ANWR won't reduce our foreign oil dependence notably, at all. As far as who's against it? For the last 4 years, Republican in the Senate have been against it. Now, a Republican House is against it. You should learn to use facts in the future. Your rants sound more and more ignorant by the day.
Why are they against it in this case? The answer is because they think it will jeopardize the larger bill that is getting voted on.
they have the majority in the congress. they don't need democrat support. if all the republicans were on the same page they'd drill. obviously some republicans have a heart too. as surprising as it seems.
That was mentioned, but given that the Senate already approved it, that doesn't make any sense. It was moderate Republicans in the House that threatened the leadership on the issue: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/09/arctic.refuge.ap/index.html The budget bill is immune from filibuster, but drilling proponents suddenly found it hard to get the measure accepted by a majority of the House. That's because Democrats oppose the overall budget bill, giving House GOP opponents of drilling in the Arctic enough leverage to have the matter killed. Twenty-five Republicans, led by Rep. Charles Bass of New Hampshire, signed a letter asking GOP leaders to strike the Alaskan drilling provision from the broader $54 billion budget cut bill. The moderates knew they had leverage, given the narrow margin of GOP control of the House. It only takes 14 Republican defections to scuttle a bill, assuming every Democrat opposes it. This was killed because a section of the GOP finally had leverage to do so. When a party has control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, it's hard to blame the other party for constantly killing their initiatives.
I just don't want to hear any of you liberals who are complaining about drilling in the ANWR and other places around the US (Kalifornia, Florida) b!tching about high oil prices next time there's a Katrina-like disaster. While you're at it, why don't you ease up on the environmental requirements for building refineries.... You're costing America $$ at the pump and holding back the world's largest economy.
Sounds to me like its you Republicans that are "costing America $$ at the pump and holding back the world's largest economy". Your party is the one that can't agree to drill ANWR.
You've got to be kidding me. A handful of Republicans are against it, yet almost ALL democrats are against it.
Republicans, if they wanted to, could pass it regardless of Democrats' beliefs. For the past several years, the House had no problem voting for it, knowing the Senate would kill it. Now that it actually could become reality, it was House Republicans that changed their minds and killed it.
How does a year and a half worth of oil, if it is even good oil, reduce our dependecy any noteworthy amount of time?
Sounds like you don't know much about building refineries. No one builds them anymore because LOCAL communities oppose it. Its not a question of whether companies will meet the environmental requirements. Local communities dont want big refineries that pollute nearby areas and really make it smell. If you've ever been around Deer Park or Rosenberg and you'll figure out why no one wants those ugly things around. So go figure out how to convince local populations to accept them and maybe just maybe you have an argument.
I guess...do you know how much more barrels in proportion to our current consumption those two sites would help? Probably not ANWR, and ANWR isn't that relevant as it is right now. We won't even see a drop of ANWR oil in 5 years. I guess it'd be short term nice insurance if the "more is better" trend continues. Environmental reqs were improving the national quality of air every year until SUVs (loophole) popularity. That plus the popular resurgance of pickup trucks severely increased consumption. We'd save ANWR's projected output (~15%) every year if the trend towards medium to light class vehicles had continued. So b**** at the soccer moms who are scared****less and still want to drive or people who want trucks for the view....
I'm not sure of the numbers, but from what I understand, there's far more oil along the US mainload coastlines than ANWR has to offer. That said, I'm against all of that expanded drilling - I'd rather have these companies spend money on alternative fuel sources than all the costs (including a new pipeline through Canada) required to drill ANWR. Eventually, it's going to happen whether the oil companies like it or not, and it's going to be a lot of wasted money to drill for 10 or 15 years when we better damn well be moving away from oil use by then.
That wouldn't be surprising given the NIMBYism in California. Though like refinery closures the last two decade and current refinery overhauls and possible openings, they'll drill into the coast when the cost/barrel reaches that magic number. Let those coastline residents they think they're better than the animals for now.
You are so utterly clueless on this issue if you actually believe what you just posted. Seriously, anyone in the industry would laugh you right out of the room. Who makes permitting difficult? Who attempts to restrict drilling every chance they get? Who tries to slap environmental litigation on energy providers? Who attempts to impose burdensome regulatory and compliance techniques on energy users and providers? Oh yeah, the LIBERALS. And they've been doing it for DECADES. Bush's energy bill sets out to create a climate more conducive for business in the energy field. The fact that he introduced the energy bill AND rationalized many inefficiencies in the pre-exisiting regulatory structure was significant progress. Bush is taking action. Liberals are attempting to impede action. For you to state that the Republicans are costing Americans at the pump is just pure trash. It's ignorant, partisan nonsense that strips you of any and all credibility on the topic. Now why don't you throw $60 in the the tip jar (less than one penny for every post you've made) and go find a thread you can contribute in.
And who, led by Rep. Charles Bass of New Hampshire, signed a letter asking GOP leaders to strike the Alaskan drilling provision from the broader $54 billion budget cut bill? (And good for them that they did, by the way.)
And while I'm sure Clutch appreciates your attempts at conserving bandwidth, you removed Major's quote from its context, which regarded drilling in ANWR - not permitting, environmental litigation, or burdensome regulatory and compliance techniques.
Sadly, that seems to be the only way T_J can make arguments these days. Distort what someone says, then say that they are wrong.
So that's what Bush's Environmental Climate Change policy is all about. har har Yeah, it's the tree hugging liberals letting you breathe easier while you make your hard earned cash. It'll be great to get by in Houston without getting smog related illnesses in your lifetime. You can pat your Republican state senate on the back while someone else explains the external costs of health care and lost productivity as a result from lowered environmental standards.
Trust me you won't. I hope gas goes to 8 bucks a gallon. That's where it should be. And I hope refineries are made cleaner. We have the capability, and as you say, the world's largest economy - we should be able to support it.
Katrina-like disaster ... ah.. what an excuse Who's costing America $$ at the pump and holding back the world's largest economy? Who's making record breaking windfall profits while other Americans suffered from the biggest natural diasters? hello!
