• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

We should authoriz ANWAR drilling in emergencies

craigfarmer

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
175
Reaction score
6
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=2&u=/ap/20050316/ap_on_go_co/arctic_drilling


The U.S. Senate is debating ANWAR drilling



It seems like my side is trying anything it can to prevent the drilling of this area, oftentimes offering conflicting objections. I firmly believe that we should be open to drilling all over the United States. We should have faith in the ingenuity of American technology to do it as safe as possible. We as Democrats should work hard to be on the side of optimism and technology, rather than reflexively opposing.

I realize there are those in our party that view ANWAR drilling in a religious type fervor. I offer this compromise:

Both sides can agree that the drilling is more symbolic than substantial in terms of the potential quanity of energy production. At best, it could supply the entire U.S. for a few years. At worst, it could be only a few months.

The reasonable thing to do is to explore and get an accurate measure of what can really be done. Then authorize the President of the United States the ability to begin production under an energy emergency. We could define the emergencies very strictly. The way our country works currently, every action is subject to judicial review. This would prevent a phony declaration, that many on our side would suspect of the current occupant.

For democrats opposed, surely you must admit that we should have the oil available under a true emergency?

This would give the U.S. whatever leverage that is available in the marketplace that could come from the supply there without actually starting the process.

Beyond a military and national security emergency, I would include a drastic increase in the cost of energy to the American people. Under current standards, I would use a figure like $70 barrel of oil for a prolonged period. Our willingness and ability to quickly begin producing oil on the world market will entice all energy producers to be reasonable.


This proposal would eliminate the debate about how much oil is available, and authorize its' use under a true emergency. The only way actual drilling would occur would be in a situation where we were in desperate need as a nation.
Democrats would be on the right side of the issue both politically, and policy wise.

We can be problem-solvers and support a clean, beautiful environment at the same time.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Anwar? The contestant in American Idol? :rofl Actually, Senate just voted for ANWR drilling today. Here's another thread about ANWR here.
 
Top Bottom