Why do the democrats oppose drilling of oil here in North America?...

[Henry Hawk]

Why?

[awol]

we don't.  look at all the oil fields in texas.

[Henry Hawk]

what about alaska and the off shore areas of the US?..........we COULD be potentialy independent from Saudi Oil.......

[Sandy Eggo]

For how long?

[Henry Hawk]

For how long?

My opinion would be for as long as it takes to develop alternate energy......which I believe we are getting closer to...

[awol]

just pointing out that your question is flawed.

that said, i would have to see the numbers before i made an opinion.  how much oil are we talking about?  how long would that last?  how much damage to the environment to get the oil?  and how much of a return on investment?

[Sandy Eggo]

just pointing out that your question is flawed.

that said, i would have to see the numbers before i made an opinion.  how much oil are we talking about?  how long would that last?  how much damage to the environment to get the oil?  and how much of a return on investment?

Exactly the place I was going to go as well.  

Well?

[Henry Hawk]

just pointing out that your question is flawed.

that said, i would have to see the numbers before i made an opinion.  how much oil are we talking about?  how long would that last?  how much damage to the environment to get the oil?  and how much of a return on investment?

how bout 16 billion barrels or oil from anwr, enough to keep us from buying one drop of Saudi Oil for 30-years....and serious steps has been introduced to keep the enviroment safe and friendly....................that not counting on the oil we have off of our coast and the possible findings in Montana that could be about 500 billion barrels...

my point is....and I know you want MORE proof and there should be more proof.....but if this is as they say..........would it NOT make sence, democrat or repbulican......that we do this?


and it is NOT a flawed question.................democrats have voted against anwr...for years....they have envoked regulation after regulation....some may be good and some may not....that is where we need to re-evaluate those regulations

but the question was why do the democrats oppose drilling of oil here in North America?...no flaws...just a question.

[Gryphon]

environmental concerns aside Henry, Id say YES it does make sense.
MY fear, however, is that we'd all hear "30 more years of oil!" and alternate energy would be pushed to the wayside again, and then the next generation would face an even greater challenge.
Something needs to happen to satisfy our current needs while still maintaining a healthy sense of urgency to find something better.
Wouldnt you agree?

[Henry Hawk]

environmental concerns aside Henry, Id say YES it does make sense.
MY fear, however, is that we'd all hear "30 more years of oil!" and alternate energy would be pushed to the wayside again, and then the next generation would face an even greater challenge.
Something needs to happen to satisfy our current needs while still maintaining a healthy sense of urgency to find something better.
Wouldnt you agree?

I do agree actually................that is my fear too.....but, I do NOT like paying out the butt for a gallon of gas.....maybe this has been a real 'wake-up' call for us............and we need to do both.........and do it right now.

and I'm ALL for being extremely enviromenatly conscience.......I think, that has been concluded by all...

[awol]

and it is NOT a flawed question.................democrats have voted against anwr...for years....

but the question was why do the democrats oppose drilling of oil here in North America?...no flaws...just a question.

yep, flaws.  if they found more oil under texas, or in utah or some such, i doubt the dems would be against whatever means to get it.

you point out "anwr".  "anwr" is NOT "north america", your question assumes a position that is not held.

are you still beating your wife?

[Henry Hawk]

and it is NOT a flawed question.................democrats have voted against anwr...for years....

but the question was why do the democrats oppose drilling of oil here in North America?...no flaws...just a question.

yep, flaws.  if they found more oil under texas, or in utah or some such, i doubt the dems would be against whatever means to get it.

you point out "anwr".  "anwr" is NOT "north america", your question assumes a position that is not held.

are you still beating your wife?

Okay, ...my bad...I made a "flaw" in my question.........I admit a mistake....WOW! (you should be a lawyer...)

Now........with the flaw, fixed...........what is the REAL reason  democrats vote AGAINST drilling in ANWR?

and NO, I have NEVER beat my wife...never..............Have you got your nose fixed yet?

[awol]

ok, now that you have fixed your question, show that democrats oppose drilling in anwr.

[Henry Hawk]

ok, now that you have fixed your question, show that democrats oppose drilling in anwr.

Without further ado here is a review of the Democratic lineup on ANWR:

Sen. Joe Biden ( Delaware ) Senator Biden has been a staunch foe of ANWR. He has consistently voted, during his 34 years in office, against exploration in the 10-02 Area. Despite this he states his number one concern as president would be to solve the energy crisis. Other than being a strong supporter of bio-fuels and advocate to mandate a minimum 40 mpg flex-fuel cars, Biden does not state exactly how he would tackle his number one priority of energy, nor has he ever during his many years voting against the ANWR issue. Biden often combines his Foreign Relations chairmanship with the environment issue claiming that ignoring climate change will result in situations that could be touchstones for "new wars". He has also voted against decreasing taxes on oil and gas exploration. Biden has never visited ANWR, but has visited Prudhoe Bay and traveled in Alaska with the National Guard. For more information on Sen. Biden's energy views visit: http://www.joebiden.com/assets/pdfs/energy_plan.pdf

Delaware is ranked 19 th in energy consumption per person yet produces no oil, gas, or coal. 100% of Delaware 's electrical supply comes from petroleum, gas or coal fired power plants. Despite some offshore and onshore windmills operating the EIA records 0% of Delaware 's electricity is produced by any renewable resource. Delaware sports one refinery and a natural gas pipeline. Delaware requires use of mixed bio-fuels for cars. For information on Delaware energy go to: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=DE

Senator Hillary Clinton ( New York ) – Although not a native New Yorker, Ms. Clinton has taken on the toughness of one on the ANWR issue. "The answer to our energy challenge does not lie under the plains of the Arctic Refuge, but in the minds that are ingenious in America ." Clinton goes on, "I continue to oppose drilling in the Arctic Refuge because it would damage a pristine wilderness but do almost nothing to decrease our oil dependence or reduce energy costs. Instead, we need to pursue a sustainable energy policy that cuts our oil dependence by developing new fuels and more efficient vehicles, like the 'plug-in' hybrids that promise dramatic increases in fuel economy." Senator Clinton has rallied with the likes of Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Maria Cantwell on directly blocking ANWR legislation. Senator Clinton is vociferously against exploration for oil and gas pretty much nationwide. Instead falling back to the familiar cry for renewable resources, higher CAFE standards and bio-fuels. If we were to rank the presidential candidates on ANWR Clinton would be close to the bottom of the pile. The League of Conservation Voters gives Clinton an outstanding score of 90 on the green-o-meter, making her one of Alaska 's biggest resource development foes. Senator Clinton proposes a Strategic Energy Fund stating, " by taking money away from the oil companies, by giving them the choice to invest in renewable energy or pay into the fund. We would take away their tax subsidies as well, and we would use this fund to create a clean-energy industry and millions of jobs in America ." On other energy alternatives, Clinton is big on wind, solar, and bio-fuels, but negative on coal and nuclear. It is interesting to know Clinton has traveled to and worked in Alaska although temporarily, and considers it a wonderful accomplishment in her life. For more on Clinton and energy see: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/

New York produces roughly 300,000 barrels of oil per year and 19 million cf of natural gas a year. This is a mere drop in the national bucket yet New York is a big producer of refined petroleum products and is the largest supplier in the Northeast (and the largest supply hub in America ). The Empire State is almost entirely reliant on imports of oil and gas to do so. New York , along with its NE neighbors, is heavily dependent on fuel oil for heating homes and is a subscriber of the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve, a smaller version of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. NY is one of the largest hydroelectric producers in the eastern US, but produces almost no solar or wind power. New York uses four nuclear reactors which supply most of its electricity. New Yorkers have one of the lowest energy consumption per capita levels (due to high number of apartment dwellers and high use of mass transit), and yet the state is one of the largest consumers of energy due to its refining and manufacturing industry. Boutique fuels are mandated in the Big Apple and other urban centers.

For more info on New York 's energy use see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=NY

Congressman Dennis Kucinich ( Ohio ) – The representative from Ohio is considered a "trailblazer" for the environmental movement. Often cited as the only true green in a field of green wannabies, Kucinich has championed being anti-ANWR, anti-nuclear, anti-coal and anti-timber as national sports. Kucinich has promoted legislation in the House declaring all ANWR a "wilderness" zone. Kucinich states as president he expects Americans to " ratchet down their resource consumption and participate in a national conservation program". He proposes a "Works Green Administration" that would be modeled after the FDR Works Progress Administration and puts millions of Americans to work retrofitting homes with solar panels and windmills. Locking up ANWR and Alaska would be the least of America 's worries as Kucinich wants US coal, timber, and nuclear industries completely shut down. An environmentalist could not ever ask for more. For more on Kucinich read : http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/a-sustainable-future/

Ohio's industry consumes 4% of the nations energy (ranked 4 th ) yet produces only .5% of our oil, .4% of our natural gas, and 2.2% of our coal. Ohio has a high national average use of gasoline and petroleum fuels resulting in no boutique fuel mandate. Similarly Ohio 's industry is highly dependent on oil, natural gas, and electricity for base products and energy. Almost all of Ohio 's electricity is generated with coal. Only ½ of 1% of Ohio 's electricity is generated with hydro or renewable energy sources despite that the Lake Erie locations is one of the most prime spots in the nation for wind power. Ohio produces, yet also imports, a large amount of electricity primarily for it heavy industrial use. It is highly venerable to black outs. Low volume stripper wells and small gas wells produce Ohio 's minor national hydrocarbon contribution. Two nuclear plants produce a small amount of the state's electricity. 17 ethanol stations and 20 alternative fuel stations supply 5000 bio-fuel vehicles state wide. For more on Ohio energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=OH

Senator Barack Obama ( Illinois ) – Often cited as one of the top presidential contenders. Barack Obama has an abysmal record on ANWR voting on the Cantwell Amendment in 2005 to lock it up. He has been opposed to exploration and has rallied with Sen. Clinton in that regard numerous times. Barack states, "I strongly reject drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it would irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernable impact on U.S. energy security." In his two and a half years in the Senate he has been part of the introduction of over 100 pieces of "green" legislation from promoting ethanol use to increased car mileage. However despite this many in the left see Obama as a moderate as he is caught frequently citing the need for bipartisan support and dialogue on energy issues as the way forward. His support of corn derived ethanol and liquid coal do not win him support in the Green camp either, which when coupled with ANWR proves a weakness. Illinois is, after all, one of the top ethanol states in the nation. Obama has yet to visit ANWR or the Alaskan Arctic. By 2020 Obama hopes 20% of all US energy will come from renewable resources. For more information on Obama's energy platform visit: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

Illinois is a key ethanol state, the key nuclear state, number three in coal, and a transport hub for petroleum and natural gas. Four large refineries make Illinois a huge consumer of oil (3.4%) and natural gas (4.4% of national consumption). In the past Illinois produced much oil but now is a minor producer (.4% nationally). Today Illinois imports oil from Canada and the Gulf of Mexico . Some urban areas require boutique fuels for use. Just over 1% of the nations renewable energy is produced in Illinois . Half of all Illinois ' electricity comes from nuclear power for which Illinois is number one in the nation. Seven Illinois ethanol plants producing over a quarter of the nations capacity, power over 3% of the nations green fuel cars. For more on Illinois energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=IL

John Edwards ( North Carolina ) The former senator of North Carolina has a strong anti-ANWR stance. "As a senator, I consistently cosponsored legislation to designate the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge s a wilderness area to put it permanently off-limits to development. As president, I will pass it." Edwards indeed: voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill (Mar 2003) ; voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds (Apr 2002); voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)

With Edwards as President ANWR wouldn't stand a chance.

Being one of the first out of the gate on the Democratic side, Edwards has made environmental protection a key issue for all his followers declaring early on an 80% reduction in green house gas by 2050, and ban on coal fired plants until carbon sequestration can be bettered. Similarly Edwards believes nuclear power has too many risks that need solving before he is willing to consider it. Edwards believes much of our energy needs can be met by solar and wind power. Edwards is also keen to increase the scope of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) which would have dire consequences for North Slope development should Alaska's polar bear population be marked so. For more on John Edwards and energy see: http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/

North Carolina produces no oil, no natural gas, no coal, no ethanol. It consumes 2.4% of the nation's petroleum, 1.1% of the nation's natural gas, and 2.9% of the nation's coal. 3.9% of the nation's ethanol is used in a gasohol blend in North Carolina which fuels 10,000+ alternative fuel vehicles from 15 ethanol stations and 40 alternative fuel stations. There are three nuclear power stations in use in North Carolina . Hydroelectric and other renewable energies account for less than 3.3% of its energy generation.

For more on North Carolina energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=NC

Mike Gravel (Alaska/Virginia) To see former Senator Mike Gravel still stumping the block is a credit to his political stamina. With a long Alaskan political history he is probably the most intimately familiar candidate to Alaskans. Gravel served as a state senator to the Northland as well as representing the state in the nation's capital for nearly 20 years in the 60s and 70s. In the Senate he sat on the Environment and Public Works Committee throughout his tenure. He is proud of his Alaskan service in particular his introducing legislation enabling the Trans-Alaska Pipeline to be built. Later in his career though Gravel changed and rallied against key Alaskan land bills that may very have been the cause of his ousting. Gravel left the state in the early 80s having alienated " almost every constituency in Alaska ". Gravel, now retired to Virginia , is dead set against ANWR. Of all the candidates, he should be the most for it and most aware of how important it is to his formerly adopted home state. Sadly perhaps, beltway blues has gotten to him and he comes across as unenthusiastic on the issue as many of his colleagues. Gravel believes industry and deforestation are the cause of global warming and proposes a strict carbon tax, and hopes a high cost of gasoline will force the nation to embrace green fuels. Gravel would like to see higher CAFE standards and electrify (maglev) the nations entire rail etwork. He would like to see a US led global green energy program initiated to reduce greenhouse gases. He is very pro renewable energy resources yet is not sold on ethanol from corn instead proposes liquid hydrogen technologies.

For more on Gravel see: http://www.gravel2008.us/issues.php

Virginia produces a miniscule amount of oil (7000 bpy), but a substantial amount of natural gas for its own consumption. Virginia supplies coal to much of the Northeast and produces natural gas from coalbed methane. It imports all its petroleum and refined products. Areas near Washington DC and other urban centers require boutique fuels. Virginia produces no bio-fuels. There are two nuclear power stations in the state producing 1/3 rd of its power. Four fifths of VA's homes use electricity primarily to heat their homes. Virginia produces a small amount of electricity from hydro and other renewable energy sources. For more information on Virginia energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=VA

Senator Chris Dodd ( Connecticut ) Senator Dodd is dead set against ANWR. He outright voted in favor of locking up 10-02 Area with "wilderness" designation on numerous occasions. A supporter of Barbara Boxer and Cantwell amendments to anti-ANWR legislation. Arctic Power has met with Senator Dodd's staff and presented its case on ANWR yet to no avail. To his credit Senator Dodd has an ambitious and detailed green energy plan (much more so than any other of his colleagues) which has been praised by the likes of Senator John Kerry and Al Gore. Dodd wants to reduce US emissions by 80% by 2050, and e nhance national security by eliminating our dependence on Middle East oil by 2015. Dodd is for a corporate carbon tax with proceeds used for clean energy research. He is big on ethanol and wants all coal to be clean coal. He wants an increase in required car mileage, and mandate all government vehicles be flex-fuel or bio-fuel. Dodd also wants mandates on greater home energy efficiency. The Senator will award tax breaks for adaptors of clean energy technologies all around. For more information on Senator Dodd and energy see: http://chrisdodd.com/issues/energy_independence

Connecticut is highly reliant on oil for heating its homes. Nearly a third of Connecticut's electricity is derived from oil or natural gas, the rest comes from nuclear power and coal. The rest comes from nuclear power and coal. Hydroelectric and other renewables account for less than 3% of its energy production. Unlike most states individuals are the prime consumers of energy in Connecticut , not industry. Connecticut receives oil products from the Northeast heating oil reserve and is highly venerable to oil shortages. Boutique fuels are required statewide.

For more information on Connecticut energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CT

Governor Bill Richardson ( New Mexico ) A self proclaimed "energy president" Richardson outdoes John Edwards by asking for a 90% cut in greenhouse gases by 2050 and an oil demand reduction of 50% by 2020. Richardson is dead set against ANWR as well as any oil or gas exploration nationwide. On ANWR Richardson remarks, " this area is an ecological treasure. Let's keep it that way. And let's not stoke our oil addiction, and eliminate options for future generations, by drilling and digging everything we can find. I have vocally, strongly, and thoroughly opposed opening ANWR". Indeed Richardson has garnered numerous national green awards for locking up New Mexico land and preventing natural resource use there. Similarly he has strongly supported endangered species legislation which has not endeared him highly with his western states colleagues. On nuclear and coal Richardson is only in favor if high emissions/safety standards can be imposed and is against any federal subsidies for development or production. He has blocked two coal plants in his state recently.

For more on Richardson and energy see: http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/energy

New Mexico is a leading producer of crude oil (3% of US) and natural gas (9% of US) with the largest proved gas field in America. One third of New Mexico gas is from coalbed methane. Despite this the state has a low energy demand due to its small and rural population. Boutique ethanol mixed fuels are required in urban centers. Two thirds of the state's houses use natural gas for heating. 90% of New Mexico 's electricity comes from coal. Despite a vast amount of sun, all New Mexico renewable energies in total make up just 2.5% of the state's electricity generation and this is mostly from hydro power. There are no nuclear power plants in the state. One ethanol plant supplies four ethanol and 5 alternative fuel stations around the state. For more on New Mexico and energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=NM

[Sandy Eggo]

Just curious...are a majority of the Republicans for this drilling?