Well, neither of those apply to me. I don´t own a car and I am no US citizen.
Hopefully we can convince the polar bears to kill and eat these Senate assholes before they do any more damage to the planet.
I've never heard of BP or ConocoPhillips, but I'll certainly stop buying from the other two. Time to start crossing our fingers.
This is disgusting. NOW is a good time and place for the "Fuck Bush" stuff.
But I got this from the daily Kos link: these three: Landrieu (D-LA) , Akaka (D-HA), and Inouye (D-HA), supported the bill.
Evil people will do always try to do evil. When there is no opposition from those who should know better, they will succeed. Much like the war, this couldnt happen without the craven cowardice of the "democrats" in Congress. I got an email from John Kerry today telling me to sign some online petition... is anything on Earth less effective than an online petition? Maybe if he hadnt been pro-war at first, and if Bush's charges of "flip-flop" hadnt been so true, Kerry would be president now and actually have some power to stop this.
Landrieu at least is a lost cause for the Democratic party. Why she doesn't switch parties I don't understand. Probably because she does more damage if she retains her (D). The Hawaii senators deserve a big 'fuck you'.
I keep hearing about how the Senate Democrats are so united under Reid. So far they have voted for Rice and Gonzales, and for the bankruptcy amendment. Reid himself is guilty of the second. People congratulate Reid on uniting the Senate Democrats on Social Security— that's great, but the SS Piratization plan hasn't even been introduced as a bill yet! Where is the unity on the bills that are already passing, senator?
When I first learned that Kerry and Edwards both voted in favour of the Iraq War Resolution, I knew that they were as hollow as their critics claimed. Reid is no better. The Democratic party is hollow.
the area of ANWR set aside ...for oil exploration, could contain 5.7 million to 16 million barrels of oil or more...could provide ...oil-based products for the state of New Mexico for 200 years," Norton said
According to the US government:
The United States consumed an average of about 20.4 million bbl/d of oil during the first ten months of 2004
So...roughly one day's worth of oil in ANWR? That seems really worth tearing up a wildlife preserve for.
The irony here, of course, is that with global warming all the caribou, polar bears, etc might well die off anyway, even if ANWR were preserved.
Also a 'fuck Bush' here is inappropriate. Opening Jenna BushANWR up for public drilling has always been one of his stated goals. Unlike the bankruptcy bill where there was no support from voters on either side of the aisle, this bill I assume is what 51% of the voting public was in support of. In this instance Bush should be congratulated on his political success.
what fuyugare said. many times over.
also - BP = Beyond Petroleum (formerly British Petroleum)
I was told not to drive. And to write my congressperson.
Hm.
On further reflection, I should modify my previous comment to say
this concept I assume is what 51% of the voting public was in favour of
I doubt they approve of the way in which it was passed—as a rider on a budget bill—though they might have been in favour of it as a regular bill. Bush and the Republicans don't deserve any congratulations for sneaking it in in this fashion. Why did they feel the need to sneak? Were they afraid of a Democratic opposition to an 'ANWR drilling' bill? Unlikely, I think; there is very little about the current Democratic party that the Republicans actually fear. More likely the Republicans don't think that their constituency would support a separate 'ANWR drilling' bill. If so, why do they include it in their campaigns?
Am I wrong in thinking that there are no Republican voters who approve of the manner in which this was passed?
And here I was intending on coming home from work to post about Wolfowitz and the World Bank, but Air India and Alaskan drilling have taken the wind out of my sails. What's the point of being outraged anymore? A good technique, really. Do as many ridiculously irresponsible things as possible in as short a time span as possible. Like a kid on Christmas day with too many presents, you just can't give the attention to each that it deserves.
Moral outrage fatigue has set in. I'm going to sleep.
Louisiana has a long and bizarre history of "Dixiecrats" or Dems who are really Republicans in all but name. If you live here, often your choice is which Republican to vote for, the "Democrat" Republican or the "Republican" Republican.
Oh, but hey, guys. That paragon of journalistic integrity, the Washington Times reports:
Mrs. Murkowski said new "diagonal drilling" technology that allows a single pumping station to extract oil from multiple wells at once should convince environmentalists that wildlife will not be disturbed if ANWR exploration and the subsequent drilling is allowed.
"I make the claim that what we do in Alaska in terms of oil and gas drilling is in balance with the environment and as nondisruptive as possible," Mrs. Murkowski said. "We have figured out how to do it right."
With oil prices soaring to $55 a barrel, Congress is focused on relieving the country's dependence on foreign oil and natural gas.
I'm sure they'll so it very gently. But beside the point, even if they can extract the oil without so much as ruffling a penguin's feathers, why is it worth the risk at all FOR ONE DAY OF OIL? Furthermore, is that paltry amount of oil really going to alleviate price pressure on oil? More likely it will put more money into the pockets of the likes of Halliburton, if only to compensate them for having to return some of the money they stole from us, er I mean, overcharged the US government for.
Please refrain from using the "one day of oil" argument. You can be sure that the same argument will be used to fight any conservation efforts that may save us "one day of oil." There are better arguments against the drilling. Let us try to focus on those.
No question there are better arguments, but the "one day of oil argument" is a pretty good one in terms of highlighting the WTF factor. If drilling in the ANWR meant freeing the US from its dependence upon foreign oil for 5-10 years, to give us time to figure out another way, even the most hard boiled environmentalist might see his/her way to agreeing with it. But for that little oil? Makes no sense at all (Hüsker Dü).
Where does this 'one day of oil' thing come from, anyway?
A little googling seems to indicate that there are around 10 billion barrels economically extractable from the area. That's more like 500 days at 20 million barrels a day.
Of course, if oil prices stay high, more could be extracted.
FUYU- No, according to the polling that NPR had, about 70% of the voting public opposes opening ANWR. The only state in which it polled as a majority was Alaska.
And Inouye supported it because it's what the Inuit want (since they're basically poor and huffing gas, because their entire way of life has been destroyed...)
The 'one day of oil' figures I roughly estimated above are from:
1) a quote by Interior Secretary Gale Norton, as part of the ANWR announcement, contained in the WashTimes article linked in the original post, and
2) a US Dept of Energy web page.
The 'one day of oil' estimate produced also roughly tracks with Norton's claim that ANWR contains enough oil to supply New Mexico for 200 years. New Mexico obviously doesn't use much oil, compared to the rest of America. Her handlers should have worked harder to come up with a more impressive comparison.
While I haven't researched in depth, any suggestion I've read that ANWR contains billions of barrels has been heavily couched in could be's and possibly's.
Chaz's link above, to Norton testimony before Congress, contains the firmest wording I've seen as to the 'billions' of barrels. Unfortunately, Congressional testimony has proven not particularly reliable with this administration.
In particular, I'll point out that in the same testimony Norton claims they'll protect habitat with ice roads and runways. A plan that would likely be extremely difficult now that the permafrost is melting...
While I am NOT happy with the method that the Senate is using to get this passed, there is one thing to consider here.
ANWR is roughly 19 million acres. Or, nearly 30,000 square miles. It is as big as the state of South Carolina.
Even if they opened it up for drilling, only a tiny fraction of the available land would be used. I think a lot of people presume ANWR is like a state park, maybe a place the size of a county. Not one the size of a state.
I used to object to ANWR drilling for exactly that reason, until I saw how big it is. After I worked that out, I just couldn't think of a good reason to leave 100% of it untouched. I'd say leaving 99% pure is good enough.
It seems like a bad, short-sighted non-solution to an effectively impossible problem. Oil, from *anywhere*, is a stupid idea. No, I do not have a better specific idea.
Simple fact: drilling for oil will do nothing to relieve our reliance on oil.
The oil will run out eventually, and whether we wreck the ANWR (or some to-be-determined percentage of it) on our way to that time will in no way stop that time from coming. To paraphrase Buck Turgison, it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless *distinguishable*, environments: No oil and an utterly-spoiled ANWR or no oil and a less-spoiled ANWR. Because when the oil dries up more do you think we will NOT go in there, and anywhere else, and tear it to shreds trying to extract every drop?
We can, starting RIGHT NOW, try really fooking hard to find a better solution, and it might work. But the end result of the path we currently on, and that this is part and parcel of, is clear, and daft.
The Hawaiian and Alaskan Senators and Reps traditionally vote together on proprosals made by the other state. A non-contiguous states alliance if you will.
From fuyugare's link above, posted here for posterity:
BP and ConocoPhillips, while not model corporate citizens, have renounced their desire to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. We can support them by only buying gas from them and their subsidiaries, while boycotting ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco, the satan-spawn corporations behind this administration and drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. We can hit them where it hurts. A majority of Americans oppose drilling the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and we can get many of them to boycott the soulless Houston motherfuckers who are behind this bullshit.
Boycott update: Call these two corporations and tell them you refuse to buy their gas until they promise not to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
ExxonMobil: (972) 444-1000
ChevronTexaco: (925) 842-1000
Call these two corporations and thank them for refusing to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. Inform them that they will benefit from your boycott of ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco.
BP: (281) 366-5174 and (202) 457-6603
ConocoPhillips: (303) 649-4065
This is a shameful president and a disgraceful administration.
The link is to a Mefi post regarding free-speech and the attempts of the Secret Service to sheild our president from it. Not really necessary, but it's a good post, and I also wanted to give credit to the author of that wonderful quote.
This is a shameful president and a disgraceful administration.
What gets me are my many friends who are intelligent, educated, should know better, and are so caught up with whatever that they voted for him. A good 50% of them listen to talk radio all day and i'm 100% positive that has everything to do with their bizarre (and often at-odds) understanding of the BushCo reign.
My husband and I caught an History Channel special the other day about FDR, and how secretive he was. I was very strongly reminded of our own president/administration while learning about his (although FDR wasn't evil, as is our current president). Nobody knows what's really going on, and I don't believe we ever will, under this administration.
That said, I'd like to be in the Capitol today.
Jenna BushANWR up for public drilling has always been one of his stated goals. Unlike the bankruptcy bill where there was no support from voters on either side of the aisle, this bill I assume is what 51% of the voting public was in support of. In this instance Bush should be congratulated on his political success.