Ban on oil drilling in Arctic

Ban on oil drilling in Arctic

    
January 2007  - A bill to make 
permanent the current ban on drilling for oil in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, was one of the first measures 
proposed in the House of Representatives, now controlled by a 
majority of Democrats. 
Bills to allow drilling in the refuge have passed the House 10 
times in previous Congressional sessions, but these measures 
have all been turned back by the Senate. 
The current measure is sponsored by Massachusetts Congressman 
Edward Markey, a Democrat, and cosponsored by Minnesota 
Congressman Jim Ramstad, a Republican. “I am proud to 
cosponsor this important legislation to permanently protect 
this pristine wilderness for all Americans," Ramstad said. 
Congressman Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, has been 
fighting drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for 
years. (Photo courtesy Office of the Congressman) 
Markey has been a chief Congressional opponent of drilling in 
the 1.2 million acre strip of the refuge along Alaska's north 
coast. 
Introducing the bill Thursday, Markey said, "The coastal plain 
is the biological heart of the refuge and is central to the 
survival of many unique species of animals including caribou, 
polar bears, musk oxen, wolves, and over 160 species of birds. 
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service calls the coastal plain the 
'center for wildlife activity' in the refuge. If we were to 
allow drilling in the refuge it would irreparably disrupt this 
important ecosystem and one of our last great wild places will 
be forever scarred and destroyed." 
According to estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey, ANWR 
holds between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels of recoverable 
reserves, with a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels. 
The Bush administration supports drilling in the refuge. Then 
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham told the National Petroleum 
Council in June 2004, "We have been working with members of 
both parties on Capitol Hill to pass a bill that would 
encourage large-scale domestic petroleum production in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." 
A scene from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Photo 
courtesy ANWR) 
In March 2005, Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, then 
chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, issued a statement in 
support of "environmentally-gentle development of oil" in ANWR 
"on a 2,000 acre footprint [which] will generate billions of 
dollars for the U.S. Treasury." 
"Now is the time for ANWR," Domenici said. "Oil is trading 
above $50 a barrel, we have American boots on the ground in 
the Middle East, global supplies are tight and China and India 
are driving up demand." 
But Markey said a 267,000 gallon oil spill from a BP Alaska 
pipeline last March, the largest in the history of the North 
Slope, forever exposed the myth of "so-called 
environmentally-gentle" oil drilling. 
"The reality is that drilling for oil is a dirty business and 
opening the Arctic Refuge to drilling would forever ruin this 
untouched special place," said Markey. 
"If we were to allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge, the crown 
jewel of the Wildlife Refuge System, it would represent a 
colossal shift in the policy and precedent governing our 
wildlife refuges," he said. "Prying open the Arctic Refuge for 
drilling would set a dangerous precedent that would allow the 
oil companies to select any of the other 544 as the next 
target for oil drilling." 
Drill rig on Alaska's North Slope, not in ANWR (Photo courtesy 
ANWR) 
"If Congress were to ever turn the coastal plain of the Arctic 
Refuge into an industrial footprint by allowing oil drilling, 
the impact on the land and the wildlife would be permanent but 
the hoped-for energy benefits only temporary," said Markey. 
"There are some places in our world that are so rare and so 
special, that we have a responsibility to protect them," he 
said. "The Arctic Refuge is one of those places." 
The bill, known as the H.R.39, the Udall-Eisenhower Arctic 
Wilderness Act, has been referred to House Committee on 
Natural Resources. 
In the Senate, where Democrats hold a slim one seat majority, 
Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada introduced the National 
Energy and Environment Security Act of 2007 on Friday. 
To reduce dependence on foreign and unsustainable energy 
sources, the bill proposes to increase the efficiency of cars 
and trucks, through increased CAFE standards as well as 
through "feebate" proposals that encourage the production and 
sale of high-efficiency vehicles. 
“Another way to reduce our dependence is to further develop 
alternative fuels and particularly biofuels," said Senator 
Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, the new chair of the Senate 
Energy Committee and a cosponsor of the bill. "In that regard, 
we need to focus on broadening the base of biological 
feedstocks that are used to make fuels such as ethanol. This 
is an issue we'll be focusing on in the Energy Committee." 
Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, a Democrat, supports 
Congressional action on global warming. (Photo courtesy Office 
of the Senator) 
One of the goals of this bill is to "reduce our exposure to 
the risks of global warming," Bingaman said. "There are 
several Senate committees with interest in this issue. The 
Environment and Public Works Committee has the primary 
jurisdiction, but over 95 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide 
emission and the greenhouse gas emissions come from energy 
production, distribution and use. We want to work with other 
committees to find the best way to deal with this important 
issue." 
While the Bush administration now acknowledges that global 
warming is a serious issue, administration officials have 
resisted labeling the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide as a 
pollutant and controlling it by law. 
Regional groups of states, coalitions of cities and 
independent private market-based entitites such as the Chicago 
Climate Exchange instead have taken up the issue. 
Other goals of the National Energy and Environment Security 
Act of 2007 are energy efficiency, full funding for the 
low-income home energy assistance program, and "to eliminate 
tax giveaways and prevent energy price gouging and 
manipulation," said Bingaman. 
He stressed the necessity for bipartisan cooperation in 
Congress to achieve these goals, saying that the shape of 
energy legislation in the new Congress will be "multiple bills 
that move through the Senate as issues and proposals for 
addressing these issues become ripe for action," instead of 
one massive energy bill as proposed by the Bush 
administration.