U.S. Senate Approves Drilling in ANWR (5 Viewers)

[Katy Penland]

What is immoral is the lack of commitment to R&D for alternative energy sources. Sorry, Tex, but this kind of thinking makes a travesty of the words "wildlife refuge" and, in the case of offshore drilling, "marine sanctuary." Yes, it's high time the US became less dependent on "foreign oil" -- by "using our own resources" such as our Yankee ingenuity to come up with something that doesn't require us to rip up the earth and seabed in a quest for more and more of this finite fuel.

It would also be nice if all this nationalistic fervor to drill in our own back yard were aimed at US-owned companies, but it's not. The Minerals Management Service is practically giving away oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico to foreign interests. How does that lessen "our" dependence on "foreign oil"?

 

[Edward woodwood]

hi Tex

didn't choose my words carefully enough
from http://www.dod.mil/news/Mar2005/20050316_197.html

The World Bank is a cooperative organization composed of five closely associated institutions, all owned by a member country. Its mission as a specialized agency of the United Nations, according to the organization’s Web site, is to turn rich-country wealth into poor-country development, supporting the efforts of developing country governments to build schools and health centers, provide water and electricity, fight disease and protect the environment.

Traditionally, the World Bank’s president is American, based on the United States being the largest shareholder in the institution. Wolfowitz’s nomination would be subject to a vote of the World Bank’s executive directors.

unfortunately the World Bank has failed so spectacuarly in its mission statement described above having arguably the exact opposite effect to that it espouses. It's faiure being so dramatic that it's ex Chief Economist Joeseph Stiglitz resigned and wrote a book about the damage it was doing

http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring03/032439.htm
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/

atb
Tim

 

[Tero]

If using our own resources meant using them wisely, there might be reason to drill and transport from any reasonable area. But we are just wasting all the oil. We drive as before and there is nothing done to insulate homes better. It is all aimed at consuming more oil. The more oil you sell, the more some people make in income.

 

[Katy Penland]

From the Sacramento Bee's political cartoonist...

 

[streatham]

Texas,

Why is it immoral to rely on a foreign oil supply? Is it immoral for US birders to rely on foreign bins and scopes as well - you could buy US product after all. To buy foreign cars, ditto TV's, Videos or DVD Players? For US companies to shift their manufacturing bases out to SE Asia or S America - they could use US workers but it seems unpopular these days, is that immoral too? I hardly see it as a moral obligation to ensure that US drivers only have to pay $2 a gallon at the pumps.

Conversely are all countries that fully exploit their oil supplies essentially moral? Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela the Russian Federation, Libya, Nigeria, China, and Viet Nam

Luke

 

[Jos Stratford]

Not to use our own natural resources .... is immoral.

What exactly was the point of establishing a wildlife refuge if oil business interests can be allowed to violate its territories. Past accidents not so far in the past have shown the disasterous consequences that oil exploration in these fragile environments can have, so I would say the quote above is close on being 100% contrary to how I see it

 

[michaelboustead]

This is all a little premature. There is no evidence yet that there is an amount of oil that will be commercially recoverable. Oil companies are NOT exploring for oil.

The current oil price is difficult to analyze. It is mostly I think a function of the weakness of the dollar. The dollars weakness comes from a world economy that is seriously out of balance-Asian economies with large trade surplus vs US but whose currencies are stlill tied to the dollar. There is also a lot of speculation right now in the oil markets. Hedge funds selling dollars and buying oil.

I doubt that that the companies will spend large amounts unless there is a lot of oil found. These people are not stupid- at least from there point of view.

I may oppose drilling in ANWR, but frankly, increased burning of coal and God help us oil shale, worries me even more.

Just my opinion

Mike

 

[Andy1]

Tex - As I understand it, there is no legal requirement for the oil to be designated for United States use! Alaska's government reps are pushing for the ability to market the oil on the world market.

Also - this oil will make NO impact on the price consumers pay since world oil prices are controlled by OPEC. Oil producing nations will simply cut back on production to compensate for whatever ANWR produces.

What upsets me most is that Bush is in bed with the oil, natural gas and mining industries and there is NO suggestion or leadership for energy conservation. Tonight, I'm writing my Republican congressman (whom I voted for) to tell him that he will not receive my vote next time if he votes to approve the budget resolution including the driling proposal. I urge all Americans who oppose this to do the same.
:C

 

[Edward woodwood]

lots here on the Exxon Valdez episode

http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=8&subject_name=Exxon Valdez

the whole situation is tragic and scandalous

Tim

 

[Andy Wraithmell]

Decisions like this continue to take us full circle back to the days when we thought the world was flat, potatoes were for smoking and Accrington Stanley were the best footie team in europe! It beggars belief (well apparently not to some people).

 

[marcus]

Sad indeed, but what is the root cause for the drilling .our unabashed consumerism.we all have to look in the mirror ,and realize that with our greed for more, we are contributing to this .

WANIPIGOW, you are correct.

 

[TexasFlyway]

If using our own resources meant using them wisely, there might be reason to drill and transport from any reasonable area. But we are just wasting all the oil. We drive as before and there is nothing done to insulate homes better. It is all aimed at consuming more oil. The more oil you sell, the more some people make in income.

There is nothing stopping people from driving responsibly or insulating their homes. Is more legislation and police to monitor individual pactices in order? Is here something wrong with people making an income ?

 

[TexasFlyway]

Tex - As I understand it, there is no legal requirement for the oil to be designated for United States use! Alaska's government reps are pushing for the ability to market the oil on the world market.

Also - this oil will make NO impact on the price consumers pay since world oil prices are controlled by OPEC. Oil producing nations will simply cut back on production to compensate for whatever ANWR produces.

What upsets me most is that Bush is in bed with the oil, natural gas and mining industries and there is NO suggestion or leadership for energy conservation. Tonight, I'm writing my Republican congressman (whom I voted for) to tell him that he will not receive my vote next time if he votes to approve the budget resolution including the driling proposal. I urge all Americans who oppose this to do the same.

:C

Correct, oil like many other prducts is a commodity, and has a world price that fluctuates daily. That does not mean we should not procure it.

 

[TexasFlyway]

Texas,

Why is it immoral to rely on a foreign oil supply? Is it immoral for US birders to rely on foreign bins and scopes as well - you could buy US product after all. To buy foreign cars, ditto TV's, Videos or DVD Players? For US companies to shift their manufacturing bases out to SE Asia or S America - they could use US workers but it seems unpopular these days, is that immoral too? I hardly see it as a moral obligation to ensure that US drivers only have to pay $2 a gallon at the pumps.

Conversely are all countries that fully exploit their oil supplies essentially moral? Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela the Russian Federation, Libya, Nigeria, China, and Viet Nam

Luke

It is immoral for elected officials not to act in the best self interest of the citizens who elected them. If we want to change the direction we are on we get to vote new officials in or out.

 

[Edward woodwood]

depends who's counting the votes of course Tex!

still can't believe Catherine Harris and her Floridean cronies are not in jail

stopping well over 90,000 innocent people from voting was a touch immoral...

Tim

 

[streatham]

It is immoral for elected officials not to act in the best self interest of the citizens who elected them. If we want to change the direction we are on we get to vote new officials in or out.

Texas,

I think it's a bit silly to present this as a question of morals? Why don't these same elected officials introduce legislation to stop US companies shifting jobs abroad? Surely that is much more in the interest of US citizens? Also the polls seem to be fairly divided on whether the majority of US citizens feel that it is in their own best interests to dig for oil in Alaska.

Luke

 

[samuel walker]

A brilliant ploy has been pulled off in my humble opinion.A large number of folks have been against the ANWR drilling.If gasoline were to rise above $2.20 a gallon most citizens would be demanding to drill anywhere and everywhere.Almost to the day the US Senate passsed the bill as the pump prices hit the "magic" number.Hardley a coincidence.
Sam

 

[Keithec]

The President of the USA does not choose him the World Bank does. Countries nominate their candidates. The US nominated Wolfowitz. There are some 37 candidates for the position.

http://www.worldbankpresident.org/archives/cat_taylor.php

Oh! And I don't suppose that the U.S. administration were able to put any pressure on the World bank at all???

Keith

 

[crispycreme]

The President of the USA does not choose him the World Bank does. Countries nominate their candidates. The US nominated Wolfowitz. There are some 37 candidates for the position.

http://www.worldbankpresident.org/a.../cat_taylor.php

Let's not kid ourselves. Here's a look at the entire list of World Bank presidents, from its inception:

Eugene Meyer (June 1946 - December 1946) U.S. Citizen
John J. McCloy (March 1947 - June 1949) U.S. Citizen
George D. Woods (January 1963 - March 1968) U.S. Citizen
Robert S. McNamara (April 1968 - June 1981) U.S. Citizen
Alden W. Clausen (July 1981 - June 1986) U.S. Citizen
Barber B. Conable (July 1986 - August 1991) U.S. Citizen
Lewis T. Preston (September 1991 - May 1995) U.S. Citizen
James D. Wolfensohn (Since 1995 - Present) (naturalized) U.S. Citizen

(source: http://haitibio.com/index.php?title=World_Bank)

I'm not saying it's good or bad, but to think any of those other 36 nominees will have any chance seems unlikely (to put it mildly). To be fair, as a counterbalance their sibling organziation, the International Monetary Fund, generally appoints a European if I understand correctly.

 

[mothman]

If using our own resources meant using them wisely, there might be reason to drill and transport from any reasonable area. But we are just wasting all the oil. We drive as before and there is nothing done to insulate homes better. It is all aimed at consuming more oil. The more oil you sell, the more some people make in income.

The US=8% of the worlds population,over25% of the worlds carbon emmissions,not pretty reading!

Colin.