This makes me a happy Panda.

Senate Blocks Alaska Refuge Drilling (AP)

WASHINGTON Dec 21, 2005 — The Senate blocked opening the nation's largest untapped oil reserve in an Alaska wildlife refuge Wednesday, denying President Bush his top energy priority and delivering a victory to environmentalists who said drilling would threaten wildlife.

It was a stinging defeat for Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, one of the Senate's most powerful members, who had hoped to garner more votes by putting the measure onto a defense spending bill. That forced senators to choose between supporting the drilling measure, or risking the political fallout from voting against money for the troops and hurricane victims.

Instead, Stevens found himself a few votes shy of getting his wish.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who led the floor debate in opposition to the drilling provision, called it "legislative blackmail" and said Democrats agreed they "were not going to get jammed" by the tactic.

Republican leaders could not break a Democratic filibuster threat over the drilling issue, falling three votes short of the 60 votes need to advance the defense spending bill to a final vote. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a supporter of drilling, voted with those opposing it so he would have the right to ask the Senate to reconsider the issue in a second vote later.

Hours later, however, the Senate stripped the Alaska drilling language from the defense legislation, then passed the bill and sent it to the House, which was scheduled to reconvene Thursday afternoon. The House earlier had passed the defense spending bill with the Alaska drilling provision in it.

Democrats as well as a number of Republicans were already angered by Stevens' tactic that delayed action on the $453.5 billion defense bill including $29 billion for hurricane relief, the war and border security, and $2 billion to help low-income households pay this winter's heating expenses.

"Our military is being held hostage by this issue, Arctic drilling," fumed Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader.

But Stevens, 82, the Senate's most senior Republican, known for his sometimes cantankerous nature and fiery temper, expressed frustration, but had no apologies.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

All things have a trade off. 

Anwar would have helped the U S to require less middle eastern oil. That step towards energy independence could have lessened world political and even potential military problems in the future. Also an increase in supply would have helped keep a lid on our fuel prices.

Anwar would have used a tiny percent of the wildlife refuge--I heard like 1%. The construction planned would have been as environmentally friendly as possible. Roads were to be built during the winter at considerable cost  so they would not effect the land permanently. The herds would have been lightly impacted.

Anyway, it is not to be.

Thankfully yes, not to be.  It would have had a large impact on Canadian wildlife as much of it would have been near the boarder.

Wouldn't enforcing more fuel effecient cars (and less SUV's) and using other new science and technology do more then drilling in Alaska ever could to reduce dependence on foreign oil?  Most of your foreign oil comes from Canada anyways and we're friendly!

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

O K D, we disagree on the effect the drilling would have had on the herds. We must be reading from divergent sources.

I suppose a multi pronged approach securing more domestic oil, conservation of oil and developing alternative sources is the way to go. ( Too bad Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are against wind power. ) Personally, I drive a V 6 sedan with moderate economy.  It is that cavalier Susan who jets around Hollywood in the gas guzzling S U V. ,  

I know there is a push on in Canada producing more oil. My son is up from Southern Cal in Calgary selling new homes, many to folks envolved in the oil business. And yes, despite the anti U S invective from your government representatives, you are a friendly source. So, lets keep ravaging Canada's resources !  

Great to be going back and forth with you again D.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

First, from the info that I know - ANWAR was set aside by Carter for energy purposes NOT WILDLIFE reserve.

We are only talking about 1% of the region which should NOT have a huge impact on the herds. There's lots of conflicting data as to what really will happen - both sides of the issue giving their own biased take on it. The truth is in the middle which means it will only have SOME impact on the herds more than likely. Funny thing - animals aren't stupid - they can figure things out and so in the end it probably won't be that big of a deal.

Until ALL politicians (Dems and Reps) are serious about TRUE alternate fuel, then we need to find oil production that the US actually owns. We can find it in many sources, including allowing the drilling units to drill more in the Gulf Coast which has been hampered due to environmentalists and their own clout in the govt.

Because US has cars that are over 10 years old on te road, if we started new gas standards for cars, it won't have any direct impact on anything for at least 10 years. Meanwhile, the cost of gas will rise in direct relation to the higher gas per miles. Already in California, the govt is trying to figure out a way to tax high MPG cars because they are losing so much revenue. Granted, ANWAR also wouldn't help for about 10 years so either way we're screwed.

But something has to be done and right now our alternaute fuel science isn't as good as it could and should be to be relying on it as the true answer. Until science improves there, we need to find real oil in areas that the US currently owns, and until people realize this, they are going to be paying at the pumps more and more.

Jordan .

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I remember my disppointment when Anwar was voted down way back in 2001!  We would be half way to turning on the pumps by now. I think it was a mistake then and now. And as Susan points out we may be sorry one of these years.

D, my son is the sales manager for  baywesthomes.com. Drop by and check out the homes -ask for Gabe. Thanks for the regards, same to you!

The high stakes in ANWR

By Bill Frist
December 25, 2005

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Hybrid car technology is already here, many other breakthroughs are just around the corner.  You have to start sometime, why not now!!

P.S. - I'll be receiving my $400 prosperity cheque in the mail soon.  Every man woman and child in Alberta gets it because we have been selling so much oil to the States we have embarrassing surpluses year after year and are debt free.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

I dredged up the oldest political thread here :

OK. Six years later and i think danwhy dropped out of this site years ago. Ha, he won't respond.

So anyway, danwhy benefits with the Canadian's aggressive use of it's oil resources including the sandy alberta fields. He benefits from the positive effect the use of the resources has had on the Canadian economy and the direct $400 checks he receives. BUT, he does not want the US to use it's oil. Thanks alot pal ;)

If ANWR had gone thru back in 2001 when wanted by Bush, or even in 2005, the effects of the Great Recession would have been reduced. Instead we got The Fiasco of Ethanol that starved the world a few years ago , alot of dead birds, the 'dissapointingly' slow to sell electric car toys, and the expensive US solar panel industry collapse, etc.

Notice the friendly, non personal ( until this post anyway :) )discussion of policies. Hale fellows well met.

That was the general tone, if not universal, on these political threads.

Raymond - I saw this thread and thought, wow, this is old.... :-) You're right, we would've been drilling in ANWR right now (or about to be) and I bet oil prices would've been less (since the future outlook would've been brighter).

Jordan .