party, most of her constituents, and hopefully ruined her chances of re-election.. Not only did this seem to be a big enough issue for 6 republicans to go away from their party and support, but this has been a hugely publicized issue and a heated one for voters--- I'm just surprised in her I guess..

Chris

[dissention]

I just want to know why the hell Olympia Snowe is a registered Republican. She's got a good head on her shoulders, you'd think she would distance herself from those fascist bastards.

[gldstwmn]

No, just us big city elitists. :p :laugh:


Oh, screw it. Let's all just stop bathing. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[gldstwmn]

I have been reading and following this all day...and the worst part of all of this is 3 Democrats voted NAY, and had they not voted NAY it would have passed and the provision would have been taken OUT of the budget...The fact that there was bi-partisan support (to some extent) to take this amendment out of the budget and not allow it....which was NEEDED...6 republicans going against their party and voting with democrats, and Senator Landrieu (D) of LA and the 2 dem Senators from HI were all it would have taken..

I have personally met Landrieu, and she is quite a nice lady..although she has seriously made me a little mad..lol..Generally she is opposite of President Bush on every issue..I wouldnt even really consider her much of a moderate Democrat...with her strong opposition to the war in iraq, this social security proposals, anti choice judges..etc. So I'm kind of surprised at Sen. Landrieu, she told me PERSONALLY that she would in the Senate do ANYTHING she could do to put up some sort of resistance in this Congress...This was in October, and I think at that point everyone sort of new the Republicans would gain a sizable majority in Congress...She told me she would do whatever it takes...but for some reason on this issue she did a turn around...went against the party, most of her constituents, and hopefully ruined her chances of re-election.. Not only did this seem to be a big enough issue for 6 republicans to go away from their party and support, but this has been a hugely publicized issue and a heated one for voters--- I'm just surprised in her I guess..

Chris

Look at her campaign contributions and see if any of them were from oil companies.

[gldstwmn]

Better yet, let's ruin the Middle East first then **** where we live? I mean I just do not get why Alaska is more important to people than the Middle East or the rest of America for that matter.


Are you meaning to tell me that it's the will of the people that we drill in the ANWR? Because that's the duty of our elected officials, right? They are supposed to represent us and if we don't want oil companies drilling there then they shouldn't be drilling there.
It has nothing to do with candles or walking in the rain or flying to see Stevie. There is not one person here who would not use an alternative were it available. So save the jet lagged guilt trip. ;) :cool:
You and I both know that type of technology has been surpressed, gonna keep being surpressed and we know by who.
With respect to the Middle East, I don't recall us ever voting on drilling there. We should have learned our lesson 30 years ago.

[amber]

Oh, screw it. Let's all just stop bathing. :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'm waaaay ahead of you... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[amber]

Are you meaning to tell me that it's the will of the people that we drill in the ANWR? Because that's the duty of our elected officials, right? They are supposed to represent us and if we don't want oil companies drilling there then they shouldn't be drilling there.
It has nothing to do with candles or walking in the rain or flying to see Stevie. There is not one person here who would not use an alternative were it available. So save the jet lagged guilt trip. ;) :cool:
You and I both know that type of technology has been surpressed, gonna keep being surpressed and we know by who.
With respect to the Middle East, I don't recall us ever voting on drilling there. We should have learned our lesson 30 years ago.
:xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

Are you meaning to tell me that it's the will of the people that we drill in the ANWR? Because that's the duty of our elected officials, right? They are supposed to represent us and if we don't want oil companies drilling there then they shouldn't be drilling there.
It has nothing to do with candles or walking in the rain or flying to see Stevie. There is not one person here who would not use an alternative were it available. So save the jet lagged guilt trip. ;) :cool:
You and I both know that type of technology has been surpressed, gonna keep being surpressed and we know by who.
With respect to the Middle East, I don't recall us ever voting on drilling there. We should have learned our lesson 30 years ago.

It is the will of the people to continue using fossil fuel with relatively little care or regard to its detrimental effects here or in the Middle East :shrug:

Also, what I am saying is that although I think we ought to stop drilling for oil everywhere now and RUN to alt. fuel sources that require NO oil (thus precluding hybrid cars) - but as long as we (and I mean the world here) use oil, that oil in Alaska is coming out of the ground. Thus, I say do it now and get it over with. I mean that way we the world will be forced into alt. fuel sources.

I was thinking about this on the plane - every single thing we do revolves around oil. Oil is used to power the facilities that make just about everything (shampoo, clothes, paint, asphalt, etc.) Thus, while conserving a good thing and I applaud the people, including myself, who conserve, I still think no one realy does it to any relevant extreme. I mean who here does not use store bought soap, shampoo, etc. For people that smoke, many gallons of oil went into making that luxury (the manufacturing, the butane, the power to refine the wood for paper or wood matches, the packaging, the advertisements, the shipping, etc.). I submit that other than the obvious health reasons for quitting smoking, that if everyone stopped now, it would conserve more power than turning the lights off :shrug: Yet, who has ever heard of anyone stopping smoking because it will protect the environment :shrug: I have not other than some tangential second hand smoke issue. Thus, this proves my point which once again is people may conserve here and there and some like Suze WAY more than others, but few are willing to do without their luxuries for it. I include myself in this BTW.

Also, solar power is available - how many of us have solar panels on our roofs? How many have a windmill in the front yard? Those are available to some degree. Yet, people opt for the so called cheaper method which is the local power company. Again, while some certainly cannot afford it, many could take their monthly power or heating bills and apply that to a pmt on an alt. fuel system. But, I agree the development of alt. fuel has been suppressed - ny point is no one gives a flying you know what because the easy way is to use oil created power. I believe the expression is "If you buils a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door" - it will happen, hopefully, one day.

[strandinthewind]

Also and interestingly, a friend of mine is an engineer for GM. He told me that the oil companies were initially against the hybrid cars but now somewhat support them. The reasons for the change was the oil companies realize that they cannot drill forever and the conservation of oil will prolong the drilling of it for a very very long time.

[SuzeQuze]

It is the will of the people to continue using fossil fuel with relatively little care or regard to its detrimental effects here or in the Middle East :shrug:

Also, what I am saying is that although I think we ought to stop drilling for oil everywhere now and RUN to alt. fuel sources that require NO oil (thus precluding hybrid cars) - but as long as we (and I mean the world here) use oil, that oil in Alaska is coming out of the ground. Thus, I say do it now and get it over with. I mean that way we the world will be forced into alt. fuel sources.

I was thinking about this on the plane - every single thing we do revolves around oil. Oil is used to power the facilities that make just about everything (shampoo, clothes, paint, asphalt, etc.) Thus, while conserving a good thing and I applaud the people, including myself, who conserve, I still think no one realy does it to any relevant extreme. I mean who here does not use store bought soap, shampoo, etc. For people that smoke, many gallons of oil went into making that luxury (the manufacturing, the butane, the power to refine the wood for paper or wood matches, the packaging, the advertisements, the shipping, etc.). I submit that other than the obvious health reasons for quitting smoking, that if everyone stopped now, it would conserve more power than turning the lights off :shrug: Yet, who has ever heard of anyone stopping smoking because it will protect the environment :shrug: I have not other than some tangential second hand smoke issue. Thus, this proves my point which once again is people may conserve here and there and some like Suze WAY more than others, but few are willing to do without their luxuries for it. I include myself in this BTW.

Also, solar power is available - how many of us have solar panels on our roofs? How many have a windmill in the front yard? Those are available to some degree. Yet, people opt for the so called cheaper method which is the local power company. Again, while some certainly cannot afford it, many could take their monthly power or heating bills and apply that to a pmt on an alt. fuel system. But, I agree the development of alt. fuel has been suppressed - ny point is no one gives a flying you know what because the easy way is to use oil created power. I believe the expression is "If you buils a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door" - it will happen, hopefully, one day.

I just think that most people don't understand the consequences of overusing oil. They don't believe it will run out, they just don't think. With Iraq, people are beginning to understand. But they're busy with their families and jobs, too busy to have the energy to deal with this issue. Our leaders have dropped the ball on this, not the little guys.

[heyjupiter678]

I have personally met Landrieu, and she is quite a nice lady..although she has seriously made me a little mad..lol..Generally she is opposite of President Bush on every issue..I wouldnt even really consider her much of a moderate Democrat...with her strong opposition to the war in iraq, this social security proposals, anti choice judges..etc. So I'm kind of surprised at Sen. Landrieu, she told me PERSONALLY that she would in the Senate do ANYTHING she could do to put up some sort of resistance in this Congress...This was in October, and I think at that point everyone sort of new the Republicans would gain a sizable majority in Congress...She told me she would do whatever it takes...but for some reason on this issue she did a turn around...went against the party, most of her constituents, and hopefully ruined her chances of re-election.. Not only did this seem to be a big enough issue for 6 republicans to go away from their party and support, but this has been a hugely publicized issue and a heated one for voters--- I'm just surprised in her I guess..

Chris Read on DU this morning that she's voted against her party three times since March 9th -- in favor of cloture on the bankruptcy bill, in favor of the bankruptcy bill, and now drilling ANWR. :confused:

Here's her statement about the ANWR vote: http://landrieu.senate.gov/~landrieu/releases/04/2005316C23.html

[SuzeQuze]

Read on DU this morning that she's voted against her party three times since March 9th -- in favor of cloture on the bankruptcy bill, in favor of the bankruptcy bill, and now drilling ANWR. :confused:

Here's her statement about the ANWR vote: http://landrieu.senate.gov/~landrieu/releases/04/2005316C23.html

"just as we have helped Alaska today" WTF??? :confused:

[gldstwmn]

Also, solar power is available - how many of us have solar panels on our roofs? How many have a windmill in the front yard? Those are available to some degree. Yet, people opt for the so called cheaper method which is the local power company.

Now you're asking people who can't afford healthcare to put a windmill in their yard? Or solar panels on the roof?

[SuzeQuze]

I got a letter from Chris Dodd saying that he opposed arctic drilling. And then he votes for it. Asshole. :distress:

I missread this list too and thought Kerry and Kennedy voted for it which seemed odd to me and pissed me off. However, the yea votes in this case are votes against drilling. Doh!

[strandinthewind]

Now you're asking people who can't afford healthcare to put a windmill in their yard? Or solar panels on the roof?

apparantly, you did not read the latter part which states "Again, while some certainly cannot afford it" :wavey:

As I have said before, I think all drilling for oil should have stopped 20 years ago when Carter first promoted a plan that could have lead to that. But, the world (not just the US mind you) cannot abide that. I fully agree the oil cartels and the power companies, etc. want the oil useage to continue and will use every available means to see that goal to its fruition. Thus, my point is the sooner we take it all out of the ground, the sooner the delendance on oil ends. Sadly, it will alter (not devastate :rolleyes: ) that region of Alaska. Thus, is my other, but related, point that oil users, we have to accept that. Again, if the world (not just the US) demands oil, it will be provided. I think that is a very very very sad but very true fact. Thus, as momentarily (hopefully :eek: ) unpopular as it makes me amongst my fellow oil consumers (all in varying degrees but comsumers nonetheless) - I say drill away and get it over with :cool:

[jwd]

I'm not really sure where I stand on this issue, but I thought it was somewhat "interesting" that both senators from Alaska voted for the go ahead on the drilling. I'm not really sure if it means that they are just Republican senators voting along party lines, they don't give a **** about the environment, or maybe they feel the pros outweigh the cons for the state they represent. :shrug: