Bush plan for Alaska oil drilling blocked

[Felix the Cat]

Bush plan for Alaska oil drilling blocked (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=889b9de6-f712-4ee5-b3cf-4cec2137f986&k=94205)

WASHINGTON - Democrats in the U.S. Senate succeeded yesterday in blocking White House-backed legislation to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, sparing the Canadian government -- at least temporarily -- a showdown with the Bush administration over the controversial plan.

Amid heated rhetoric and threats of political retribution, Republican supporters of Arctic drilling failed to get the 60 votes needed to prevent a Democratic filibuster aimed at killing the oil exploration provisions.

"It is a real victory for the environmental movement all throughout this country," said Senator Dianne Feinstein of California.

The Senate's move was a disappointment for U.S. President George W. Bush, who had lobbied for passage of the Arctic oil plan as part of a US$453-billion military spending bill that primarily funds U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Opponents of drilling accused Republicans of trying to force them into supporting the oil plan by including it in a must-pass defence bill. Instead, they balked at the manoeuvre and turned the tables on the majority party.

"At the 11th hour, the proponents of oil drilling have attached this provision where it does not belong in the hope that we will be intimidated into voting for something we don't believe is right," Senator Joseph Lieberman said. "I have too much a sense of responsibility to the Senate to be intimidated in this way to support something I believe is wrong."

Supporters of drilling have tried for decades to open a 600,000-hectare section of the refuge in northeastern Alaska to oil firms, arguing it would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.

But environmentalists, Democratic lawmakers and Canadian officials all claim oil activity would harm wildlife in the pristine wilderness, including the migrating Porcupine caribou herd.

In particular, Ottawa is concerned drilling would threaten the livelihood of the Yukon's Vuntut Gwitchin First Nations people, who rely on the caribou for sustenance.

Supporters of drilling had appeared on the verge of success when the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the measure in a vote Monday.

Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, the Republicans' deputy whip and the party's biggest champion of Arctic drilling, had angrily vowed to keep the Senate in session through Christmas until it was approved.

"I want you to know we're going to be here until [New Years Day]. We're going to stay here until this is finished," Mr. Stevens said.

But amid the Democratic stalling, most Republicans appeared resigned to stripping the Arctic refuge provisions out of the military-spending bill and trying again to pass the drilling plan when Congress returns in the New Year.

"Obviously, the government of Canada will be extremely pleased" that the drilling provision has been removed from the legislation, said Jasmine Panthaky, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Embassy in Washington.

"It reflects our opposition to the opening of oil and gas development in the Arctic refuge. We intend to continue to monitor developments and oppose any measures that may still allow for drilling in the [caribou] calving grounds."

[Lenny]

Supporters of drilling have tried for decades to open a 600,000-hectare section of the refuge in northeastern Alaska to oil firms600,000 hectares is only 2,000 square miles. Alaska has 600,000 square miles of land area, 95% of that being virgin wilderness, so I dont see what's the big deal about these 2,000 square miles of wilderness, there's still hundreds of thousands of square miles left. If people are so interested in officially-protected wildlife areas, why not just shift the borders of the protected area, and tack on another 2,000 square miles to it from somewhere else, somewhere not sitting on top of oil, and then drop these 2,000 sq. miles. It would be very easy to do that, if there's anything Alaska has more than enough of it's wilderness

Losing 2,000 square miles of Alaska wilderness would not be a catastrophic loss

[Kodos]

600,000 hectares is only 2,000 square miles. Alaska has 600,000 square miles of land area, 95% of that being virgin wilderness, so I dont see what's the big deal about these 2,000 square miles of wilderness, there's still hundreds of thousands of square miles left. If people are so interested in officially-protected wildlife areas, why not just shift the borders of the protected area, and tack on another 2,000 square miles to it from somewhere else, somewhere not sitting on top of oil, and then drop these 2,000 sq. miles. It would be very easy to do that, if there's anything Alaska has more than enough of it's wilderness

Losing 2,000 square miles of Alaska wilderness would not be a catastrophic loss


Because enviromentalists generally aren't any more rational then islamic fundamentalist or hardline communists. Your up against a secular religion here.