Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Raiders of the Lost Arctic

By Amanda Griscom Little, Grist.org. Posted October 24, 2005.


Congress is closer than ever to green-lighting oil and gas drilling in one of the largest remaining undeveloped wild areas in the U.S.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Amanda Griscom Little

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

"The threat to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has never been greater than it is today," according to Brian Moore, legislative director for the Alaska Wilderness League.

And, though the battle over the refuge has a Groundhog Day quality to it -- haven't we heard this same alarm sounding before? -- this time advocates on both sides of the issue agree: Congress is closer than ever before to green-lighting oil and gas drilling in one of the largest remaining undeveloped wild areas in the United States.

Wednesday, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 13-9 to include in a hulking budget package a provision that would not only allow drilling on the coastal plain at the northern edge of the Arctic Refuge, but also require that the land be leased to energy developers as a means of generating revenue for the federal treasury.

If this congressional maneuver sounds familiar, that's because it's part of the second phase of a budget-bill deliberation process that began early this year. The initial "resolution" phase outlines possible budget cuts and increases within congressional committees -- suggestions that aren't legally enforceable; the second, called the "reconciliation" phase, hones these instructions and locks them in, carrying the force of law.

In March, a resolution package that contained similar language paving the way for drilling in the Arctic Refuge passed the Senate by a narrow margin, instructing committees to trim their budgets by specific amounts. The Energy Committee's goal for cuts or offsets was set at $2.4 billion over five years. That's almost exactly the amount that the Congressional Budget Office predicts the feds would receive over the next five years from sales of energy leases on the refuge's coastal plain.

Drilling advocates are piggybacking the Arctic Refuge provision onto the budget initiative because reconciliation bills are immune to filibuster, thus requiring only a simple majority vote to clear the Senate. That vote is scheduled to occur within the next few weeks, and though Democrats are expected to unanimously oppose the bill, the 55-44 GOP majority in the Senate gives drilling advocates a comfortable margin for victory, even if there are a few moderate-Republican defectors.

Critics argue that the refuge drilling provision is entirely out of place in a budget bill. "The whole point of the resolution process is to hammer out the budget -- it's not to reverse existing legislation or enact new legislation of any kind," says Eleanor Huffines, Alaska regional director for The Wilderness Society. This is the logic that Senate opponents of the bill, such as Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), will invoke if they proceed with plans to challenge the provision under the Byrd Rule, which requires a budget bill to have 60 affirmative votes if it includes extraneous provisions.

Advocates of the drilling language counter that the Byrd Rule is effectively moot in this case, given that a precedent already exists for this very maneuver: The GOP-controlled Congress of 1995 managed to successfully pass a refuge-drilling provision in a budget reconciliation bill, which was then promptly vetoed by President Clinton. This time, of course, there's no chance of a veto from the Oval Office.

Arctic Refuge defenders are quick to assert that there's still hope, but it likely hinges on strong opposition to other parts of the bill, not the drilling provision itself. The budget resolution was unanimously opposed by Democrats in both the House and Senate in March for fear it would spur draconian cuts to a broad swath of social programs, including Medicare, food stamps, and college loans. All Dems in Congress are expected to vote against the budget initiative on this go-round too, and they're getting support not just from environmental groups but from a wide range of organizations including the People for the American Way, the National Women's Law Center, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and the AFL-CIO, all united under the umbrella group Emergency Campaign for America's Priorities.


Digg!

Amanda Griscom Little writes the Muckraker column for Grist Magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Next thing you know
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 24, 2005 5:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wall Street will be masturbating big time since further destruction of the Arctic will do nothing good except help SUPERHYPE the friggin' oil stocks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Markets sometimes work
Posted by: chinasdad on Oct 24, 2005 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have no doubt that Congress will approve this; and I think it is a very bad idea. However, actual drilling may not occur. Alaska recently took steps to cancel leases in owned by ExxonMobil because of inactivity and other oil companies have stated that the economics of drilling in ANWR now mean they don't intend to drill there whether leasing begins or not. I believe BusinessWeek quoted a source who said that oil would have to be at $100 a barrell for the foreseeable future to make drilling there worth the risk. A bigger environmental threat is that Congress will override state bans on offshore drilling (including a pre-election ban imposed in Florida by Gov. Bush that included a federal buyout of pre-production leases.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a satirist...
Posted by: sgtmartin1 on Oct 24, 2005 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you get a twisted sort of satisfaction when something you've written as a complete joke comes true.

But that's temporary, then the heartbreak sets in. The complete joke is on all of us.

From: "Environmental Disaster: Republicans get Protection in Endangered Species Act."

Oct. 1, 2005

...Meanwhile, environmentalists were also said to be concerned about a mysterious section in the GOP’s new Endangered Species Act that creates a special one-million acre terrorist-proof “Green Zone” in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The earmark provides $14.6 billion for Halliburton to manage the project...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: As a satirist... Posted by: loony
Pombo must go
Posted by: saynotopombo on Oct 24, 2005 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Richard Pombo is a one-man environmental wrecking ball. He is, as someone noted to me, the black knight of environmental policies. It never surprises me how every dirty and rapcious environmental policy in the House somehow has Pombo's fingerprints all over them. Some of us are working to oust him from office. If you're interested in working to give Pombo a pink slip, check out my blog.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about the people who live up there
Posted by: bookwoman on Oct 24, 2005 1:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have heard over and over about the moose, tundra and other assorted animals and fauna which will be destroyed if oil drilling is allowed in ANWR. No one has ever mentioned the people who live in the area. There are tribes of Upik peoples who hunt and fish to support their lives. If the tundra and the animals on it are destroyed, these people will starve. There is no way they can grow food and it is too cold and isolated to set up industry.

Ted Stevens has said that it brings tears to his eyes when he thinks about success in drilling in this area as he has dreamed about this project for years. Evidently he doesn't cry over the fate of the people who live there even though they belong to the same denomination as he does. I also belong to this denomination, and he is an embarassment to me in his violation of the Christian values I have been taught..

Why do we not hear about these people and the destruction of their life in the face of the possibility of this drilling project. Will someone please talk about these people so that we know that drilling in ANWR will also destroy them as well as the animals and tundra.

To me, this is just another situation where the poorest among our people are being discriminated against. On Friday, when the budget bill was being discussed and cuts against the poor were being argued, Ted Stevens said that if any of the cuts against the poor were replaced by cuts against the rich, he would quit public service. This kind of rhetoric only shows that Mr. Stevens cares as little about the poor in the lower 48 states as he does for the poor in Alaska. As for his threat to quit public service if the cuts against the poor were overturned, I can only say "promises, promises, promises.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree, bookwoman -- the NRDC supports your point too
Posted by: SbgBJ on Oct 25, 2005 3:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quoted (in part) from a recent NRDC email:

For most Americans, protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil development is a matter of principle. But for the Gwich'in people who live in the Arctic and depend on the caribou herd, it is a matter of survival.
Matthew Gilbert of the Alaskan Gwich'in community is a member of the community whose fate is directly tied to the Arctic Refuge some members of congress wish to so blithely despoil. Here's a short excerpt from Matthew's 21st August blog at the NRDC Action Fund:

"The fact that it's even a question whether we should drill in a pristine place like the Arctic Refuge, the breeding grounds of Polar Bears, the Porcupine Caribou Herd, and many bird species, is an ethical travesty of our time. The world is realizing fossil fuel is becoming more and more scarce and its costs to the earth more expensive. We Gwich'in of Alaska pay $5.00 a gallon and are getting hit the hardest, but we know our environment is far more important. Even in a time of energy shortage, we stick to our belief: complete protection of the Refuge's Coastal Plain to ensure the survival of the Porcupine Caribou Herd."
http://blog.nrdcactionfund.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]