Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
From Debatepedia
[Edit] Should the United States Congress allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? |
[Edit] Background and contextIn 1960, Secretary of Interior Fred Seaton of the Eisenhower Administration designated 8.9 million acres of coastal plain and mountains of northeast Alaska as the Arctic National Wildlife Range to protect its "unique wildlife, wilderness and recreation values." After the discovery of oil in Prudhoe Bay in 1968, pressure mounted to explore for oil in the ANWR. The issue was heavily debated for years in Congress, which culminated in the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA-1980). In Section 1003 of ANILCA, Congress stated that the "production of oil and gas from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is prohibited and no leasing or other development leading to production of oil and gas from the [Refuge] shall be undertaken until authorized by an act of Congress."[1]Since taking office in 2001, the Bush administration pushed for the opening of the ANWR to exploration and drilling and renewed debate in Congress on the issue.[2] Some legislative events have taken place that made drilling more likely. On March 16, 2005, for instance, the Senate endorsed oil-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge through a vote of 51 to 49 for a budget resolution that assumes revenues of roughly $5 billion from drilling fees over the next decade, with the federal government and the state of Alaska to split the money. The Seattle PI wrote, "the [Senate] vote was a major victory for President Bush and his supporters in business and elsewhere who had long advocated drilling in ANWR as a way to ease the nation's dependence on foreign supplies...Until yesterday, the politics were never good enough to push the bill into law. In some years Democrats successfully blocked ANWR provisions on the Senate floor. In 1996, both the House and Senate approved opening ANWR only to see President Clinton veto it." Following this, the only measure necessary for drilling to actually take place has been a House and Senate bill that would explicitly open the ANWR to drilling. The Democratic victory in the November 2006 elections, however, may have made this legislative step less likely as the Democrats primarily oppose drilling. The opposition within the Democratic Party, on the other hand, is not a overwhelming majority, and the pro-drilling camp remains very strong in both the Senate and House. The complexity of the issue appears to make the issue less partisan than might be expected of an issue that ostensibly pits corporate and national security interests against environmental concerns.[3] |
[Edit] [ ![]() Environment: Would the environmental impact of drilling be small? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No |
[Edit] [ ![]() Economics: Would drilling in ANWR stimulate the US economy? | |
[Edit] Yes |
[Edit] No |
[Edit] [ ![]() Oil dependence: Would drilling in the ANWR reduce US oil dependence significantly? | |
[Edit] Yes |
[Edit] No |
[Edit] [ ![]() Alaskans: Do native Alaskans and Native American Alaskans support the proposed drilling for economic and other reasons? | |
[Edit] Yes |
[Edit] No |
[Edit] [ ![]() American public: Where does the American public stand? | |
[Edit] Yes |
[Edit] No |
[Edit] [ ![]() US government: Where does the American government stand? | |
[Edit] YesRepublican leaders have generally been more supportive of drilling in the ANWR. The Bush administration has made drilling in the ANWR a major part of his energy policy since 2002.[4]
The House of Representatives: According to ANWR.org, House approval of HR 5429 in May of 2006 was the tenth time that the Republican led House has approved drilling in the ANWR.[6] The American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act, authorizing drilling, was passed by a margin of 225 to 201. See the full voting record of House Reps
The Senate and its key supporters of drilling: The Senate voted on March 16, 2005 to approve drilling in the ANWR by a margin of 51 to 49.[10]
The Alaskan all-republican delegates in Congress favor drilling.[15] This inlcudes Alaska's Republican Sens. Frank Murkowski and Ted Stevens. Proposed development may need to be spread out, but drilling can be made seasonal to avoid disruptions to animal migration. Caribou herds move into ANWR during specific and predictable times, thus drilling can be scheduled, which would reduce the impact of human activity.
|
[Edit] NoVocal Democrats on the Issue: - 57% of Democrats oppose allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, according to February, 2006 poll data.[16]
Republican Opponents of Drilling:
Proposed “limited development” will still intrude hundreds of miles into pristine areas. Alaska doesn’t have a major reserve under ANWR; rather ANWR contains several reserves. Thus, even with “minimal” development, the damage would cover thousands of acres.
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Activist organizations: Where do the other key players and organizations stand? | |
[Edit] YesThink-Tanks and Policy Institues:
Advocacy and Interest Groups:
"National Organizations Rally for ANWR" - From ANWR.org - "Competitive Enterprise Institute along with a vast array of national organizations including among others, the US Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, the National Grange and 60 Plus seniors group released a joint letter to House and Senate leadership encouraging their support of opening the 10-02 Area of ANWR to energy exploration." Positions of Major, Relavant Companies:
|
[Edit] NoInterest and Activist Groups:
|
[Edit] See also
[Edit] External links and resources
[Edit] Books
|