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!
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!
: