Arctic Refuge vote 12

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Katharine Wroth Posted 2:55 am
   16 Mar 2005

   RationaleThe most disturbing part of that article is the quote from Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico: "Oil is trading above $50 [a barrel] ... and American boots are on the ground in the Middle East. Now is the time [to approve the drilling], and senators know that."
   Aha. So in order to bring our boys home from Iraq, we HAVE to drill in Alaska. It's as simple as that.

   Permalink

2. 

   Emily Cunningham Posted 4:19 am
   16 Mar 2005

   UpdateDamn.

   Permalink

3. 

   hardisun Posted 6:26 am
   16 Mar 2005

   a dark dayof all the underhanded scumbag republican tricks adding this to a budget bill is just appalling

   Permalink

4. 

   Ana Unruh Cohen Posted 6:32 am
   16 Mar 2005

   Budget BusterThis is just one more thing to add to a horrible budget. If enviros are looking for an opportunity to work with other progressive groups, ala death o' environmentalism, this is one. Let's all join hands and make sure this budget blows up so we can continue to protect the Arctic Refuge, so the states don't have to close schools and hospitals and so the wealthiest Americans don't get another tax break at the expense of the poorest, etc.  
   
   beltway bandit

   Permalink

5. 

   David Roberts Posted 6:35 am
   16 Mar 2005

   AmenThat's just right, bandit -- this is one of those cases where, if the shoe was on the other foot, every single conservative interest group would be united in fighting it.  Whether you support the refuge, or Amtrak, or the fiscal sanity of the PAYGO measure, there is ample reason to reject this budget.
   
   www.grist.org

   Permalink

6. 

   hardisun Posted 7:09 am
   16 Mar 2005

   send a messageI would like to see a coalition of activist and environmental groups (Girst readers, Sierra Club, MoveOn, Green Peace, etc) issue this warning:
   To any oil companies considering it, touch one sqaure foot in the Arctic Wilderness and expect to be boycotted by our members.

   Permalink

7. 

   kaganove Posted 7:22 am
   16 Mar 2005

   Amen to Send a MessageThanks to "hardisun" for emphasizing a point I tried to make a few days back.  Even if this comes to pass, oil companies first have to bid on leases to ANWR.  Despite their arrogant use of power, public image is still important to them, and if we jawbone them relentlessly in public, it will have an impact.  There are also other options such as boycotts, shareholder resolutions, disruption of shareholder meetings, divestment of stock, etc.
   These tactics have worked in the past (e.g, South Africa divestment in the 1980s), and they can work now if the commitment is there.
   Companies to watch:  Exon/Mobil and Chevron/Texaco.  BP/Amaco will never do it, they care too much about their image.

   Permalink

8. 

   Captain Salty Posted 9:03 am
   16 Mar 2005

   A legacy sold outAnd, today they undo what Ike created.
   I've got additional commentary here (can't get the html coding to work):
   
   http://twoshotsandanolive.blogspot.com/2005/03/legacy-sold-out-ike-set-aside-anwr-to.html

   Permalink

9. 

   karmacaptain Posted 2:25 pm
   16 Mar 2005

   Why Are We Focusing On This?Is the Arctic Wildlife Refuge a point to Rally Around?
   I ask this question because there are thousands of poor communities who are getting the shaft from society.  Whether it be a nuclear plant, coal plant, or a military waste inciterator located close by, these issues are not getting the attention they deserve.   When there are mountains being destroyed in Appalachia (look up mountaintop removal) for coal and the poor countries of the world are getting Wolfowitz shoved down their throats, there are other issues out there.
   Those are issues that clearly connect the relationship between communities, their environment and how the political powers of the day are oppressing those communities by trying to shove toxins down their throat.  
   I write this because I am concerned for the hopes of the environmental movement when people connect it with saving an endangered species that most of us will never see or touch.  The Arctic Wildlife Regure is such an issue, where we have painted ourselves and are being painted as caring more for the caribou than we do for humans.  I recently recieved an email from John Kerry's team listing the reasons to save ANWR and helping the Gwich'in Nation to save themselves was an afterthought in that e-mail.
   Yes, saving the Artic Wildlife Refure is important.  When I hear of boycotts, though, I've got to ask myself...When there are low-income communities (oftentimes communities of color) suffering due to toxins, is saving the Arctic Wildlife Refuge the salient issue?

   Permalink

10. 

    jdhlax Posted 4:56 pm
    16 Mar 2005

    Fight For The Most RepressedKarmacaptain, humans are thriving and still multiplying (in fact, they are grossly overpopulated!).  It's the non-humans who really need our help, and who should get priority, especially those who are on the brink of extinction due to humans.  So, yes, this is an issue to rally around.  Sorry if most humans are so ecologically ignorant and/or immoral that connecting the environmental movement "with saving an endangered species that most of us will never see or touch" is considered a bad thing.  Those people either need to look at the big picture or evolove so that they stop worshipping the human race to the detriment of the rest of the planet.  Finally, I personally do care more for caribou (and just about every other form of life) than humans, and why not?  Look at the evil humans have done to our Mother!

    Permalink

11. 

    kaganove Posted 2:48 am
    17 Mar 2005

    Why Are We Focusing On ThisI agree with karmacaptain, to a point, that the environmental justice issues should not be ignored or marginalized.  But I don't think that's happening.  There is a rich tapestry of pressing envronmental issues in which one can choose to get involved, and we all chose based on our values and personalities.  As a child in the '60s, one of the formative events in my life was the effort by family friends and neighbors to save a local wooded area from development.  The effort succeeded, and from that time on I have always taken the issue of preserving key wild and scenic places very personally.  To me, the refuge is highly symbolic of my life experiences, and I would frankly rather eat dirt than see it despoiled.  For the past 5-10 years, I have seen it as the "line-in-the-sand" that shall not be crossed, or else!  But that's just me.  If you want to direct the bulk of your energies to other worthy issues, more power to you.

    Permalink

12. 

    Emily Cunningham Posted 5:16 am
    17 Mar 2005

    Top Ten Distortions of the Senate DebateFound this link last night via willyr, a commenter on DailyKos.
    Arctic Refuge Senate Debate Top Ten Distortions

    Permalink