NationStates Jolt Archive


Alaksa oil drilling shelved by US House. Thank goodness!

Eutrusca
10-11-2005, 21:23
COMMENTARY: Perhaps we could use more oil over the short term, but the more oil we have, the less likely it is that pressure for alternative energy sources will build. I see this development as a very hopeful sign.


House Shelves Alaska Drilling in Budget Fight (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/10/national/10cong.html?th&emc=th)


By CARL HULSE
Published: November 10, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 - House Republican leaders were forced to jettison a plan for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska on Wednesday night to save a sweeping spending bill, a concession that came one day after the party suffered significant election loses.

In dropping the drilling plan and a second provision, on coastal exploration, the leadership was trying to win over moderates in the party to enhance the chances of winning initial approval on Thursday of more than $50 billion in spending cuts demanded by House conservatives. But the decision is likely to meet objections from the Senate, where senior lawmakers are insisting on the drilling plan, a priority for President Bush.

The last-ditch effort by the leadership to avoid an embarrassing legislative defeat was the latest symptom of party unrest arising from instability in the leadership and anxiety about the 2006 elections. Those concerns were heightened by election results on Tuesday that Democrats and some Republicans said exposed the party's vulnerabilities and threatened its policy agenda.

"There is a clear message from the election results all over the country," said Representative Sherwood Boehlert, Republican of New York, an influential moderate. "The American people, by and large as a body politic, are looking for a more centrist approach."

Republican leaders inside and outside Congress dismissed suggestion that the election results were a factor in the budget fight or that they signaled major political problems for Republicans in the House and Senate or for President Bush. They noted Republican victories and said off-year voting did not signal a trend.

"The election results show a surprising amount of support for the status quo," said Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee. "There were 28 Republican governors before, there are 28 Republican governors now."

Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said he expected senators facing potentially tough races to begin distancing themselves from the Bush administration and conservative policies, making it more difficult for Republican leaders to pursue new tax cuts and other initiatives.

"If you are a moderate Republican, you are starting to say, 'I am not going to follow George Bush over the cliff,' " Mr. Schumer said. "The polices that the president has invoked are not gaining favor with the American people."

Allies of Republican moderates acknowledged that the elections should be read as cautionary. Sarah Chamberlain Resnick, executive director of the Republican Mainstreet Partnership, said she expected that the group's moderate lawmakers would show added independence in coming months. "This is to maintain the majority, and, if somebody has to show a little separation to maintain the majority, I assume the leadership will understand that," she said.

Republican moderates concerned about the arctic drilling and reductions in spending on Medicaid and food stamps were the main holdouts against the budget cuts, and House leaders concluded they had no chance to advance the spending plan without major concessions. Authors of the measure also adjusted the food stamp provision to limit its impact on legal immigrants, to win votes from Republicans in states with significant populations of newcomers.

Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said he was trying to build support among his colleagues by arguing that the combination of improving the administration of federal benefit programs and reducing the deficit was a winning message.
DrunkenDove
10-11-2005, 21:26
See? America's not as bad as everyone thinks.
The Nazz
10-11-2005, 21:26
As I said to someone (rather rudely, I admit) on another thread last night, it seems to me that if you really support ANWR drilling, then the environmentalists are doing you a big favor. The longer we delay drilling, the more valuable that oil becomes, and the more foreign oil we use up, the more we have in reserve for when they all run out. This is about where the MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA comes in I think.
Santa Barbara
10-11-2005, 21:27
COMMENTARY: Perhaps we could use more oil over the short term, but the more oil we have, the less likely it is that pressure for alternative energy sources will build. I see this development as a very hopeful sign.

I agree.
Supply and demand works for R&D too... and so many would rather just rape the environment or start global wars than plan ahead.
Carops
10-11-2005, 21:27
Just keep your filthy hands of our gold!
Eutrusca
10-11-2005, 21:28
As I said to someone (rather rudely, I admit) on another thread last night, it seems to me that if you really support ANWR drilling, then the environmentalists are doing you a big favor. The longer we delay drilling, the more valuable that oil becomes, and the more foreign oil we use up, the more we have in reserve for when they all run out. This is about where the MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA comes in I think.
[ confused look ] Um ... yeah ... I think. :confused:
Eutrusca
10-11-2005, 21:29
I agree.
Supply and demand works for R&D too... and so many would rather just rape the environment or start global wars than plan ahead.
You and I agree on something??? [ faints ] **THUD** :D
Laerod
10-11-2005, 21:30
As I said to someone (rather rudely, I admit) on another thread last night, it seems to me that if you really support ANWR drilling, then the environmentalists are doing you a big favor. The longer we delay drilling, the more valuable that oil becomes, and the more foreign oil we use up, the more we have in reserve for when they all run out. This is about where the MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA comes in I think.Actually, the more expensive oil gets, there will be a slight increase in oil resources. Canada only recently started mining oil shales because it just didn't pay off to get the oil from them until the price rose...
Santa Barbara
10-11-2005, 21:32
You and I agree on something??? [ faints ] **THUD** :D

It must be true! Either that or the Time of Revelation is at hand... or both... :p
Eutrusca
10-11-2005, 21:33
It must be true! Either that or the Time of Revelation is at hand... or both... :p
ARRRRMAGEDDON, I tell you! It's ARRRRMAGEDDON! We're all doomed! :D
Swimmingpool
10-11-2005, 21:45
Lets see, its the far-right conservatives who support the corporate rape of America's most beautiful land, yet liberals hate America?
The Nazz
10-11-2005, 23:10
Actually, the more expensive oil gets, there will be a slight increase in oil resources. Canada only recently started mining oil shales because it just didn't pay off to get the oil from them until the price rose...
That only works up to the point where it starts taking more energy to pull the oil out than it provides. In fact, we'll be using alternative energy sources long before that becomes the case, because there are plenty of already available technologies that are better than hard-to-get-to oil, but aren't as efficient as currently available oil.
Ariddia
10-11-2005, 23:40
Well, that is good news, at least. :)