ANWR to be toast in the 109th Congress
At least some parts of the Energy Bill will poke through in 2005
President Bush and Veep Cheney promise that scenes like these will be more common in the Alaskan arctic
With peak oil descending on America like a ton of bricks, the 2004 election appears to have tipped the balance against the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Wampum has a detailed political analysis specifically on the ANWR issue. The writer’s Democratic strategy conclusion near the end of this piece is quite interesting:
Democrats need to decide what they want to do about ANWAR. One option is to stand, fight, and lose on the narrow issue of ANWAR. Another option is to try to add provisions that will make the inevitable drilling more environmentally friendly.My preferred option is to present a comprehensive energy plan as an alternative to the Republican bill and then allow the Republican majority to pass what it will.
The comprehensive plan should set out a road to energy independence for the United States. It should reject the false choice between economic growth and environmental protection and find ways to do both by creating new industries concerned with environmental protection and clean up.
It should be forward looking by calling for investment in new energy technologies such as hydrogen. It should combine new sources of energy with more efficiency and conservation. It should be practical and easily explained.
If any plan can meet those goals, I, for one, am fully prepared to compromise within the party on any specific item (ANWAR, nuclear power, CAFE standards, Gulf drilling, or whatever) to be able to agree on a comprehensive alternative to the Republican plan.
If we take that route, Democrats will not only win elections when the public tires of ineffective Republican policies, but will also have a mandate to enact a set of policies upon attaining power.
My own gut feeling is that the energy picture is going to blow wide open. Political resistance to oil drilling will pretty much vanish. Saving ANWR from greedy, Cheney-connected interests will not be possible. So I agree with the Wampum writer — compromise with an aim to ameliorate environmental damage while limiting the theft and corruption normally associated with energy extraction seems wise at this juncture.
See also: this analysis posted by Bob at Howlings. ANWR’s best friend may be the water-polluting chemical MTBE, as it has so far gummed the works for the Energy Bill.
November 24th, 2004 at 06:18
DB– Don’t have time right now to go read the entire piece at Wampum but I agree with the part posted here. In fact, I think this should be the Dem strategy on a number of fronts — come up with comprehensive plans and supporting legislation; offer the bills as alternatives to the Republican proposals; then let the chips fall where they may. At least the democrats will be formulating their positions for the midterm elections, and hopefully thinking about how to present them effectively to voters in the process.
November 25th, 2004 at 00:48
Eric
You continue to do a great job. Keep up your good work.
Bob
http://www.howlingthemoon.org
November 29th, 2004 at 21:16
I know I am always the naysayer but the author’s argument is pretty much what Al Gore did and the environmentalists bolted and voted for Ralph Nader. I agree with you, Eric, that the movement with ANWR is probably over for now. Frankly, given that the Alaskans are a decidedly Red State that voted for a sentate candidate who was by all accounts inferior but Republican I’m not sure I would put much effort into their needs right now anyway. For the Democrats to win we need to shore up the votes in Colorado, Montana, and Nevada. What strategy will help them the most?
November 30th, 2004 at 03:08
Jeff, thanks for the comment. I’m forced to agree with you about Gore’s (and even Kerry’s) deal with the devil on oil drilling. Yep, some of the environmentalists hated it in 2000 enough to leave Gore for Nader in Florida, where Gore refused to renounce off-shore drilling. Neither of these Democrats wanted to come off looking pro-oil, but the truth is that ANWR is the only place where they wanted to hold off.
The whole environmentalist position with respect to energy is totally disposable, or at least will be in the near future.. Not many yet see just how dire the situation will be in a few years. There is a really big problem here. Cheney had a point in 2001. The 109th Congress will be a whole lot friendlier to Cheney solutions. For that reason, I want to see the Democrats at least try to work in that Apollo Alliance stuff into what does get passed. Bush may even be slightly sympathetic, if you believe the stuff from 2001 on the Whitehouse site — as long as he gets his ANWR.
November 5th, 2005 at 17:01
as one of many Alaskans we want the economy and have bore witness to the previous pipeline thaty has never impacted the caribou herds, if any of you actualyy knew much about them you would realize they are far from the smartest of the herd animals, they go around, over, and under the exhisting pipeline as they would any new pipeline.
My real case in point is if you wish to interfere with another states possible economy then you open yourselves up to recieving back lash and the possibility that we as Alaskans would love for us to be able to start re arranging many of your federal reserves, such as the smokies in TN. since they are horribly polluted by tourist and industry, we should just close it and watch the East TN economy crash. And with that what is the lying former VP Gore doing about that? Nothing. Or close a few in Cali, who needs to drive through a redwood anyways? And speaking of Cali save the caost line and prevent development of houses, they fall in the ocean anyways, and save millions in insurance that the rest of us are paying. As far as global warming get these other countries on board especilly the Eastern European and Asians countries they have more combined people and pollution than we come close to generating, heck take a look at Mexico, try being an asthmatic and breathe in Mexico City, our small percentage of the world population has made great strides, yes I do remember the 60’s and 70’s, its time the rest of the world ante up, take a look at the Eastern Russian pennisula and the chemical dumping grounds in Siberia as well as the off shore dumping, trust me as Alaskans we know which way the currents run and where our wind direction comes from
November 5th, 2005 at 23:36
Thanks, John, for stopping by and reviewing this old post. Don’t you think what I wrote here in the main post is about to come true — that the Senate in the 109th Congress will pass ANWR drilling? I don’t really disagree with any of the points you make. There is plenty of hypocrisy amongst the “environmentalist” community. I can’t blame Alaskans for wanting full benefit from their own natural resources. I don’t have a good answer for how to transform the oil economy so that we would never have to pump the arctic.