portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting united states


There goes ANWR

The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster -- a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies.
The action, assuming Congress agrees on a budget, clears the way for approving drilling in the refuge later this year, drilling supporters said.
What should our next step be now?
next step re: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? 16.Mar.2005 16:31


Simple. Kill it in the House.

...and how? 16.Mar.2005 16:42


What leads you to believe that can be killed in the House? The House is even more partisan Rethuglican that the Senate.

kill the suvs 16.Mar.2005 16:49


What should our next step be now?

Kill the Escalades, Yukons, Hummers and other gasshole movers!

Re: Kill the SUV's 16.Mar.2005 17:00

cheezdog cheezdog@ureach.com

Killing the SUV's is a great idea. This is very sad news, not even wildlife preserves are safe under the greedy capitalists claws. Very sad.

Censored 16.Mar.2005 17:09


Eight times, big oil has sought to violate the sanctity of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Eight times, the American people have said, No. This is a vital breeding ground and migratory route for global species of wildlife. It is pristine.

What is at stake? Next begins Round #9 in Washington, D.C. Tuesday night, February 1, 2005, tribal member Sarah James came to Salem, sent by her elders of the Gwich'in who live on the south end of ANWR. The battle is not about oil. It is about precedent. Exxon remains adamant that they can force the issue and open up other pristine areas of America's heritage to looting. They have done that to the west of Prudoe Bay. The financial elite are running out of natural capital. To keep us in our place, they must consume in ever greater amounts - at least until population declines.
Pictures of the desecration of Prudoe Bay revealed a startling indictment. It was just a sign - a boastful sign, perhaps. It said HALLIBURTON. Make the connections - Cheney, Iraq, $9 billion in missing reconstruction aid. Who is looting America to make it more self-sufficient? BTW. Oil drilled at Prudoe Bay is sold to the highest bidder. That isn't necessarily the U.S. with our declining dollar.
Infrastructure needed to support drilling is not included in estimates of areas impacted. Roads, supplies, and 'edge effect' are not considered in estimates on paper. Destruction of the 'edge' of a critical estuarine habitat would be utterly devastating.

1 Mile per gallon 16.Mar.2005 17:30



If we raise fuel economy standards by 1 mile per gallon, we produce double the amount of oil that's in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If we raise fuel efficiency economies by 2.7 miles per gallon, we can eliminate 100 percent of the imports from Iraq and Kuwait combined. If we raise fuel efficiency standards by 7.6 miles per gallon, we would yield more gasoline than we now import from the Persian Gulf. So that's the solution to our energy problems right now. You cannot drill your way out of an energy dependence that's in this country. We have less in our country. We have less than 2 percent of the global reserves of oil. We use 25 percent of the global reserves of oil. So, if we get every ounce of buried oil in this country out of the ground, it will have zero impact on our foreign oil dependence. The way that we need to reduce foreign oil dependence is through conservation efficiency, and by expanding our portfolio beyond fossil fuels.

Raise the white flag... 16.Mar.2005 17:47


Two stolen elections, an illegal war in Iraq, the Homeland
Security Act, foreign relations in a shambles, the bankruptcy bill, etc, etc.

And now the opening of ANWR. Don't forget an "opposition" party that quietly acquiesces to the entire nightmare.

The Bush Juggernaut seems unstoppable.

$3 per gallon ? 16.Mar.2005 17:58

Progressive Democrat

What to do next?

"Kill it in the House"? Yeah right. Very funny.

There comes a time when you just have to chalk it down as a loss. You can't win them all.

So, what to do next?


One thing is continued education among the grass-roots. The Republicans consider this a feather in their cap. They are calling this a victory and, believe it or not, they call it the "centerpiece" of the Bush energy plan. It's ridicule time, people, like this:

"When we heard that this Alaska drilling thing was part of the Bush energy plan, we knew just one thing for sure -- it will cost us money. We're still waiting for what's been promised by Republicans since 2003 -- gas at less than a dollar a gallon. THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING, KERRY WILL WIN IN 2008 JUST BY PROMISING $3 A GALLON."

What else to do?

Maybe think about defeating a senator who voted for this?

Does the name "Gordon Smith" come to mind? That's our Republican senator from Oregon. (Wyden's the Democrat -- and I'll take a chance and say he voted against ANWR.) But I'd hate to point to Gordon Smith as a well-known rat when the Senate web site hasn't gotten around to posting the roll call on ANWR -- it's possible, I guess, that Smith voted against ANWR? Somebody will correct me, I'm sure, if I am wrong, so I'll just go ahead and say that Smith voted FOR the destruction of wilderness. If I'm wrong, and someone points out my mistake, I'll send a check to your favorite charity!

Still, that would just be ONE vote out of many -- maybe I should look at Smith's overall record. Here's what Russell Sadler has said about Gordon Smith, from Sadler's weekly column, taken from the BlueOregon website --

<<Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Oregon, was elected after wrapping himself in the mantle of former Sen. Mark Hatfield, whose independent, maverick ways were something of a legend. But Smith's voting record displays little of Hatfield's independence. Smith will have to display substantial independence on radical changes in Social Security, however. Republicans are a minority in Oregon. Alone, they cannot elect any Republican to statewide office.

<<Independents elected Smith in 1996 and reelected him in 2002. Independents expect Smith to represent them. No poll shows any groundswell of public opinion favoring radical surgery to Social Security among Oregon's independent voters. That is not surprising. Independents ask irritating questions like "Why introduce risk and uncertainty into Social Security when private pensions are suffering from risk and volatility and promised benefits are so easily undone in bankruptcy court?"

<<Smith chairs the Senate's Special Committee on Aging and has some expertise in this area. Depending on the number of Republicans who bail out on the administration's plan to turn Roosevelt's New Deal into Bush's Raw Deal, Sen. Smith could become a pivotal player faced with a stark choice. Who does he represent? His party or his people? They are not on the same side on this issue.>>

I'd say that Smith and the people of Oregon are not on the same side on ANY issue.

Smith is up for re-election in 2008. Unless he gathers up his ill-gotten gains and skips out before then.

Great resources 16.Mar.2005 18:06


What should our next step be now? 16.Mar.2005 18:48

Pravda or Consequences

The next step in my humble opinion is to get real.

Piss and moan if you want to. Rant and rave if you want to.

American society is perfectly willing to go along with the scare tactics because it reinforces their stupidity about how the world works.

The only way to rid yourselves of the influence of the Bush régime is to create your own world. A very difficult task indeed. However, I think it would be easier to do that than to change the minds that do not want to be changed.

Spend the rest of your life reacting with outrage or spend what energy you have left and leave a legacy.

Maybe it's "realist" who "acquiesces" ? ? 16.Mar.2005 19:42

Progressive Democrat

I hate to get into this old thing about the Democrats. I'm not apologizing for the "dems" here -- in this case, there's nothing to apologize about. Because they did defeat this same ANWR thing in 2002, when they had at least a little power in the Senate.

So "realist" can't be pissed at the dems about ANWR -- the dems have no power anymore -- but "realist" is still pissed at them, because he alleges that they "acquiese".

realist: "Don't forget an "opposition" party that quietly acquiesces to the entire nightmare."

So I went to my dictionary to see what "acquiesce" means. It means "without protest". But the dems in the Senate have been protesting about this! And about "the entire nightmare"! (Different folks have different versions, but it is the same nightmare, you know.)

If "realist" hasn't heard about that, it's because "realist" is getting the corporate media version of "reality". For example, Senator Byrd's speech on the eve of the Iraq invasion. You didn't hear much about it from corporate media, but that's the speech that criticizes the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war and anticipating the disaster that Iraq was to become --

The point is that if there's protest, the word "acquiesce" don't apply. There is protest. In the Senate. In the streets. Here at PDX Indy. So if someone is "acuiescing" -- maybe you should quit worrying about the Senate and about anybody other than yourself -- just get out and protest. NO WHITE FLAG!

npr says all OR and WA senators voted against drilling 16.Mar.2005 20:01


that's what i heard a couple of times....not that i would not mind seein' less of ol' smithy...

The legacy 16.Mar.2005 20:05

Progressive Democrat

Pravda or Consequences, as usual, has something to say outside the box --

"Spend the rest of your life reacting with outrage or spend what energy you have left and leave a legacy."

"A legacy" -- what a word! No doubt about it -- any building of a legacy has to be better than reacting with outrage for the rest of your life. But then, outrage isn't something you will be able to avoid for the rest of your life, not on this planet. So, there's bound to be SOME outrage even as you build your legacy.

The greatest question though is, "WHAT WILL MY LEGACY BE?" Apparently, it won't include the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. And that seems to be outraging a lot of people.

Let's hope the people prevail... 16.Mar.2005 20:21

Pravda or Consequences

as a legacy.

Secede Cascadia! 16.Mar.2005 20:38

a cascadian

As I keep saying "enough is enough!" Time to secede Cascadia! Listen it may not at first seem to stop ANWR, but secession led by Cascadia and other regions would crack this fascist system. The army would collapse and their power over the country as a superpower would end. It would leave them open to the new economic powerhouse of the European Union. We would see the fascist stronghold like in the "red states" (what should be called third world welfare states) whither in their own extrement. The oil in Alaska will not be ready for years and the fascists in a Balkanized United States would not have to economic power to even afford the effort. I think an independant would stir secessionist actions in Alaska as well. Yes it does seem that large portions of the "white" Alaskans favor this oil drilling, but is that just the corporate media or just a sense of indepence in the face of being told "no". If it is that sense of independence I believe there will be a backlash by Alaskans themselves.

Kiss it goodbye 16.Mar.2005 21:43


Nothing is sacred any longer...with the abomination know as Bush :?(
ANWR today
ANWR today
ANWR tomorrow
ANWR tomorrow

News 16.Mar.2005 23:54

Eugene Register-Guard

A majority of the Senate on Wednesday declared its support for allowing oil companies into the 1.5 million acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where billions of barrels of crude oil are believe to rest beneath the tundra.

More importantly, the Senate assured that any Alaska refuge drilling provision would be linked to the budget process, depriving opponents of using a filibuster to block action - a tactic that has been used repeatedly over the years to stymie ANWR drilling proposals.

An attempt Wednesday by Democrats to take the issue out of the budget process failed when they could muster only 49 votes against 51 votes by drilling supporters.

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who has fought unsuccessfully for 24 years to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies, conceded it could still be "a long process" before a final drilling measure clears Congress. Lawmakers must agree on the final budget, something they failed to do last year, or Wednesday's vote will have been for naught.

Environmentalists said while the vote was disappointing, they weren't giving up the fight.

"The battle is far from over," said Lexi Keogh of the Alaska Wilderness League. She said environmentalists will push to keep the ANWR provision out of a final budget document.

"The fact is (drilling) is going to be destructive," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said during debate on the issue Wednesday.

Kerry and other drilling opponents argued that more oil would be saved than ANWR could produce if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels.

Drilling opponents rejected the suggestion that ANWR's oil would have much impact on global markets or oil imports, noting the Energy Department has said refuge production would have negligible impact on oil prices and reduce reliance on imports only a few percentage points.

"We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist."

Switched Votes on Cantwell Amendment 17.Mar.2005 01:54

bitter root

The following Republican Senators (R) voted YES for the Cantwell amendment--i.e. supported removing industrial petroleum extraction in the Coastal Plain --the "1002 area"--of the Arctic Refuge as a revenue source in the Senate budget bill:

McCain AZ
DeWine OH
Smith OR
Chafee RI
Collins ME
Snow ME (co-sponsor with Cantwell of the amendment)
Coleman MN
Independent Senator (I) who voted YES for the Cantwell amendment:

Jeffords VT
The following Democrat Senators (D) voted NO for Cantwell amendment--i.e they opposed removing industrial petroleum extraction development in the 1002 area (the Coastal Plain) of the Arctic Refuge as a revenue source from the Senate budget bill:

Landrieu LA
Akaka HI
Inouye HI

The Republicans (including Gordon Smith) who bucked the corporate pimps' agenda coming out of the White (Settlers') House should read/hear appreciation and encouragement to keep fighting. Don't let them think that they "wasted" their votes. They should feel encouraged to vote the same way, when another opportunity comes up to drive a stake through the heart of the pimps' agenda.
Jeffords has already told Dick and the runt where they can go, when he jumped the Republican garbage scow.

The Democrats, with Exxon gas pump dildoes up their asses, should have ex-Sen. Zell Miller (D) GA--the Billy Graham wannabe warmonger at last summer's Republican Convention--sit on their faces.

Wednesday's amendment was one that could pass or fail on as little as 1 vote over 50%. Hopefully, the corporate junk yard can be kept out of the Arctic Refuge through a fillibuster, requiring 60% to break, as this develops further.

The "trophy goal" of moving the corporate junk yard into the Refuge has more to do with keeping enough crude moving through the Alaska pipeline so the pumps operate efficiently, and keeping the shipping infrastructure intact, as liftings pass their peak in the North Slope and Prudhoe Bay fields, than anything else. It's about propping up the Sacred Cow of capitalist/corporate infrastructure like there's no tomorrow. The squealing, raving freshman Senator from S. Dakota was heard, in today's soundbites, crafting sophmoric arguments about the price of gasoline in the U.S. and "our gas crisis." The corps sell anything to the highest bidder--saying "screw 'your' red, white and blue gas crisis, Senator."

apple 17.Mar.2005 15:53


"If "realist" hasn't heard about that, it's because "realist" is getting the corporate media version of "reality"."

The problem for the democrats is that they are too conditioned to their behavior. They are still elitist in thought. Still hedging their bets. Still playing the game. Still hoping to retake power within a corrupt system.

They need to talk to the people, not sit in their DC bubble. They need to depend on the people, work with the people. Can you imagine if all the democratic senators made a simultaneous national tour, and spoke about the nature of governance in DC today? There is so much they could do if they actually had the courage to act outside the box.

It's coming but it is a question of whether it will be too late.

What a great string of comments! 18.Mar.2005 00:30

Progressive Democrat

I couldn't agree more with "snake" about what the Democratic Party needs to do -- if it even wants to survive!