-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Gas Price Increases And Opening Up American Wilderness Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:54:58 -0600 (CST) From: EcoNet * IGC * APC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: ? To: undisclosed-recipients:; /* Written 1:34 PM Mar 12, 2000 by [EMAIL PROTECTED] in rainfor.general */ /* ---------- "BIOD: Gas Prices and American Wilderness" ---------- */ *********************************************** WORLDWIDE FOREST/BIODIVERSITY CAMPAIGN NEWS Gas Price Increases Lead to Calls to Open Up American Wilderness *********************************************** Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org, Inc. http://forests.org/ -- Forest Conservation Archives http://forests.org/web/ -- Discuss Forest Conservation 3/12/00 OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY Due to recent increases in gasoline prices in the United States, there are calls to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling--a huge wilderness area full of caribou, polar bears, swans, snow geese, musk oxen and many other species, that has been called "America's Serengeti". This is a shockingly stupid policy proposal. American gas prices while increasing, are still less than half of what most of the rest of the world pays, and have held steady in real terms for over 25 years. Oil should be expensive to cover its costs to the environment and to spur alternatives. It is criminal that slight cost increases for oil should lead to loss of some of the last wilderness in America. Few new wildernesses are being made currently, and under no circumstances should those remaining be sacrificed for a few more years of gluttonous, under priced, polluting fossil fuel consumption. The "Climate Ark" at http://www.climateark.org/ has many resources on climate change, and how fossil fuels and inappropriate land use are causing the problem. Shame on those in America that call on everyone else to save their natural ecosystems and wildernesses, while proposing to liquidate their own to save a few cents at the gasoline pump. g.b. ******************************* RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE: Title: Gas prices fuel drilling, tax debates Some want to drill in protected areas, others see alternatives Source: MSNBC Status: Copyright 2000, contact source for permission to reprint Date: March 9, 2000 Byline: Miguel Llanos Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge covers 19 million acres. Part of its coastal plain, seen here, would be open to oil drilling under a new Senate bill. March 9 - At what price are Americans willing to open some of the nation's last pristine wilderness to oil drilling? Some senators think it's the $1.50 a gallon many motorists are paying for unleaded, and they are pushing legislation to drill in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Environmentalists aren't happy, and neither is the Clinton administration, which suggested the president would veto the bill if it reached him. "HOMEOWNERS ARE STRUGGLING to pay their heating oil bills, truckers are fighting to stay in business and motorists this spring may well be boiling over prices at the pump," Senate Energy Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski said at a news conference Wednesday to unveil the legislation. "We are going to continue on this rollercoaster of price shocks and economic disruption until we learn from our mistakes and take action to produce more energy here at home." Murkowski proposed suspending 4.3 cents per gallon of the federal gasoline tax to ease the pain of the soaring prices. Congress narrowly approved a 4.3 cent increase in 1993 as part of the Clinton administration's budget deficit reduction plan. Republicans staunchly opposed the increase. Murkowski's measure would suspend it until the end of the year. House and Senate tax writing committees were cool to the idea, but a number of Republican senators said the proposal might gain momentum if prices at the pump, now at more than $1.50 a gallon in many places, continue to climb. ARGUMENTS FOR The entire refuge is spread over 19 million acres of Alaska's North Slope, 95 percent of which is already available for oil and gas drilling. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated the coastal plain could contain from 5.7 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil. Even if drilling was approved, it could take a decade before production begins. Murkowski said his legislation would allow oil development on only a small part of the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain. Even if only 7 billion barrels were produced, he argued, that's the equivalent of 30 years' worth of oil imports from Saudi Arabia. Murkowski said that drilling is less of an environmental risk than importing oil, because the latter entails supertankers and the possibility of oil spills. Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, ridiculed Energy Secretary Bill Richardson's recent overseas trip to persuade OPEC oil producers to raise production. "We've seen this administration in the unseemly process of traveling the world begging oil producers to increase production," he said. "Our point is we need to start at home producing more oil and gas in America." Murkowski noted that U.S. oil production has fallen 17 percent during the Clinton administration, while consumption has risen by 14 percent. It's time to open more U.S. areas to exploration, he argued, not just in Alaska but in other Western states and offshore along the outer continental shelf. His bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Ted Stevens, also an Alaskan Republican, and 31 other senators, including three Democrats. ADMINISTRATION DRAWS LINE Congress approved legislation to allow oil development on the coastal plain in 1995. But President Clinton vetoed that measure as part of a broader budget package, and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt suggested Wednesday he'd do so again. "We've made it clear again and again," Babbitt said in a statement. "We will protect this last undeveloped fragment of America' arctic coastline for the thousands of caribou, polar bears, swans, snow geese, musk oxen and countless other species who use it to birth and shelter their young." The federal government allows "environmentally sensitive" oil production in a large part of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, Babbitt said. But there is a big difference between that and allowing oil exploration in a National Wildlife Refuge, he said. ENVIRONMENTALISTS ANGRY The legislation also drew negative reviews from environmental groups, who have long fought to keep oil companies out of the refuge. The Sierra Club accused Murkowski of potentially destroying "America's Serengeti," while resisting efforts to raise automobile fuel efficiency standards and other "common sense" measures to lower oil prices. The Wilderness Society said "this bill isn't about filling America's fuel tanks, it's about lining the pockets of special interests in Alaska." For environmentalists, measures to save energy and develop alternatives like solar and wind power are better options, especially given what's at stake in the Arctic refuge. "Developing the arctic refuge," said Allen Smith, the society's Alaska director, "would be a senseless act equivalent to burning a painting by Picasso to warm yourself." Activists are also unhappy about how some drilling has been going in approved areas. As part of its "Arctic Action" effort, Greenpeace this month set up a base camp near a BP Amoco drilling site to protest the offshore project. ###RELAYED TEXT ENDS### This document is a PHOTOCOPY for educational, personal and non- commercial use only. Recipients should seek permission from the source for reprinting. All efforts are made to provide accurate, timely pieces; though ultimate responsibility for verifying all information rests with the reader. Check out our Gaia's Forest Conservation Archives & Portal at URL= http://forests.org/ Networked by Forests.org, Inc., [EMAIL PROTECTED] <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
