Fwd: DawnWatch: Arctic drilling on front pages and in editorials 3/17/05

[Guest guest]

DawnWatch <news wrote:Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:16:52 -0800

DawnWatch <news

bitebackvegan

DawnWatch: Arctic drilling on front pages and in editorials 3/17/05

 

 

 

A few years ago, when drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was being

discussed, I attended a lecture by Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the

Ethical Treatment of Animals. I was struck by her comment. She said that people

refer to the area as pristine and uninhabited, but it is inhabited by millions

of families -- they just aren't human families.

 

Today I share sad news for the millions of nonhumans living in that refuge, news

that appears on the front page of many papers across the US and in many papers

around the world: In order to escape the threat of a filibuster, Republicans

inserted a drilling provision into next year's budget; a budget cannot be

filibustered and passes with a simple majority of 51 votes. Senator Maria

Cantwell, from Washington State, sponsored a measure that would have eliminated

the drilling language from the budget, but the vote on that was lost yesterday,

with 49 senators voting to eliminate the provision and 51 voting against.

 

The New York Times Thursday, May 17, front page headline reads, " Senate Supports

Arctic Drilling. "

The article opens:

" President Bush's long-stalled plan to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

to oil drilling cleared a major hurdle on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, when the

Senate voted to include the proposal in its budget, a maneuver that smoothes the

way for Congress to approve drilling later this year.

 

" By a vote of 51 to 49, Republicans defeated an effort by Democrats to eliminate

the drilling language from the budget. The vote does not ensure that drilling

will be approved. But if the budget is adopted, Senate rules would allow the

passage of a measure opening the refuge with a simple majority of 51 votes,

escaping the threat of a filibuster, which has killed it in the past. "

 

We read, " Wednesday's vote did not put an end to the drilling debate. The Senate

must pass a budget, its budget must be reconciled with the one passed by the

House, and then Congress must pass a second budget-related measure that includes

the drilling in a larger package of provisions...But none of these bills can be

blocked by filibuster. "

 

You'll find that article on line at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/politics/17arctic.html

 

On Tuesday, March 15, the New York Times ran an editorial (the paper's view) on

the issue headed, " More Energy Follies. " It appeared in the International Herald

Tribune on Wednesday, March 16. That piece tells us that the current tactic is

not new:

 

" The Republicans came close in 1995, passing a budget with a drilling provision

in it that President Bill Clinton vetoed, precipitating a government shutdown.

They think they have the votes again this year, and this time they have a

president only too eager to sign it. "

 

The piece comments on Bush's stance:

" What this country needs is an energy strategy worthy of the enormous

energy-related problems it faces: global warming, soaring energy costs and

dependency on Middle East oil among them. Opening up the coastal plain of the

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drill for oil and gas is not such a

strategy....What troubles us most about President Bush's fixation on drilling is

what it says about the shallowness of his energy policy.... the refuge would

supply less than 4 percent of the country's projected daily needs.

 

" Any number of modest efficiencies could achieve the same result without

threatening the refuge. Simply closing the so-called S.U.V. loophole -- making

light trucks as efficient over all as ordinary cars -- would save a million

barrels a day. Increasing fuel-economy standards for cars by about 50 percent,

to 40 miles per gallon, a perfectly reasonable expectation, would save 2.5

million barrels a day. And bipartisan commissions have offered even bigger

ideas: tax credits to help automakers produce a whole new generation of

fuel-efficient cars, for instance, or an aggressive biofuels program that would

seek to replace one-quarter of the gasoline we use for cars with substitutes

from agricultural products.

 

" These programs would yield benefits -- less dependency on foreign sources, a

decrease in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere -- long after the last drop of

oil had been extracted from the refuge. "

 

You can read the whole editorial on line at:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/15/opinion/edenergy.html

 

You can respond to the New York Times at: letters and to the

International Herald Tribune at: letters

But since the story is surely in your local paper, I encourage you to also send

a letter there. The New York Times gets bombarded with letters whereas many

other papers publish a high percentage of letters they receive. Don't hesitate

to ask me for help if you have trouble finding the correct address for a letter

to the editor of if you would like help with an edit -- shorter letters are more

likely to be published and all writers benefit from editing. Always include your

full name, address, and telephone number when sending a letter to the editor.

 

There is a petition you can sign, against drilling in the ANWR, at:

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rollcall.php

 

I am slightly uncomfortable sending links to John Kerry's website, as DawnWatch

is non partisan. The hideous hunting displays of both the Republican and

Democratic candidate teams during the last presidential election campaign made

it clear that neither are close friends of the animals. But Kerry is taking a

lead role on this issue, and the animals in the Arctic need our support.

I am saddened to note that this vote on the destruction of the environment (and

the animals in it) came down almost entirely along party lines. However, there

were crossovers. Since there is a danger of falsely assuming that Democrats will

always be better on environmental and animals issues, I will share, below, the

Democrats who voted against removing the drilling issue from the budget, and the

Republicans who voted for doing so.

 

DEMOCRATS NO

Akaka, Hawaii; Inouye, Hawaii; Landrieu, La.

 

REPUBLICANS YES

Chafee, R.I.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Me.; DeWine, Ohio; McCain, Ariz.; Smith,

Ore.; Snowe, Me.

 

The New York Times made an interesting point about Coleman's vote: " Among them

was Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota, who was elected in 2002; his predecessor,

the late Senator Paul Wellstone, had strongly opposed Arctic drilling. "

 

Yours and the animals',

Karen Dawn

 

(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the

media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can

learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. To

, go to www.DawnWatch.com/.php. If you forward or reprint

DawnWatch alerts, please do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and

include this tag line.)

 

 

--

 

 

 

 

Ms. Paris Harvey bitebackvegan 925 788 8296 (PST)

Discarded pigs who died in transit.