Congress Opens ANWR For Drilling : Cleveland IMC (((i)))

In past years ANWR drilling was considered an energy issue and not a budget issue, so bills could be filibustered during energy bill debates. Recent gas price spikes combined with rhetoric of an "energy crisis" are reasons given why drilling is now considered a budget issue, making it immune to filibuster.

Not only have skyrocketing gas prices justifed passing ANWR drilling as a budget issue, but they have also given weight to the argument that drilling can stabilize oil prices. Although popular, the argument seems to make little sense. Conservative estimates predict ANWR would contain a mere two years worth of oil, leaving a worse crisis when ANWR runs dry and US remains dependent as ever on oil.

As a matter of fact, the only "long-term" effects of ANWR drilling seem to be the environmental devastation and the millions of dollars made by oil companies (and their Congressional lapdogs) in the process. Dick Cheney, who has close ties with the oil industry, made a rare appearance at Wednesday's vote "just in case his vote was needed".

Benjamin Sovacool, in a Roanoke.com editorial comment, explains how this short-term grab for profit will have a devastating aftermath. ANWR drilling refineries would have a destructive effect on widespread ecosystems, violates several international treaties ratified by the United States, and only furthers a (ultimately self-destructive) dependency on oil, he argues.

Well written article. Right to the point. I agree ANWR will not solve the nations energy problems. On the flip side I do not see this as the environmental disaster some eco groups are making this out to be. ANWR is 1.5 billion acres I believe and we are talking about a mile wide area where the drilling will actually take place (I admit my numbers may be a little off here, I don't have the exact numbers infront of me). Also, one of the arguments against the drilling I read was that it would affect a local Indian tribe in the area, yet from what I've seen on some of the news specials the local tribe in that area actually supports the drilling because they want the jobs! I think the argument of the poor caribou and bears is the weakest. If you do some research you will see back when the Alaska pipeline was put in the same argument was made about the affect on wildlife, specifically caribou and their migration, by a lot of the same groups who are protesting now. That argument turned out to be 100% completely false! In the past 30 years the caribou population in Alaska has exploded and specifically in the areas of the pipeline. Caribou are now as plentiful in these areas as whitetail deer are in Ohio.

In the end the republicans got their drilling and Hofa got his union jobs on the project. All that being said, I would have rather seen the money that will be invested into this project directed at alternative energy sources.

M

mking-

although the drilling itself may only occur along a mile wide area, the effect of drilling and refineries is widespread. as ben sovacool explains in the article i linked:

"Studies by the National Academy of Science, World Bank and numerous ecologists confirm that the operation of these refineries will release discharged solids, drilling waste and dirty diesel fuel into the ecosystem's food chain, as they have from oil operations in Prudhoe Bay.

The fugitive emissions and flares from these facilities will create acidification and induce localized climate change, and the corridors needed to accommodate refineries will disrupt the migration of large animals, accelerate thermokarst and fundamentally alter predation patterns, water purity and soil chemistry.

The Arctic environment is especially sensitive to these changes because the ecosystem operates on a simplified food chain with slower rates of photosynthesis and decomposition."

Cleveland Indy Media Center