Another ANWR oil drilling proposal - Fly Fishing Forum
Our Environment We are stewards of wild places

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-17-2006, 01:20 PM
Doublespey's Avatar
Doublespey Doublespey is offline
Steelhead-a-holic
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: PNW Waterways
Posts: 711
Exclamation Another ANWR oil drilling proposal

Forwarding this from Maria Cantwell's website. She's the senator who's lead the attempts to prevent oil drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.

================================================== =

The audacity of these guys never ceases to amaze me.

Once again, we have to take emergency action to try and stop the Bush Administration from opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Once again, I need you to stand with me. The vote that decides the future for the Arctic Refuge is TONIGHT.

Tell the Senate to Protect the Arctic Refuge : vote NO on the budget tonight.

http://www.cantwell.com/action/arctic/?sc=e.20060316

Last time the Republicans tried to attach drilling provisions to the defense spending bill. This time they are trying to open the Arctic Refuge to drilling by using the budget process. They want this so badly that they will do anything it takes to win. So they use loopholes and backroom tactics to try and force their drilling plan through.

If we pass the budget tonight, we also allow for drilling in the Arctic Refuge. A vote for the budget is a vote for drilling.

Therefore, I ask you to help me convince my colleagues: vote NO on the budget tonight. Vote NO until the provision allowing drilling is removed.

This single issue highlights how bad this administration is on the environment, how they have no plan for real energy independence, how they put short term gain over long term growth, and how they will do anything to win.

Just like on the Roadless Area Conservation Act, which 58,000 of you have now co-sponsored, I need you to make your voice heard. The Senators still sitting on the fence for this critical vote are indeed listening.

Tell the Senate: vote NO on the budget until the provision allowing drilling is removed.

A victory today will be hard-fought - they are lining up impressive roadblocks in a last ditch effort to get this through. But we will certainly lose if we don't even try. So please join me now.

Thank you, once again, for your support.

Sincerely,



Maria Cantwell "
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2  
Old 03-17-2006, 06:20 PM
wrke wrke is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Many. From NE salt, Russia, Canadian A Salmon, NW Steelhead, Bahamas, Keys. Live in Upstate NY
Posts: 792
Well, they passed the budget bill.

I think every senator that voted for it should be required to drive one of these for the next 10 years.

http://www.h6players.com/index.php
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3  
Old 03-18-2006, 09:29 AM
salmo's Avatar
salmo salmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Colorado,Wyoming,SW Alaska, Europe
Posts: 282
Bill,

The good news is that about two dozens of moderate Republicans who block last year drilling
from an appropriation budget have already indicated, in open letter to Rep. leadership in House, that they will not vote for the budget with ANWR ( we need only 16 Republicans vote).
Considering that this is election year, it is very unlikely those moderate Republicans will suddenly change they mind.....However the constant pressure is required to maintain momentum!
As you remember the same resistance from moderate Republicans has forced Republican leaders during negotiations to drop ANWR. Later Stevens has attached ANWR to defense bill which was modified due to filibuster in Senate
( here 60 votes is required).
If we get opposite party in charge of the House after mid-term election( very likely) we may finally get some checks on Capitol Hill, regardless what issue will be considered.

Wilderness Society and Sierra Club are doing great job here

Here is the different subject:
Court blocks EPA from easing pollution rules

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...tandards_x.htm

Even Bush conservative judge voted against EPA what tells us how ideological and extreme is the current administration!

Last edited by salmo; 03-18-2006 at 09:35 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4  
Old 03-18-2006, 10:05 AM
juro's Avatar
juro juro is offline
Coast2coast Flyfishaholic
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Steelhead country|striper coast|bonefish belt
Posts: 20,593
It's a sad state of affairs when we the people have to protect the environment against...

the Environmental Protection Agency!

The environmental agenda of this administration should go down in history as a total abomination. No wonder I am a democrat, although I agree with many conservative views the state of the environment is far, far more important to me that the other socio/economic BS. This administration literally can't see the forest for the trees.
__________________
IFFF Certified THCI @ 2005
Capeflyfisher Guide Service
Island Hopper, Guitarist, Incurable Dreamer
and Founder, Worldwide Flyfishing Forum
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5  
Old 03-19-2006, 02:37 PM
fishinfool fishinfool is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Colorado
Posts: 148


Maybe that is why they are doing their damndest to cut all the trees down!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6  
Old 03-19-2006, 05:51 PM
vinnyf vinnyf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somerville, MA
Posts: 28
The plan for another 1,000 coal-fired power plants in the next 20 years is also incredible. Granted, the U.S. has huge reserves of coal (up to 200 yrs by some estimates), but the amount of filth that these old-style plants spew into the air is beyond belief (mercury, CO2, SO2, NOX, and trace U238). A move towards coal gasification would alleviate a lot of these issues in that many contaminants can be removed in scrubbers, and through other processes.

An prof. at the Harvard Scool of Public Health told me recently that old-style coal plants are directly responsible for 30,000 premature deaths (mainly due to cardio-vascular and respiratory complications) in the U.S. each year. Where's the outrage???

Of course, this will mean more mercury in the water, and therefore in the food-chain. And the administration response? Don't eat the fish.

If anyone wants to see source journal articles for these numbers, let me know and I'll dig them back up. Sorry for going on a little.
__________________
vinnyf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7  
Old 03-19-2006, 09:38 PM
salmo's Avatar
salmo salmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Colorado,Wyoming,SW Alaska, Europe
Posts: 282
Bush and his outlaws are spending over 100 billions of $ on anti-missiles system which by Pentagon own estimate has max. 50% probability to shut down a missile.
At the same time GOP right wing fraction friends in energy industry are killing 10,000 each year.
Harvard Study also stated ( Health Dep. doesn’t dispute that) about 10,000 people die each year due to asthma related problems. What means since 9/11 we lost 10x more people then during 9/11 which Bush claims want to prevent.
We don't have 7 billions to ensure that each container is screened like in Hong Kong
port, and at the same time Interior Department can't collect 6 billion in lease fee from oil companies ( must be pay-off for investment in GOP ........).
Oil companies are reporting different revenue to SEC and different to Int. Dep.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8  
Old 03-30-2006, 07:42 PM
salmo's Avatar
salmo salmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Colorado,Wyoming,SW Alaska, Europe
Posts: 282
House Budget Committee Passes FY 2007 Budget Resolution Without Arctic Refuge Drilling
Statement from William H. Meadows, President, The Wilderness Society

WASHINGTON, DC, March 29, 2006 -- The success of pro-conservation members of Congress in keeping Arctic Refuge drilling out of the House budget is a victory for the millions of Americans who believe that some lands are too special to drill. Those citizens are delivering a clear message to Capitol Hill this year: We want a clean Congress, not politicians who will bend the rules on behalf of Big Oil and the drilling lobby.

Today’s victory is also a testament to the principled efforts of Representatives from both parties who voiced their strong opposition to exploiting the budget process in order to drill America's Arctic Refuge.

Representatives committed to defending the Arctic Refuge must stay vigilant to ensure that drilling-obsessed politicians do not reinsert an Arctic Refuge drilling loophole as the Budget Resolution moves forward. Fortunately, the steadfast opposition of leaders from both parties will mean that Arctic Refuge drilling remains a poison pill for any budget bill in the House.

The desperate Arctic Refuge drilling obsession of a few politicians has distracted us long enough from finding real energy solutions. It’s time for our leaders in Washington to stop wasting time on a foolhardy plan that would sacrifice a national treasure in order to shave just one penny off gas prices, twenty years from now.

Unfortunately, the House Budget Resolution still mirrors the Administration’s budget, slashing overall funding for environmental conservation and public lands by 13 percent, including a 40.3 percent cut in the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This budget would once again fail to provide enough money to protect our National Parks, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges and the National Landscape Conservation System.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9  
Old 03-30-2006, 11:30 PM
OC OC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I've lost them all but I'm looking for new ones
Posts: 1,368
Has anyone else noticed in the last few weeks a big change in the way this country feels about all that Bush is doing. What I'm talking about is not only the US House and Senate but the mainstream conservative view seems like it has had enough of all this BS. Just listen to conservative talk radio if you have the stomach and many, not all are slowly voicing an anti Bush message. Issues about global warming and it's effects on our world have started to be talked about on many of the conservative airways. A year ago Global warming was a bunch of enviro kooks and now even Southern Conservatives are saying we better change our ways. I'm hearing conservative congressmen from oil producing states saying we better start seriously thinking about all of us owning hybred cars. I'm reading about the growing Christian Right that believes that God made this earth and made us the caretakers. I will not get into all the other stuff like the war and immigration. But there is something happening out there and let us hope it continues for the betterment of our great nation. We will get this Nation back and she will be a land that much of the world looks up too again. But what do we do about the democrats they are a bunch of wimps I'm sorry to say.
__________________
OC
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10  
Old 03-31-2006, 12:39 AM
flytyer flytyer is offline
Pullin' Thread
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NW Washington
Posts: 3,346
Folks,

At the risk of getting the dander of many up, I must ask this question: Since we import so much oil from the middle east (many of whom such as Iran are not exactly friendly to us), doesn't it make sense from a US national security standpoint to have other energy sources developed to produce electricity to end our dependence on middle eastern oil?

Also, it seems to me that cellulosic ethanol might be a good thing to invest research in to produce an alternative to oil to fuel our cars and trucks? Perhaps there is also something out there that scientists have been working on for energy to fuel cars, trucks, busses, and airplanes which we have not heard of yet because it is not able to be produced economically yet. Just think of what cellulosic ethanol (produced from bacteria and insects eating celluose who produce ethanol as a result of their digestion of the celluose), bio diesel, and a possible new source of energy would mean. No more dependency on middle eastern oil, no more worries about oil embargoes, no more worries about rapid price increases. And then imagine all the tremendous economic gain that would occur as a result and the massive increase in economic growth and GDP.

Hybrids, maybe; but the battery packs are only gaurranteed for 8 years or 80,000 miles in most states, and 8 years or 150,000 miles in states with green car laws. Then the battery packs have to be replaced at a cost of $6,000.00 - $8,000.00. And unless you drive hybrids only in city traffic (which is where they run almost exclusively on electric motor), there is not very much difference in fuel milage with one. Hydrids, bio diesel, ethanol, or whatever other source we are not aware of yet I see as the future. However, I don't see hydrogen as the energy source for our vehicles because it takes more energy to produce it than you get back.

And once this happens, drilling in ANWR or other wilderness areas becomes a non-issue because there would be no need for the oil in them. I can dream can't I?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11  
Old 04-01-2006, 08:21 AM
FishHawk FishHawk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,039
I work for a Honda dealership and can tell you how the manufactures do things. They will keep on extending the warranty because they don't want the bad press. Also, in 8 years the price of that battery will be very low. Individual cells can be replaced furthering reducing the cost of replacement. In addition , gas will be close to if not $6 per gallon by then . It makes sense to by a Hybrid.
ANWR is not going to solve the problem like those that want to drill there think it will. Just my .02 FishHawk
__________________
FishHawk
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12  
Old 04-01-2006, 09:49 PM
salmo's Avatar
salmo salmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Colorado,Wyoming,SW Alaska, Europe
Posts: 282
And then imagine all the tremendous economic gain that would occur as a result and the massive increase in economic growth and GDP.

If Bush were the president in 1879 he would have sited with candle companies against Thomas Edison's incandescent, electric light…….
He signed up his “famous “energy bill giving oil companies big chunk of 14 billions tax brakes instead diverting this money into research for new energy sources.
He and his outlaws( including right-wing Republicans in Congress, who have nothing to do with old-fashion Republicans) responds only to the highest bitters……

I don't see hydrogen as the energy source for our vehicles because it takes more energy to produce it than you get back.

The only way to practically use hydrogen is to find an effective of capture solar energy, which in turn could be use to hydrolyzed water into hydrogen and oxygen.

Until this will happen, Bush slogan about hydrogen cars are simple smokescreen to cover up his resistance to imposed higher fuel standard on SUV and tracks.
4 years ago he argued that such standard would cost jobs.
Now, for the same reason ,GM and Ford are cutting over 40 k people , b/c they were relying to much on SUV, which are less efficient the Japanese tracks.
“W” and his team will be remember as a most TOXIC president of the great USA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13  
Old 04-02-2006, 01:33 AM
flytyer flytyer is offline
Pullin' Thread
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NW Washington
Posts: 3,346
Then what are the monies for research into alternative fuels and/or vehicles that use alternatives to gasoline or diesel in the Bush budget? Are they just a smokescreen to keep the general public in the dark about how big oil runs the Bush administration?

Since Bush's budget includes monies for celluosic ethanol and grants to help build biodiesel and celluosic ethanol plants, I suppose this is an indication that the administration cares nothing about the oil problem and only cares about helping big oil make more money.

And since the US has huge coal reserves (and yes I am very aware of the environmental problems coal has produced in the past, especially since I grew up in northern Apallacia in coal mining country), why should we not use it to produce electricity? Afterall, as has already been mentioned in a post by someone else, modern scrubbing technology is very effective at cleaning up the smokestack pollution of coal burning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14  
Old 04-02-2006, 09:18 AM
salmo's Avatar
salmo salmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Colorado,Wyoming,SW Alaska, Europe
Posts: 282
The next week after Bush Speech of the Union, the Energy Department was cutting 15% of research stuff working in National Institute of Renewable Energy !!!!!!
When Bush was visiting this Institute few weeks later all those employees were reinstated and Bush blamed mixed messages!!!!!!
The above cased was cover very well in national media.
He and his outlaws are all “ mixed messages “ since 2001

BTW, his money in 2007 budget are drop in the bucket to what is needed and what he gave to oil companies.
Many former Republicans like James Backer ( Bush Sr. Secretary of State), national security advisors for Reagan, Bush Sr and many more high rank politicians from Clinton Adm. Are calling for serious action, BIG $ for research ( like Apollo project), big increase in fuel standards for tracks ( not 1-2 gallon recently announced)

So far noting has happened, what could hurt profit of oil companies.
What about the nation, positive impact on environment, national security, economic growth.

Until we have the administration, which is the steward of the nation not logging and oil companies noting will change.

Look what Rumsfeld is still doing in his administration?
This incompetent secretary, like Cheney has never been in the army, he override the generals opinion and wanted to occupied Iraq with 30 k troops one year after invasion!!!!!!!!!

From the war to environment and economic policies W and his team are bunch of incompetent people who respond only to the highest bitter at the moment!!!!!!
The above are facts !
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #15  
Old 04-03-2006, 04:21 PM
flytyer flytyer is offline
Pullin' Thread
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NW Washington
Posts: 3,346
Salmo,

Please provide the specifics of what he gave to the oil companies, since you mentioned it.

And since the 15% the Energy Dept. cut out of research was reinstated, I fail to see how there was a cut.

On the question of whether there should be government imposed fuel economy standards, I completely disagree with you. I don't think the government should be imposing fuel economy standards at all, especially since the EPA itself has admitted last fall that its method for determining fuel economy is flawed and that its method for determining fuel economy inflates what small, low horsepower and hybrid vehicles get by 15%-25% and that it underestimates what largerm higher horsepower vehicles get by 15%-20%. In my opinion, the market will decide what level of fuel economy people will live with. When people decide they need more fuel economy, they buy more vehicles with higher fuel economy. I don't know about you; but I'd hate to have a pickup truck rated to tow a trailer of 8,000 pounds not have enough power to make it up any hill without having to drop down several gears to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Fly Fishing Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Oil Spill Eric Our Environment 3 05-20-2010 05:31 PM
Get Your Proposal In! rich_simms Pacific Northwest Sea Run Forum 1 11-14-2005 08:32 PM
Oil Spill FishHawk Stripers and Coastal Gamefish 33 05-01-2003 12:54 AM
Oil Spill in Narragansett Lefty Stripers and Coastal Gamefish 3 07-08-2000 10:03 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:27 PM.



Copyright Flyfishingforum.com (All Rights Reserved)