Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Dems Stop ANWR Drilling Again

Since the Republicans came to power a few years ago, this country really hasn't had an energy policy that made sense. For the Republicans, energy policy means letting the big oil companies do whatever they want. Since Bush and Cheney, both oilmen, came to power they have single-mindedly pursued this policy -- even to the extent of starting an unnecessary war to provide access to Iraqi oil for their oil company buddies.

Another favorite pet project of the Republicans is to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to massive oil drilling. Bush has tried to get this done since coming to office. It doesn't seem to matter to the Bush and the Republicans that this would ruin one of our last pristine wilderness areas (and add to the carbon-based pollution ruining our planet).

This week they tried again to get it approved, and once again they were stopped by Democrats. Senate Democrats (joined by six sensible Republicans) killed the bill on a 56 to 42 vote.

This is just one more reason to elect solid majorities of Democrats this coming November. We need to keep the big oil companies out of ANWR, and we also need to develop a sensible and sustainable energy policy. The only way to do that is to give Democrats a working majority in the Senate, and put a Democrat in the White House.

For far too long we have paid lip service to finding alternate energy sources and more efficient technologies, while letting the oil companies set our energy policy. It is time to get serious.


  1. Another favorite pet project of the Republicans is to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to massive oil drilling. [Emphasis added.]

    Question 1: How many acres comprise the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

    Question 2: How many acres comprise the proposed development area?

  2. 1. 19.2 million acres

    2. Even 1/2 an acre is too much - leave it alone. The oil companies would take a few acres here and a few more there until they've destroyed it.

  3. Answer to Question 2: 2,000 acres (3.13 square miles) located on the ANWR coastal plain, not in the pristine mountain wilderness pictured on your post.

    To put this in perspective, take a look at this map, showing the vastness of ANWR and the relative size of the proposed development area, then tell me with a straight face that this amounts to "massive oil drilling."

    ANWR isn't a long-term solution to our energy problems; that will take the development of alternative sources of energy, something that should have been started three decades ago. But had we allowed drilling when it was first proposed, we wouldn't be facing the prospect of $5.00/gallon gas, and our economic security wouldn't be so inexorably linked to the Middle East.

    But then again, if you'd rather give up our economic freedom than surrender one thirty-eight millionth of a wildlife refuge, I guess you don't see the point - that little red point on the map.

  4. (P.S. Math has never been my strong suit. I acutally should have said one ninety-six hundredth of ANWR.)

  5. (P.P.S. While standing in line at Jason's Deli last night, it occurred to me I was right the first time. Whereas the request was for one ninety-six hundredth of ANWR, jobsanger wouldn't even give up one thirty-eight millionth of the reserve.)

  6. That's right. I'm not willing to give up even an inch.

    Once the oil companies get there foot in the door, they won't stop until they've ruined the whole thing.


ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.