Oil, Air, Energy Laws In Play Environmentalists Fear New Senate By Eric Pianin and Helen Dewar Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, November 18, 2002; Page A01 Suddenly, President Bush's proposals to drill for oil in an Alaskan wilderness, boost energy exploration in the Rockies and consider changes to some major environmental laws are back in play, following the Republicans' resounding success in the Nov. 5 congressional elections. Nothing illustrates the shift in environmental politics more vividly than the leadership changes about to occur on two key Senate committees. The environment committee's chairmanship is switching from James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), a hero to many environmentalists, to James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), one of their least-liked lawmakers. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee, meanwhile, will be headed by Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), who supports drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The question of whether to drill in ANWR holds almost iconic status for conservatives and conservationists alike, and Democrats no longer have the Senate or White House control that helped them hold off the proposal for years. Domenici says he plans to vigorously promote energy exploration on federal lands -- including ANWR -- after he replaces Democrat Jeff Bingaman (N.M.) as committee chairman. "Absolutely," Domenici said in a recent interview, "ANWR's got to be looked at." A senior Domenici aide went further, saying, "Any new energy bill would include ANWR." Diemer True, chairman of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, which represents 8,000 producers, said: "Clearly a Republican majority in the Senate will be more focused on domestic energy production, and we think that bodes well for domestic oil and gas producers." Energy exploration isn't the only issue the new Republican-controlled Congress will revisit. GOP leaders say they will challenge or review a handful of key environmental laws that govern power-plant emissions, water quality, endangered species, mining and other subjects. Those laws sometimes pose unnecessary impediments to production, Bush administration officials have said. The administration has tried to win many of these changes in the past 18 months through regulatory reform, executive orders and legislation. But it encountered stiff resistance from the Democratic-controlled Senate and from environmentalists who went to court to block drilling, mining and logging on government land. With many moderate Republicans sympathetic to green causes, few expect a repeat of the assault on bedrock environmental laws waged by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and House Republicans in 1995, which triggered a voter backlash and contributed to Gingrich's political demise. Instead, Democrats and environmentalists say, the changes are likely to be achieved in more subtle ways, through riders to spending bills and tweaking of budgets for enforcing environmental regulations. "The real question for the Republicans and the White House is will they overplay their hand again?" said Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. Administration officials say a renewed effort to adopt the president's energy and environmental proposals is necessary to meet energy needs and to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil -- arguments that could become a rallying cry if the United States goes to war with Iraq. The House last year approved a version of the president's plan that included $33.5 billion in tax breaks and other incentives aimed at increasing oil and gas exploration, developing new coal-burning technologies and promoting nuclear energy and alternative energy sources. "The president remains committed to working with Congress to pass a comprehensive energy plan that expands conservation, increases energy efficiency and encourages more domestic exploration and production, in an environmentally responsible way," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. But environmentalists and Democrats fear that with the Senate no longer an automatic brake on administration initiatives, officials will press for revisions to the National Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act and other landmark laws. "I think the big picture is that we'll have a huge fight on our hands to protect everything we've achieved in the past 30 years," said Gregory Wetstone of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) warned Republicans that "anyone who wants to appeal to the public is going to have to stick to the mainstream on the environment." One of the most dramatic signs of the new order is Inhofe's replacement of Jeffords as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Jeffords, whose defection from the GOP enabled Democrats to claim control of the Senate 17 months ago, has been a staunch ally of environmentalists and sharp critic of Bush's policies. Inhofe is a conservative and vigorous critic of the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws. Inhofe, 67, a former real estate developer, has frequently accused the Environmental Protection Agency of exceeding its powers in regulating industry. Last week he said he will press government agencies to apply cost-benefit standards and "sound science" to proposed environmental rule making, an approach strongly favored by the White House budget office and libertarian groups that favor reducing government regulations. He also pledged to provide "strong oversight" and review of the enforcement of clean air laws and other environmental measures. Some environmentalists see that as code for seeking to weaken or gut the laws. Inhofe said: "I want to work in a bipartisan fashion to create fiscally responsible policies that are based on sound science and cost-benefit analyses." Meanwhile, Domenici intends to increase spending on nuclear energy facilities, according to aides. New Mexico is home to the Department of Energy's Los Alamos and Sandia National laboratories. Domenici is a champion of nuclear energy research and production. Domenici, 70, also would like to restrict environmentalists' ability to go to court to block mining, drilling, logging and grazing on federal lands, saying those decisions should be left to Congress and federal agencies. He said in an interview he will launch a comprehensive review of government management practices of "the entire public domain," with an eye to seeking management changes. "I'm concerned about how those who don't like the laws of our land find loopholes and other ways to get the land into court because they want their way," Domenici said. With so much on next year's congressional agenda -- from transportation, power-plant emissions, global warming and forest fire management to Superfund toxic site cleanups -- significant environmental policy changes appear inevitable. The Nov. 5 elections netted at least two new Senate votes for oil and gas drilling in Alaska. The House, but not the Senate, voted this year to allow drilling in ANWR. Republicans concede they are still short of the 60-vote majority needed to break a Democratic-led filibuster against the drilling proposal. Several senators, including Democratic leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), have indicated a filibuster is likely to block what they say would be irreparable harm to a unique wilderness area.
What is funny about this entire argument is that if you were to put the issue of drilling for oil and gas on *any* certain land area up for debate, you would have the environmentalists protesting every single time. If they had their way, no oil and gas would be explored for on US soil. This, as we all know, would crush our economy. This would dramatically impair the way each and every one of you reading this post go about your life. Gas for your cars would be prohibitively expensive, power costs would skyrocket (natural gas fires around 25% of electricity generation domestically), airline tickets would be more expensive (jet fuel is a refined product of hydrocarbons), all plastics and chemicals would cost much more, heating your home would be more expensive, the list goes on and on. This is how the environmentalists want us to live. This is an outrage. When considering the issue of developing America's own natural resources, the debate becomes: Should we do all we can to improve our economy? Should we decrease our dependence on Iraqi oil? Should we attempt to lower the cost of living for *every* American? Should we create wealth for *Americans* instead of Iraqis? Should we create thousands of new jobs? or Should we try to save some remote lands that 99% of Americans will *never see in their life*?
If motor companies complied on gas emissions/efficiency standards set by the EPA for 5-10 years ago, we'd save the 15% that the ANWR would provide. The technology is already available to conserve gas that "our economy desperately needs". ANWR is another stopgap with far more disasterous long term consequences.
Or should we prolong our dependence on a finite product. ANWR won't last for bunk amount of time. Permafrost makes foreign fuel sources desirable even in a time of war. You can subsidize the hell out of the extraction, but then we're not really saving any money. We're just greasing the pockets of American oil companies (btw, thanks to those companies whose research provided the framework for one of my undergraduate degrees... but honestly, minerals and oil are all foreign now... our human rights requirements make it so). Now let's start driving around in those little Hindenburgs already.
Beyond that, if people would stop purposely buying automobiles that get significantly lower gas mileage than is already available in other vehicles, we'd be doing much better, as well. Not to mention the general disdain for carpooling and public transit, as well as our tendency to take our cars when we could just as easily walk or bicycle. It's hard to blame companies completely for giving the public what it wants. When the public starts clamoring for more efficient vehicles, we'll see them in greater numbers. Nobody at Ford made my ex-wife buy an Excursion. It's what she wanted. Oftentimes the things we want are not what's best for us, but a profit-driven company is generally going to try to fulfill wants (I'm not saying that's right or wrong. I'm simply saying that the enemy is oftentimes ourselves in these debates).
Yeah MrPaige. Yesterday, I saw a Mercedes SUV commercial where a couple drives it one block over to the gym. I couldn't decide if it was the most stupid and wasteful commercial ever or the most spot on about the buying habits of our SUV buying society...
Conservation is *not* a reason to oppose cultivating our own natural resources. Conservation is important to reducing our dependence on foreign oil, but energy conservation in combination with developing our natural resources is clearly superior to only conservation measures. There is both a supply and a demand determinant at work in the energy equation. You can not simply ignore supply and hope that demand reduction solves the problem. Both issues must be addressed. Conservation is something that must be decided at the individual level. The government can't force you to buy a hybrid electric/gas car. Individuals must lead this charge. Let the free market decide what is an acceptable balance. In terms of the "finite resource" argument, we currently have enough oil on this globe to fuel 100 years worth of demand. This is not even factoring in additional extensions and discoveries. We currently have enough coal in the United States *alone* to fuel 200 years worth of US demand. The "finite resource" argument carries very little weight with me. As I've stated before, energy companies are *voluntarily* pouring billions of dollars into alternative forms of energy. This is a slow process that will not be solved overnight. We desparately need to give our economy a boost. We desparately need to cultivate our own natural resources to lower costs for all Americans. We desparately need to reduce our dependence on Iraqi oil. Drilling in the ANWR accomplishes these goals.
It is weird that ANWR gets so much attention by conservatives. Back when I still worked as a geologist for KUC (and was up to date on the lit) the putative price was about ~$45/barrell for ANWR oil. Obviously, there are newer technologies these days that can decrease these costs... but to what extent is the big question. It will in no way bridge the gap to cheap ass OPEC oil. Permafrost is permafrost. And... ANWR is a small reserve to boot. When this subject seriously comes back up, I doubt that it will ever get through the Senate. The last time it was on the table, it was resoundingly defeated by moderate republicans and most all of the democratic caucus. Losing control of the chamber means jack when it comes to this subject.
Suddenly, President Bush's proposals to drill for oil in an Alaskan wilderness, boost energy exploration in the Rockies and consider changes to some major environmental laws are back in play, following the Republicans' resounding success in the Nov. 5 congressional elections. Trying to push this kind of stuff is exactly what will destroy the Republicans in 2004. Americans don't support it and its stuff that is extraordinarily easy to demonize. The Democrats are going to simply be able to say "see, this is what happens when you give Republicans full control". It's exactly what happened to the Democrats in 1994.
I doubt that this government wants to reduce how much oil we get from Iraq, rather, they are looking to increase it. Cheney working for Halliburton may not be enough to convince you, but the fact that as battle plans were being drawn up for a war with Iraq, plans on how to divide the oil there between American companies were being drawn up as well. The Oil companies don't really care for alternative fuels if what you say about there being hundreds of years worth of fossil fuels still available is true. Why would the men in charge go through the trouble of helping us switch when they can take it easy and make money through the status quo? Alternative fuels aren't that far away, hell, I imagine that we could easily switch in the next 20 years considering all the working prototypes that are out there. The only real challenge that exists is laying the infrastructure of setting up refineries and fuel stations for something like hydrogen. Anyways, clean burning and most abundant substance on this planet, I hope that the stalling ends and we can start heading to a better and cleaner future. By the way, have gasoline prices dropped any from that time not long ago when they sky rocketed a few cents? I aks because if they haven't changed, it seems funny how we have all gotten used to the prices already. We still pay far less than the rest of the world.
Oski -- You have a lot of hunches and things that you "imagine" happening, but you completely lack substance and support. Imagine telling your son or daughter that daddy lost his job today because Democrats in Congress decided that porcupine caribou were more important than his job in the ANWR drilling for oil. This debate is truly about what is theoretical --saving 'endangered' animals and remote wooded areas -- versus what is practical -- helping working class Americans afford a better life. I thought Democrats were pro-jobs. No? I thought Democrats were in favor of helping the economy. No? They tried, atleast, to make that a campaign issue during the midterm elections.... The Republicans have a very strong case for developing these valuable reserves. All Americans will benefit. Less than 1% of Americans will benefit from some caribou herd in a desolate area in a desolate state.
I am so surprised at some of the quotes that are state as fact. I have to laugh at the ignorant statements made in this thread. For Example: First off the standard liberal arguement that Republicans and Oil companies are in some conspriacy to start wars to raid Iraq are idiotic. If this was the case, we would have invaded Baghdad and taken Saddam out of power in 1991. This was not the Mandate given to Bush 41 by the U.N. If liberals even had a backbone they would want Saddam out of power just because of the devastation he caused enviromentally when his army set fire to most of the Kuwaiti Oil wells. To think that Bush and the Republicans are out to strip the world of its oil and gas resources is just plain r****ded. Enviromentalism is heroic in theory, I to agree with certain views that they would like push. For example, Save the Whales, don't club baby seals, Dolphin safe tuna, are all great quests, I applaud the effort. But to say that ANWR is going to destroy Alaska or the Caribu or Polar Bears is insane. Oil Companies are driven by profit which I agree that is the case (I worked for a major oil company for 5 years in the Exploration and Production division), but not profits by destroying the land or sea around the strike zone. When a oil company invest millions of dollars in a well they expect to accomplish 3 goals, 1. Find a commodity of some type, which creates a return on investment. 2. Install a well that is efficent and run correctly 3. Limit the enviromental impact on the land that surrounds the well, this reduces liability and increase revenue. Oil companies in todays day and age aren't like the oil companies that were around like the turn of the century where there was fields of oil wells to tap the strike. This is the image that Enviromental wackos would like to inbed in the minds of the ignorant and easily influenced. Nowadays, oil wells and pipe lines are extremely efficent because of the value of the commodity they are extracting. There enviromental impact is extremely small and efficency is 1000 times better. Oh and by the way, Halliburton has pioneer drilling technology called the Anaconda that allows for almost zero enviromental impact because it allows the well operators to manuver the drill head in almost any angle, thus making one well necessary for multiple strikes. If you want to talk about an industry that damages the earth, sure pick on the oil industry (The most regulated industry in the world) its a easy target, but also think of the Automobile industry (More pollution per metric ton that any other industry), Farming industry (Accounts for most of the soil erosion in all the world), Computer industry (Excess silicon and components are fill the landfills by a rate of 100 acres a day), or any other industry that make a product that you buy that make your life a little better! And by the way, if the democrats ever try to push the price of oil to the price you would pay in England or Europe per liter (3 Pounds per liter), they would loss all there constitites in the Unions and working class.
I was about to hit reply when stupid Netscape went by-by. There's a wide range of 'recovery' when it comes to oil. The $45 price formerly described a wide range of ANWR. It now describes the 'technically recoverable' area of the reserve. But where did you get your $15 quote? The USGS 1998 review for ANWR says: Unfortunately, reading the bulletins, made me start to drool. Quick, somebody post a picture of an oil-covered bird. I accidentally got me some of that old time religion. *Coming back*. It took me a second, but I remember now why ANWR seems like an odd push (other than a reason to employ American geologists). The oil is suggested at... what? 12 mos of extraction? 36-48 by the most optimistic accounts? When is this oil coming on line? A decade from now? ps, I did not want to tell the earth-destroyers this... but some sources think we could possibly have oil for another 1000 years. It just all depends on how much $$$ you wanna pay
Imagine telling your kids that they can't go outside because there is an ozone alert. Or that they can't swim here because the water is nasty. Or that we have to move because we live too close to the petrochemical complex and they release toxic gasses and chemicals into the air and water and you might develop cancer. Or that we can fish here, but we just can't eat the fish . Clean, sustainable energy is good for the economy and for the children .
Phi83, I agree that it seems like ANWR could be accessed w/ very little impact. I think TJ's death to the birdies and artiodactyls is a moot point. He'll have to kill those guys on his own free time. Oh yeah *papow*. You guys are evil. Quit talking about destroying the planet you selfish sons a'
Gentlemen-- For what it's worth I figured I'd add my two cents. I desparately want a new energy source. Not necessarily because I'm an environmentalist...but because it makes sense. 1) It's good for the environment. NOBODY can dispute that. 2) Once discovered it will be cheaper. 3) It will last for a really long time. All of that being said I am in favor of drilling in ANWR if and ONLY if it is for a short term solution while this new energy source is being developed and perfected.
