Senate approves drilling in Alaska Refuge.


MacFan782040

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Dec 1, 2003
791
110
Scranton, PA
Aeolius said:
and the Democrats will help fill my gas tank up with hot air, then? ;)
No, but there are other ways of conserving energy than going into a wildlife refuge to drill for oil. Not to mention Exxon posted a $10 BILLON profit last QUARTER.
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,378
110
Location Location Location
^^The problem is that some of us actually care about their environment and country.

They could have spent the money setting up the drills on funding alternative fuel research or something. There could never be enough money going into that.

And Exxon posting a $10 bn profit in one quarter makes you wonder why petrol prices are so high. Does Bush own Exxon shares or something?

Whatever. I'm just glad I'm not American, or Alaskan.
 

OutThere

macrumors 603
Dec 19, 2002
5,730
0
NYC
This effing demented country just went further down the proverbial toilet drain...I'm so sick of this ********. It's hard to have any more faith in the human race...:mad: :(
 

Phatpat

macrumors 6502a
Jun 15, 2003
903
2
Cambridge, MA
See how your senator voted here: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00288

A couple choice words from Dick Durbin, who spoke for the amendment:

There is a bigger issue. We have heard it said over and over on the other side. This is about America's energy security. You can argue it is a small amount of oil, but even accepting the fact that even a small amount of oil will lessen our dependence on foreign oil somewhat, there is another interesting issue. Do you know there was an amendment before the committee when the ANWR issue came up, and that amendment said: Whatever oil we take out of ANWR, we are going to use in America? That oil will come down to be used in America, so it will benefit American consumers and motorists. But that amendment by Senator Wyden from Oregon was defeated. In fact, the Senator from Alaska voted against the amendment which said the ANWR oil has to be used in America.

What are we really debating here? We are debating drilling in ANWR so that oil can be exported from a wildlife refuge to China and Japan and other parts of the world. This isn't about the energy security of America; it is about the energy security of China and Japan. We are going to defile this wildlife refuge to drill for oil that can be exported, that won't even benefit the United States. Why would we do that? There is only one reason--because the oil companies will make a huge profit off of it. Those struggling oil companies need our help today with this amendment. They have had a tough 6 months.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DURBIN. No, I won't.​

He ends with this:

This White House argues that all we can do to get out of a problem is to drill our way out. Except the obvious, America has only 3 percent of the known oil reserves in the world, and we consume 25 percent. We cannot drill our way out of this problem. Today, we will sacrifice a wildlife refuge. Tomorrow, the oil companies want to drill off our coastlines. What comes next, the Great Lakes? Where will this end? It will end with leadership and vision for an energy policy for America that reduces our dependence on foreign oil with responsible environmental production, with conservation techniques, with energy efficiency, with renewable and sustainable fuels instead of drilling away in wildlife refuges we promised our children we would protect.​
 

jimsowden

macrumors 68000
Sep 6, 2003
1,766
16
NY
Aeolius said:
and the Democrats will help fill my gas tank up with hot air, then? ;)
We're in no danger of running out of oil, it's just Joe Blow has a shortsighted tendency of seeing $60 at the pump when he fills up his excursion and blaming everyone else.
 

Kup

macrumors member
Nov 2, 2005
36
2
Earth
As bad of a decision as this is, it could have been a really good one. If we actually had an administration that gave a crap about America, then we would be concentrating on our own country's problems, not waging unjustified wars with others. If this decision was due to a plan to make America self sufficient, and pursue alternate fuels or more efficient mass transit, then I would be all for it. As much as I love my country, they just keep throwing reasons at me to move out of the U.S. So called "patriotic" Americans will say, "If you don't like the USA, then you can get out". Well, it looks like it's coming to that. :(
 

dmw007

macrumors G4
May 26, 2005
10,635
0
Working for MI-6
Such a shame. :(

We really, really need to stop our dependence upon petroleum. :(
The destruction of a refuge is not an acceptable practice. :rolleyes:
 

Phatpat

macrumors 6502a
Jun 15, 2003
903
2
Cambridge, MA
Kup said:
As much as I love my country, they just keep throwing reasons at me to move out of the U.S. So called "patriotic" Americans will say, "If you don't like the USA, then you can get out". Well, it looks like it's coming to that. :(
I thought this way for a couple weeks after the last election, but this is the final conclusion I reached: Patriotism doesn't mean supporting the administration of the time. It means supporting your country, and what it stands for. You CAN BE patriotic and fight against legislation and representatives that go against what the United States should be.
 

MacFan782040

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Dec 1, 2003
791
110
Scranton, PA
Phatpat said:
I thought this way for a couple weeks after the last election, but this is the final conclusion I reached: Patriotism doesn't mean supporting the administration of the time. It means supporting your country, and what it stands for. You CAN BE patriotic and fight against legislation and representatives that go against what the United States should be.
I agree. I'm very patriotic, but I cannot stand Bush and his administration. Patriotic means I stand for the way this country was founded and all it stood for.
 

Kup

macrumors member
Nov 2, 2005
36
2
Earth
Phatpat said:
I thought this way for a couple weeks after the last election, but this is the final conclusion I reached: Patriotism doesn't mean supporting the administration of the time. It means supporting your country, and what it stands for. You CAN BE patriotic and fight against legislation and representatives that go against what the United States should be.
Yes, we can be patriotic in the sense that we remember what our country stood for, and how great it could still be. The sad thing is that under this administration our way of thinking is labeled as left-wing liberal tree hugging hippie BS. They have perverted the term "patriotism" to mean unyielding support for the president no matter what. If you don't agree with the president you are labeled "un-American". Not saying that I agree with it, just saying that's how it is.
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,378
110
Location Location Location
Phatpat said:
You CAN BE patriotic and fight against legislation and representatives that go against what the United States should be.
So you're telling me that Bush was wrong? That I'm not "against" the USA even if I don't like what the gov't is doing?
 

halVORTEX

macrumors newbie
Aug 4, 2005
29
0
alaska REPRESENT
Speaking as someone who actually lives in alaska i have mixed feelings on this subject.
I think that the actual wildlife in the area is misrepresented. The caribou travel through these regions only a couple of times a year if at all. If drilling started they would just roam around to a different spot. The economy of my state will start to go on the upswing as it booms but the truth is most of the jobs will be done by someone out of state. My friends dad works on the slope and he works with a man that lives and puerto rico and flies up to work there for a couple weeks then flies back. That goes for many people also but not to that extent of location.
I really would like the country to start to research other types of energies because i know that fuel will not be around for forever and my life is just beginning and i dont want it to end with the polar ice caps melting just as im about to retire. (okay that was a huge exaggeration)
 

Counterfit

macrumors G3
Aug 20, 2003
8,202
0
sitting on your shoulder
Alpinism said:
I might not buy their stuff ($$!) but I do like to see that they care about the environment. Of course, it makes sense, seeing as without it being taken care of, they won't make money.*

Glad to see both my senators voted for the amendment to the bill, even if it didn't pass. I like having a RINO in one seat :D





*: Not that I think Patagonia is all about profit like many other companies. I'm sure their employees are active in a variety of outdoor activities, and care about the environment individually, and would whether they worked there or not.
 

yoda13

macrumors 65816
Sep 26, 2003
1,460
0
Texas
Phatpat said:
I thought this way for a couple weeks after the last election, but this is the final conclusion I reached: Patriotism doesn't mean supporting the administration of the time. It means supporting your country, and what it stands for. You CAN BE patriotic and fight against legislation and representatives that go against what the United States should be.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I am a Republican from the South, but I don't support drilling in ANWAR and I have no problem telling anyone that. I also have some serious issues with various aspects of the war in Iraq. Neither of these things make me unpatriotic at all, IMO. I personally don't mind gas fillups at $60 bux a tank in my truck. I'll just drive my Honda. I really only use the truck when I need to haul something anyway. I believe in the right to own and drive whatever you want, but as long as gas prices stay high, then maybe some of my neihbors will replace their Suburbans, Yukons, and Hummers with cars, or at the very least smaller car based SUVs. Drilling in a wildlife refuge will do little to help us now or in the future, and to me defeats the whole purpose of protected public lands. Just my two cents...
:)
 

Sedulous

macrumors 68020
Dec 10, 2002
2,325
1,573
Abstract said:
So you're telling me that Bush was wrong? That I'm not "against" the USA even if I don't like what the gov't is doing?
No, it means you just hate monkeys.
 

Sedulous

macrumors 68020
Dec 10, 2002
2,325
1,573
jmufellow said:
It's about time they start drilling up there.
Here is my theory on how bushwack and co should spin/merket this: Oil is good. Grease is related to oil. Grease is good. Mmmm grease (enter thoughts of greasy burger and fries; all other thoughts and consideration eliminated). So we need to drill for more goodness. Are you saying 'Merca needs less good? You must hate 'Merca and freedom!

Then once we've all eaten fat greasy burgers and fries, and can nolonger even fit in a car, driving a hummer is easily justified.
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,378
110
Location Location Location
How can they drill in a wildlife sanctuary? Isn't it not a Refuge at all if they drill in it? Basically, it won't exactly be a Refuge anymore, or at least in the exact definition of the word, as that piece of land isn't a place for animals to have refuge......their own space.

Maybe the drilling won't be that bad, but I don't want to find out. It should stay a refuge, which means that people can't go in their and drill for oil. Animals should be in there living without a large amount of stress caused by us pesky humans.

yoda13 said:
I personally don't mind gas fillups at $60 bux a tank in my truck. I'll just drive my Honda. I really only use the truck when I need to haul something anyway.
And that's the way it should be if you have that choice.
 

sebisworld

macrumors 6502
Jun 24, 2003
344
0
Who needs nature anyway, now that we can render spectacular pictures with 3D Studio Max?

Those idiots.
 

Black&Tan

macrumors 6502a
Mar 4, 2004
736
0
I am so depressed and so frustrated.

This administration has forced me to lose all faith in the government. As a country, we are far too short sighted. We fire workers to satisfy Wall Street and keep profits up in the quarter. We allow companies to hold states hostage for jobs. We allow the rich far too many tax breaks and screw over the poor and middle class. We refuse to pass legislation requiring cleaner factories. We actually pre-emptively attacked another country. There is no high ground to claim on this one, we invaded another country on the basis of trumped up lies. And now we're poised to open the ANWR for rich corporations to get richer.

I think I'm going to go get sick.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
Countdown until this thread is moved to the Politics forum: 3...2...

Anyway, I'm surprised to hear from any Alaskan who isn't pretty much 100% in favor of ANWR oil drilling. Most people from the lower 48 probably don't know this, but a share of the state's oil revenues are paid out to every full-time Alaska resident. They get an oil revenue check every year. Last I heard, it was around $1,000.00, which is quite a bit of money in a state where the employment opportunities are so minimal. The state has also built up a huge trust fund from oil revenues. So it's a little tough for Alaskans to be very objective when it comes to oil exploration vs. environmental protection, and especially when the state is so immense and the population so small.
 

aloofman

macrumors 68020
Dec 17, 2002
2,206
0
Socal
Phatpat said:
See how your senator voted here: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00288

A couple choice words from Dick Durbin, who spoke for the amendment:

There is a bigger issue. We have heard it said over and over on the other side. This is about America's energy security. You can argue it is a small amount of oil, but even accepting the fact that even a small amount of oil will lessen our dependence on foreign oil somewhat, there is another interesting issue. Do you know there was an amendment before the committee when the ANWR issue came up, and that amendment said: Whatever oil we take out of ANWR, we are going to use in America? That oil will come down to be used in America, so it will benefit American consumers and motorists. But that amendment by Senator Wyden from Oregon was defeated. In fact, the Senator from Alaska voted against the amendment which said the ANWR oil has to be used in America.


It would be a dumb idea to force the oil to be consumed here because it would just raise oil prices that much more. A lot of Alaskan oil goes to Japan and Korea because it's cheaper for them to ship it from Alaska than from the Persian Gulf. Likewise, the U.S. gets quite a bit of its imported oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, because they're close by. Requiring that the ANWR oil be consumed in the U.S. would only distort the oil market even more than it already is. And it would probably violate free trade agreements.

Drilling in ANWR has nothing to do with increasing production or easing oil prices because it would barely make a blip in either. It's about rewarding oil companies for their political contributions.​