The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM
Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM
Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM
Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM
Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM
Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM
Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM
The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM
From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM
Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM
Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM
Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM
Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM
Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM
Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008
Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008
The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006
Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008
Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007
Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006
A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006
Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori
WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):
The WILLisms.com Gift Shop:
This Week's Carnival of Revolutions:
Carnival Home Base:
Alaska: Open For Business. Finally.
Today, the United States Senate voted 51-49 to reject Senator Maria Cantwell's amendment striking drilling in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Reserve) from the FY2006 budget.
Breaking ranks, both Hawaii Democrats, Akaka and Inouye, voted to keep drilling in the budget, as did Louisiana Senator Landrieu.
Meanwhile, Republicans voting to remove the provision included, unfortunately, one of WILLisms.com's favorite Senators, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, as well as Senator Smith of Oregon, Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine, Senator DeWine of Ohio, Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, and Senator McCain of Arizona.
"Independent" Senator from Vermont, Jim Jeffords, also voted to remove the provision, which was really no surprise.
Every other Republican voted "nay" (which means keeping drilling) and every other Democrat voted "yea" (which means no drilling).
As one blogger puts it, this shows that elections matter.
More on ANWR:
In 1980, President Carter and Congress set aside 1.5 million acres of ANWR’s Northern Coastal Plain for potential oil development. The drilling was not to happen unless it could be done with no significant effects on the wildlife and environment. Clearly, the time has come, as the Caribou and other wildlife have flourished in other, similar parts of Alaska affected by drilling. ANWR is a nice rallying point for the environmental movement, but environmentalists would serve their cause better by focusing on actual environmental problems and solutions. Drilling in ANWR simply makes good policy sense, from a foreign policy standpoint, an energy policy standpoint, and an environmental policy standpoint.
More fun facts about ANWR:
If ANWR became a state, it would be larger than ten other states in land area. Yet, the part of ANWR to be used for drilling would be smaller than Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch.
1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That's less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.
Some of those reasons for drilling in ANWR are better than the others, but overall, it just makes sense on so many levels to drill there.
Indeed, drilling in ANWR will provide prosperity to the local people:
So just how much oil is there in ANWR?
Left-wing environmentalists say 3.2 billion barrels, but other estimates put the amount at as high as 29.4 billion barrels, with 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The U.S. Department of the Interior currently estimates an "expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil." Liberals say that 3.2 billion barrels is only enough to last the United States for 6 months, but that is supremely disingenuous. One would have to shut off all other sources of energy and rely exclusively on ANWR for that to be the case. More likely, once up-and-running, ANWR would provide an additional 1 million barrels of oil every single day, for many decades, which is far from insignificant.
Won't drilling hurt Republicans politically?
A recent poll showed that 53% of Americans support the drilling. As the price of gasoline rises and the world's demand for fossil fuels rises, driving up American dependence on foreign sources of energy, it seems readily apparent that the United States ought to use the resources we have here at home.
Ultimately, this is the tiny part of Alaska that will be used for drilling, and when environmental groups work themselves into a lather over something like this, they really just look foolish:
How many times can the far left cry wolf on environmental matters before the general public begins to completely ignore their cries?
National Review's Jonah Goldberg has more on the desolation of ANWR, including pictures like this one:
Ben Lieberman of The Heritage Foundation explains that drilling in ANWR is long overdue:
Also: Right Wing News explains that we can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals by watching their reaction to ANWR.
Posted by Will Franklin · 16 March 2005 05:00 PM
Great take on opening ANWR. Enviros are not interested in responsible policy - they want to shut down energy development in numerous places, and especially in ANWR. One of their favorite tactics is to identify wildlife which they claim will be affected by development. Good recap of the actual area to be affected and nice review of the issues.
Posted by: responsible oilman at March 16, 2005 07:55 PM
The thing that gets me is that polls treat this as a yes or no question. It is "should we drill that oil" rather than "should we drill now?"
I really think our children and grandchildren will need that oil more than us, and it is just greedy to grab it now.
Which oil fields, exactly, are we setting aside for our children?
Posted by: jjens at March 18, 2005 11:03 AM
BTW, I think the handwaving that people sometimes do, to name future technologies that we might develop, is just that. Handwaving.
We've been working on tar sands, oil shale, whatever for 30 years (since the fuel crisis 70's) and we still can't make them work. It's just BS to pretend that they are ready "for the kids."
Posted by: jjens at March 18, 2005 11:05 AM
The thing I don't understand is that a growth in the population of caribou means that the ecosystem of the refuge is being thrown out of balance..
If you're trying to pull at animal lover's heartstrings with stories of cold caribou snuggling up to an oil pipe to get warm and make love to get support for your political agenda, just say so.
Nature has a way of making things right (or wrong) and as cute as caribou are, an overpopulation of them is going to lead to longer term problems for the refuge.
So can you please stop saying that the oil fields will have no impact, when the obvious impact is going to be a higher caribou population?
Posted by: Jesse at March 18, 2005 11:46 AM
That, my friend, is just one reason why Americans are allowed to have guns. Oil field people are natural hunters. If the caribou herds are really becoming too large of a strain on the ecosystem, it's a perfect match.
Posted by: Will Franklin at March 18, 2005 11:53 AM