 
|
|
|
|
|
|
HYPERASHEL
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 15397
Location: The South's Sauna, Atlanta
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 04/21/05 - 10:42 Post subject: Drilling in ANWAR
so the house passed the ANWAR bill
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7574562/
below are excerpts of intrest points and contentions that i have
| Quote: | | The House voted late Wednesday to allow oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge as part of a broad energy bill that Democrats said would funnel billions of dollars to highly profitable energy companies while doing little to promote conservation or ease gasoline prices. |
to me it sounds like the contributors and big buisness, typical repulicans. "damn the world and line my pockets"
| Quote: | Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who offered the ANWR amendment, noted that the bill does nothing to improve the fuel economy of automobiles, which he said use 70 percent of the country’s oil, and that it was wrong “to then turn to the wilderness areas and say we need energy.”
An attempt to require automakers to increase fuel economy to a fleet average of 33 miles per gallon over the next decade was defeated 254-177.
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., a co-sponsor of the auto fuel economy proposal, said it would have reduce oil use by 2 million barrels a day — more than could be taken from ANWR — by 2020. He said it was “a bunch of nonsense” — as opponents claimed — that the increased fuel economy would cost the auto industry jobs, force consumers to buy smaller cars or reduce automobile safety. |
If we were to spend more effort and money into clean cheap alternatives i would think it would boost the auto industry need for jobs. A new technology first tends to use more people in the making process until they get to figure out how to streamline the process. several people would need to be trained i admit but this also calls for instructors to teach the train the veteran manufacturers thus also increasing the job market. also the infrastructure for the new technology would have to be built thus also stimulating the job market.
i do not see how increaseing the fuel economy would decrease auto safety if you take other steps that promote safety. and as for the part of buying smaller cars. I am blunt, TOUGHT SH!T!!! the majority of folks don't need a Sherman tank for daily life. Rental agencies could be used for the weekend get-aways. a Buisness would tend to upkeep the vehicles better than most private owners.
| Quote: | Some lawmakers were incensed that they could not debate on the House floor a provision in the bill that would give makers of MTBE, a gasoline additive that is contaminating drinking water, a shield against product liability lawsuits by communities facing expensive cleanup costs.
The bill gives MTBE makers “safe harbor” and will leave communities and water districts with billions of dollars in cleanup costs, said Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., who had prepared an amendment to remove the MTBE section. She also wanted to remove a provision that gives MTBE makers, including some of the biggest oil companies, $2 billion in transition assistance as MTBE is phased out over the next nine years. GOP leaders did not accept either amendment. |
Once again it's the big buisness getting over. when a person poisons someone over a long time the poisoner, if caught, has to pay for damages or is penalized one way or another. precendence has been staged on this in very recent times with the pharmaceutical realm. Why should Big Oil be exempt, Oil has big money, let them fund the water treatment and clean up that they caused. even if what they did was in good faith thinking it was for the better they should own up to thier responsibilty.
| Quote: | | Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., acknowledged that ANWR was “a very unique place” that deserves protection but argued that its oil can be developed using modern drilling techniques without harming the environment and wildlife. |
yeah, and we haven't heard this line before. wether it be caused by human error or naturual disaster something can and most likely go wrong that they could not predict.
| Quote: | | The MTBE liability issue has been a top priority for DeLay, who was instrumental in getting into the legislation a measure that would funnel $2 billion over 10 years for research into recovering oil and gas from extremely deep areas of the Gulf of Mexico. |
great so the Majority Leaders (from Texas) top priority is covering his buddies' backside wallet and the breastpocket checkbook and while we're at it lets screw-up yet another unique enviorment.
|
|
|
|
|
TOsteve
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Out for a run
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/21/05 - 11:03 Post subject: Re: Drilling in ANWAR
I especially liked:
| HYPERASHEL wrote: |
and as for the part of buying smaller cars. I am blunt, TOUGH SH!T!!! the majority of folks don't need a Sherman tank for daily life. |
Who's more to blame on this issue - the auto industry for marketing (their highly profitable) oversized SUV's to suburbians or the surburbians who fall for the marketing campaigns?
Can you imagine it being your job to try to sell something to the public that a) they don't really need and b) contributes to the unecessary raping and pillaging of our world's resources. Sorry, a little off topic - but thinking about auto industry ad-execs always gets me a bit frazzled. 
The drilling that will now go on in Alaska is partially the result of the kind of immoral decisions this industry has made (and keeps making).
|
|
|
|
|
robp
Pyromaniac
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 16241
Location: Waiting in line at the beer store...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/21/05 - 11:21 Post subject: Re: Drilling in ANWAR
[quote="TOsteve]
Can you imagine it being your job to try to sell something to the public that a) they don't really need and [/quote]
That's basically true of an awful lot of jobs.
Back to the topic.
This is one topic I don't agree with Bush on. I think it's possible to drill in the ANWAR w/o doing irrepairable environmental damage but I don't think there is any way in hell anybody will scrutinize the oil companies processes and progress close enough to see that harm is kept to a minimum.
I don't believe you can fault the automakers either. Fuel efficient vehicles are widely available for those who want them. Manufacturer's know that their is a very profitable market out there for SUV's also. Why on earth wouldn't they take advantage of it?
|
|
|
|
|
TOsteve
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Out for a run
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/21/05 - 11:28 Post subject: Re: Drilling in ANWAR
| robp wrote: | | Manufacturer's know that their is a very profitable market out there for SUV's also. Why on earth wouldn't they take advantage of it? |
Because its wrong and will hurt everyone in the long run. But why think about such things when all anybody cares about is the bottom line.
|
|
|
|
|
MechEngDropout
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 10474
Location: Off the grid
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/21/05 - 11:29 Post subject:
I really don't care about the wilderness up there (aside from a detached across the board opinion of preservation), but from what I understand it really won't alleviate any of our problems.
And yes, transportation really is the biggest problem with our dependence on oil, and it's also the area individuals have the most control over. As far as improving fuel efficiency, that won't help much either. People always use that stupid analogy of the way computer power increases exponentially while fuel efficiency is relatively constant. People just don't appreciate how powerful fuel really is, and the physics that prevent efficiency from becoming extremely high. Take it like this. You have 1 oz of this liquid that can propel 3000 lbs a quarter of a mile in under 20 seconds. How is this not efficient? Okay, so assuming that we call it inefficient and demand that our producers of cars increase average efficiency to 33 mpg. So what? The average today is maybe 18? 20? Increasing mileage by 50% will not be much of a remedy as people continue to drive farther and rely more and more on goods produced in another part of the country. Want an easy way to pick up the average to 33mpg? Get rid of SUVs.
|
|
|
|
|
TOsteve
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Out for a run
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/21/05 - 11:36 Post subject:
| MechEngDropout wrote: | | Want an easy way to pick up the average to 33mpg? Get rid of SUVs. |
I agree that improving fuel effeciency doesn't solve the problem, but its a step in the right direction. And most of us agree that we need to start making some steps.
The whole SUV thing is just a symptom of public and corporate apathy about this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17304
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/21/05 - 11:40 Post subject:
Well said Hyper. I think this is very unfortunate.
I think another sad truth of today is that money, not the right thing to do, is what drives our industries and our public policies lately. This still doesn't address peak oil and all the myriad of problems Kunstler addressed in the long emergency thread that will be brought about. Why are being so reactive and not proactive? Because it pays, apparently. 
|
|
|
|
|
phillycat
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1953
Location: Da hood
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/21/05 - 11:44 Post subject:
This makes me SO sad...and angry. 
|
|
|
|
|
Wicked Flea
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 365
Location: Hair of the Dog
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/21/05 - 12:12 Post subject:
| phillycat wrote: | | This makes me SO sad...and angry. |
1
And they couldn't have picked a better time. 
On Eve of Earth Day, House Passes Energy Bill that Allows ANWR Drilling by H. Josef Hebert
WASHINGTON -- The House voted late yesterday to allow oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge as part of a broad energy bill that Democrats said would funnel billions of dollars to highly profitable energy companies while doing little to promote conservation or ease gasoline prices.
The bill's sponsors said oil from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as much as a million barrels a day, will be needed to help curtail the country's growing dependence on oil imports. Opponents argued the oil wouldn't be available for a decade and even then at levels that would not significantly affect oil prices or imports.
The bill also calls for $8.1 billion in tax breaks over 10 years, most of it going to promote the coal, nuclear, oil and natural-gas industries.
Development of the Alaska refuge has been a contentious issue for nearly a decade. Senate Democrats have pledged to filibuster any energy bill that would open the refuge to oil companies.
An amendment to strip the Alaska refuge provision from the House energy bill failed last night 231-200.
Washington state Democrats Brian Baird of Olympia, Norm Dicks of Bremerton, Jay Inslee of Bainbridge Island, Rick Larsen of Lake Stevens, Jim McDermott of Seattle and Adam Smith of Tacoma voted for the amendment, as did Republican Dave Reichert of Bellevue.
Republicans Doc Hastings of Pasco and Cathy McMorris of Spokane voted against it.
A final vote on the energy legislation is expected today.
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who offered the ANWR amendment, noted that the bill does nothing to improve the fuel economy of automobiles, which he said use 70 percent of the country's oil.
An attempt to require automakers to increase fuel economy to a fleet average of 33 miles per gallon over the next decade was defeated 254-177.
President Bush yesterday urged Congress to give him an energy bill by summer, including a go-ahead for oil exploration in the Alaska refuge. He said that the oil can be recovered "with almost no impact on land and local wildlife" and that ANWR's production would amount to nearly half the oil the United States now gets from Venezuela.
Speaking to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Bush said he wished he "could wave a magic wand and lower gas prices tomorrow" but said the nation's energy problems took years to develop and are "not going to be solved overnight."
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California accused Bush of trying to exploit people's anxiety over high gas prices to gain support for a bill that she said "was written by energy lobbyists for the benefit of the energy industry."
The House bill also would make it easier to build liquefied natural-gas import terminals, even if states or local communities oppose the project, and require refiners to use more corn-based ethanol in gasoline.
It also would extend daylight-saving time and protect makers of the gasoline additive MTBE from product-liability lawsuits stemming to the chemical's contamination of drinking water.
|
|
|
|
|
HYPERASHEL
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 15397
Location: The South's Sauna, Atlanta
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/21/05 - 13:13 Post subject:
let's see 8.1 billion dollars
this could be better used in the areas of releife in housing to be more efficient between electrical systems that can be powered via wind/solar/water generation with a battery storage system
for cars more incentive towards or more taxes (yeah hit the public where it gets attention) for vehichles that do not make the GPM. as i had commented a year or so ago, they could exempt vehichles for buisness from this tax so that it is not a drain on economy. most of the vehichles used are privatley owned so this tax would greatly reduce the fuel need while not encourage inflation by having the buisness taxed for deleivery vehichles, for farm equipment and such. but of course the politicians are too afraid that if they back a bill like that then they'll need to become a working stiff and not be re-elected.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/21/05 - 19:19 Post subject:
Drill away. The companies will have so much environmental scrutiny I bet they do an admirable job. If they so much as drop a gum wrapper on the ground they will get blasted.
And no SUV's are not the answer. Better battery technology and hybrids are the answer. I know GM is even working on a hybrid SUV right now.
I need an SUV, most of the time I travel in it I have over 4 people in it. I need a reliable 4 wheel drive vehicle that holds at least 6 people. I am willing to pay more for the gas. I also pay a higher consumption tax based on my usage. I am already paying my share.
|
|
|
|
|
Wicked Flea
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 365
Location: Hair of the Dog
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/22/05 - 11:18 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | Drill away. The companies will have so much environmental scrutiny I bet they do an admirable job. If they so much as drop a gum wrapper on the ground they will get blasted.
|
It might start out that way but I really think (especially under this current administration) that it won't stay that way.
And that they will find reason and loopholes to open up even more of ANWR to drilling.
Even though we don't know how much or how little oil really is there.
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. ~Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/22/05 - 11:58 Post subject:
seems to me the moose and caribou will move out of the way
Sound like such a small area will be impacted I don't get the big deal.
We need oil , oil is there - drill for oil.
|
|
|
|
|
TOsteve
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Out for a run
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/22/05 - 12:28 Post subject:
| wanttorun100 wrote: | seems to me the moose and caribou will move out of the way
Sound like such a small area will be impacted I don't get the big deal.
We need oil , oil is there - drill for oil. |
Reminds me of "We need more freeways, so build more". This kind of logic has gone a long way to relieving traffic congestion.
|
|
|
|
|
HYPERASHEL
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 15397
Location: The South's Sauna, Atlanta
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 04/25/05 - 17:45 Post subject:
| wanttorun100 wrote: | seems to me the moose and caribou will move out of the way
Sound like such a small area will be impacted I don't get the big deal.
We need oil , oil is there - drill for oil. |
the moose and carribou have fairly set migratory paths, which have been determined by food availaibliblty, either cover up a patch of ground that had winter supporting lichens on it, spill oil in the area and detroy all the life there and then what?
it looks easy but it aint that simple.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
