10/02/01 -- Arctic Drilling Is Still Bad

***********************************************

FOREST CONSERVATION NEWS TODAY

Arctic Drilling Is Still Bad

***********************************************

Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org, Inc.

http://forests.org/ -- Forest Conservation Portal

http://forests.org/links/ -- Forest Conservation Links

TAKE ACTION: Do Not Attach Alaskan Refuge Drilling to Defense Bill

(targets US Congress members, so works for American citizens only)

http://www.vote.com/vote/36279946/index.phtml

10/02/01

OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY by Forests.org

Taking advantage of American consensus against terrorism, some

lawmakers are trying to rush through legislation to open the Alaska

National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil exploration and drilling.

Amendments to the Department of Defense Authorization bill are being

considered that would open up this and other national wildlands for

oil and gas development.

We wholeheartedly concur with the LA Times' analysis of the policy

decision: "The facts are unchanged. The refuge is estimated to

contain 3.2 billion barrels of oil that can be pumped without

economic loss, enough to supply the nation for about six months. It

would take roughly 10 years for these supplies to reach gasoline

pumps. We could save five times as much oil by raising the fuel

efficiency standard of new autos by three miles per gallon... ...The

wildlife refuge, on the north slope of Alaska between the Brooks

Range and the Arctic Ocean, is the home of the 129,000-head Porcupine

caribou herd, which migrates more than 400 miles to the coastal plain

to calve. The refuge also has polar and grizzly bears, Dall sheep,

musk oxen, wolves, foxes and myriad bird species."

By moving forward on such a contentious issue in a national time of

tragedy, it is drilling advocates that risk undermining national

unity. Drilling advocates should not use the recent attacks to

attempt to force passage of a divisive environmental issue.

Lawmakers should be free to vote for additional defense spending

without having to approve oil drilling in Alaska as well.

Please let your US Congressperson know that you do not support

linking drilling in the Arctic with defense spending bills. You can

do so easily at http://www.vote.com/vote/36279946/index.phtml.

g.b.

*******************************

RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:

ITEM #1

Title: Arctic Drilling Is Still Bad

Date: September 28, 2001

Byline: Editorial

The United States needs to take decisive steps to improve its

security against terrorism but should be wary of attempts to use the

crisis to stampede Congress into bad policy decisions. In one such

attempt some lawmakers are trying to rush through legislation to open

the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil exploration and

drilling.

"We can't wait another day," House Republican Whip Tom DeLay of Texas

raged at a press conference. "This country needs energy produced by

Americans in America for America," declared Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin

(R-La.). Hold on. Drilling in the Arctic refuge was a bad idea before

Sept. 11 and is just as bad today. Rushing the energy bill through

the Senate wouldn't make the ANWR provision better.

The facts are unchanged. The refuge is estimated to contain 3.2

billion barrels of oil that can be pumped without economic loss,

enough to supply the nation for about six months. It would take

roughly 10 years for these supplies to reach gasoline pumps. We could

save five times as much oil by raising the fuel efficiency standard

of new autos by three miles per gallon. There may be just as much oil

in other parts of Alaska, including the 23-million-acre National

Petroleum Reserve, now open to the oil companies. Domestic production

can and should expand where it is economically feasible and does not

threaten special areas.

The wildlife refuge, on the north slope of Alaska between the Brooks

Range and the Arctic Ocean, is the home of the 129,000-head Porcupine

caribou herd, which migrates more than 400 miles to the coastal plain

to calve. The refuge also has polar and grizzly bears, Dall sheep,

musk oxen, wolves, foxes and myriad bird species.

Once the first drill pierces the tundra, the refuge will be changed

forever, despite the denials of drilling proponents. Would we harness

Old Faithful for its geothermal energy? Put a hydroelectric plant at

Yosemite Falls? You could not measure the potential cost to the

environment in Yellowstone or Yosemite, nor can you in the Arctic.

ITEM #2

Title: Drilling Dispute Is Back

Policy: Environmental debate, now quiet, is likely to turn hot over

the Arctic refuge issue.

Date: September 30, 2001

By ELIZABETH SHOGREN and DEBORAH SCHOCH, TIMES ENVIRONMENTAL WRITERS

Stilled by the events of Sept. 11, strong disagreements over the

environment could resurface as early as this week to test the

political truce in Washington.

Lawmakers are poised to resume a partisan fight over oil drilling in

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And as they return to the

nation's domestic agenda, they will have to contend with global

warming, national forest protections, arsenic in drinking water and

air quality.

All are issues that had put the environment near the center of the

policy divide separating the White House and congressional Democrats.

That divide all but disappeared, or so it seemed, as Washington came

together in response to the terrorist attacks. Major environmental

groups laid down their swords, some purging their Web sites of anti-

Bush rhetoric, delaying direct-mail appeals and encouraging members

to redirect donations to rescue efforts, such as the American Red

Cross.

Now signs of renewed strife are emerging as some Senate Republicans

seek to make domestic energy a national security issue and dissenters

rise to argue that a national emergency does not require sacrificing

environmental goals. That discord could break out into the open when

the Senate reconvenes this week, and especially if Sen. Frank H.

Murkowski (R-Alaska) joins Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) in trying

to force a vote on an energy bill that would allow oil drilling in

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Some Republican and Democratic Senate aides said last week that they

did not expect Inhofe's effort to result in a vote because the

leaders of both parties are against it.

Many environmentalists hope to delay a vote on the entire energy

package until early next year, allowing more time for senators to

scrutinize the controversial bill passed by the House this summer--

and for the environmental movement to regain lost momentum.

Inhofe tried to force the Senate to vote last week on the energy

legislation, by filing an amendment on an unrelated defense

authorization bill. The effort by Inhofe and others brought that bill

to a standstill.

When the Senate adjourned for a long weekend, Inhofe had not given up

on his plan to offer the amendment unless he gets a commitment from

the Senate leadership to take up energy legislation by a date

certain.

The chairmen of two major Senate committees dismissed Inhofe's

tactics as the wrong way to approach complicated legislation on such

an important topic.

"I will not agree . . . to attempts to force through a one-sided

energy bill or to short-circuit Senate consideration of these

important issues," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Senate Energy

Committee chairman.

Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), Environment and Public Works

chairman, warned his colleagues that Inhofe's amendments could hurt

public health and environmental quality and raise greenhouse

emissions at a time when the United States faces international

criticism for failing to pay serious attention to climate-change

issues.

"We shouldn't further encroach on the goodwill of our global

neighbors at a time when we are seeking their support in our efforts

against terrorism," Jeffords said.

But Murkowski said last week that the new war against terrorism makes

it imperative that the United States develop oil reserves on its own

soil, decreasing dependence on Middle Eastern oil. He wants speedy

action on an energy bill.

The sparring could foreshadow a more wide-ranging debate. Since Sept.

11, lobbyists on both sides of the energy debate have remained

relatively quiet. Neither environmentalists nor the Teamsters Union--

a major force behind the House passage of energy legislation in July-

-has run television ads.

"Everybody has backed up and retrenched since the events of Sept.

11," said Jerry Hood, a Teamsters lobbyist.

But for environmentalists, the energy bill could be a line in the

sand--the point at which any truce ends. For them, the challenge is

how to be loyal Americans at a time of national emergency while being

true to their values and their supporters.

Several environmental leaders talked frankly of their struggle to

find the appropriate tone to fight Arctic drilling and tax incentives

for the energy industry, which are part of the pending legislation.

On Friday, Maggie Fox, deputy executive director of the Sierra Club,

expressed the dilemma felt by many environmentalists. "We are not

going to sit back because of what happened Sept. 11 and have no

voice. What we are trying to be sensitive about is, what is the

appropriate way to approach this debate?"

Leaders of major environmental groups called a timeout shortly after

the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"Now is a time for mourning, for reflection and for solutions to the

immediate crisis at hand," read a message from Sierra Club Executive

Director Carl Pope on the group's Internet home page. "Our nation

faces other long-term problems and challenges, but now is not the

time for those debates."

Now some wonder if environmental issues can reclaim the public

attention they commanded just three weeks ago.

One issue awaiting resolution is the fate of a policy, developed by

the Clinton administration, to protect old-growth forests in

California's Sierra Nevada.

The California director of the Wilderness Society, Jay Watson, had

been trying to convince U.S. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth not

to weaken the plan, which has been under attack by the timber

industry and recreational interests.

A report underscoring the dangers of arsenic in drinking water by the

National Academy of Sciences, released two days after the terrorist

attacks, has received little attention.

Before Sept. 11, the issue of global warming also loomed large.

Bush was receiving widespread public criticism for rejecting the

Kyoto Protocol, the international accord to reduce greenhouse gases.

The administration was under pressure to produce a U.S. strategy to

unveil at the next international climate control meeting, scheduled

for late next month in Marrakech, Morocco.

But some of the administration's strongest advocates of a global

warming policy--Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Treasury

Secretary Paul H. O'Neill--are deeply involved in the immediate

crisis.

The United States still plans to send a delegation to Marrakech, but

after the terrorist attacks, expectations are not high that the

administration will produce a viable option to Kyoto.

"I can't imagine for some period of time that they'll be able to get

back to business as usual or pick up where they left off on climate

change," said Eileen Claussen, the Clinton administration's top

climate change negotiator and now at the Pew Center on Global Climate

Change, which works with private business to fight global warming.

"I'm convinced this is a serious enough issue that it will come back-

-but not before a couple of months," Claussen said.

Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is delaying

introduction of legislation that would change the federal

government's approach to regulating pollution from power plants.

The EPA had said it would release its blueprint in September for

controlling mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from

power plants. But EPA spokesman Dave Ryan on Tuesday said the

schedule for that initiative--and many others--had slipped as a

result of the terrorist attacks. Now the target for producing the

administration's plan is sometime this fall, he said.

Yet some wonder if Sept. 11 will mark the end of the anti-regulatory

sentiment that began during the Reagan presidency.

* Shogren reported from Washington and Schoch from Los Angeles.

ITEM #3

Title: U.S. senator pushes for drilling in Alaskan refuge

Date: October 1, 2001

WASHINGTON - A leading Republican lawmaker welcomed OPEC's decision

to maintain production levels, but said the U.S. needs to boost its

own energy supplies by opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to

drilling.

Sen. Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican, said the attacks in New York

and Washington on Sept. 11 have made it crucial for the United States

to open the Arctic refuge to ensure the oil supplies and economic

growth.

Supporters of drilling in ANWR estimate the Alaskan wilderness area

could contain up to 16 billion barrels of oil, equal to the amount of

crude the United States imports from Iraq for 70 years.

"We're highly dependent on foreign oil and any glitch in that system

would find us in a desperate situation with our economy and our

people," Craig told reporters on Capitol Hill.

"The reality is we can drill in ANWR, and we can do it safely," added

Craig, who was joined by several union and manufacturing

representatives.

Republican lawmakers have lobbied for opening the refuge to help

reduce U.S. dependence on oil imports, especially shipments from the

powerful OPEC cartel.

With the world economy struggling, OPEC producers on Thursday left

oil production levels unchanged, waiting until November to decide

whether to cut output to lift slumping crude prices.

The announcement was applauded by Craig and other lawmakers including

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham who said a cut would have further

hit an already depressed economy.

"They recognize this flat economy worldwide, and they could have made

it a lot flatter if they lowered production," Craig said.

The Senate Energy Committee has yet to resume debate on a

comprehensive energy bill, and with about a month left before

Congress adjourns, a vote by the full chamber is not imminent.

Sen. Frank Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, has pushed a stripped-

down version of the bill that includes opening up the refuge, and

offering incentives to aid U.S. electric, coal, natural gas and

nuclear energy production.

But Democrat Jeff Bingaman from New Mexico, who heads the Senate

Energy Committee, said he wants to stick with a broader plan that

includes electric restructuring and energy conservation measures.

Craig said ANWR is no longer a "sticking point" within the Senate,

and a drafted energy bill would likely blend several provisions from

Murkowski and Bingaman's bills.

"All of the components are there, it is simply the will of the

leadership to produce (legislation) that is holding it up," said

Craig, who would like to send a final bill to the president this

year before Congress adjourns.

In another measure to boost U.S. oil supplies, Congress also has

considered purchasing oil for the country's Strategic Petroleum

Reserves.

With the sharp drop to oil prices in recent weeks, an opportunity to

increase emergency reserves would be a bigger buffer to a disruption

in U.S. crude supplies.

Rep. Joe Barton said Tuesday the House might consider legislation to

increase oil reserves if prices drop a few dollars below their recent

level of $22 per barrel.

Craig said that while there were no plans to introduce a similar

proposal in the Senate, it is something they could "absolutely"

consider at some point.

"It's a time when we might just see a market of lower crude prices,

and that is an opportunity," he said.

ITEM #4

Title: Renewed calls to drill Alaska wildlife refuge, GOP says

national security is at stake

Date: September 26, 2001

Byline: John Wildermuth

Washington - A controversial plan to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge has become a question of national security

since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on New York and the Pentagon, a

group of Republican lawmakers said yesterday.

"This country needs energy produced by Americans in America for

America," said Rep. Billy Tauzin of Louisiana. "Secure energy sources

for this country are critical." Oil from the Alaskan refuge could

replace all of our oil from Iraq for the next 50 years, said Rep. Tom

DeLay of Texas, the House Republican whip.

"We can't wait another day," DeLay said at a news conference outside

the Capitol. "The strength of our security, the health of our

economy, rests on expanding our domestic energy supply immediately."

The Republicans went public in an effort to push the Democratic-

controlled Senate into taking quick action on an energy bill that

focus almost entirely at boosting oil and energy production in the

United States. Increased domestic production was a key element of the

energy plan pushed by Bush during last year's campaign.

But Democrats have been less than enthused about increased drilling

for oil and natural gas, particularly in such environmentally

sensitive areas as the wildlife refuge. Once Democrats took control

of the Senate earlier this year, work began on an energy bill that

considered a variety of other issues, such as electricity

restructuring and global warming.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, for example, suggested that

increasing fuel efficiency standards for automobiles could save about

as much oil as the United States could get from increased drilling in

Alaska. Even if drilling is approved, it would be almost a decade

before oil began to flow.

With Senate Democrats in no hurry to pass an energy bill of their

own, House Republicans are trying to apply some pressure.

"We must have a national energy policy that allows us to provide more

of our own oil," House Resources Chairman James Hansen, R-Utah, said

yesterday.

The House passed its own energy plan last month on a 240-to-189 vote.

Pressure from labor unions helped produce 36 Democratic votes to go

with the Republican majority.

"This (energy) bill will put Americans back to work," Jerry Hood of

the Teamsters Union said yesterday.

Terry Turner of the Seafarers International Union was even more

specific. Work on a new Alaskan oil field could provide decades of

work for oil tanker crews and other maritime union members.

Drilling in Alaska "could mean 30 years of solid, good-paying jobs

for American families," he said. "The Senate needs to act. This is a

jobs bill."

After the terrorist attacks, Republicans want the Senate to consider

a scaled-down energy bill that will include only measures that deal

with increasing domestic energy supplies, reducing demand and

maintaining and protecting the nation's power plants, pipelines,

transmission wires and other infrastructure.

A letter Monday from the 11 Republican members of the Senate Energy

Committee suggested that such a bill could be ready for floor action

immediately and on the president's desk before Congress adjourns.

There are few signs, however, that Democrats are willing to follow

the GOP lead on energy. Despite the Republicans' attempts to make

increased oil drilling part of the nation's fast-track anti-terrorism

efforts, it won't be easy to rewrite the rules on an issue that was a

partisan battleground just a few weeks ago.

###RELAYED TEXT ENDS###

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is

distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

interest in receiving forest conservation informational materials for

educational, personal and non-commercial use only. Recipients should

seek permission from the source to reprint this PHOTOCOPY. All

efforts are made to provide accurate, timely pieces, though ultimate

responsibility for verifying all information rests with the reader.

For additional forest conservation news & information please see the

Forest Conservation Portal at URL= http://forests.org/

Networked by Forests.org, Inc., gbarry@forests.org