Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Monday November 27 2017, @08:39AM   Printer-friendly
from the oil-money dept.

USA Today

For decades, proponents of oil and gas drilling have viewed Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as an area rich with natural resources that could help fuel the United States' drive for energy independence.

Now, Congress may be on the verge of finally handing them permission to deliver on an old Republican mantra: Drill, baby, drill.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 13-10 last week to approve a bill that would allow oil and gas exploration in the refuge's 1.5-million-acre coastal plain. The measure will be added to the Senate's tax-reform package that is expected to be put to a vote before the end of the year.

And:

Alaska drilling tucked into tax bill:

The multi-decade fight over allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) could quickly be resolved if the GOP-controlled Congress approves the massive tax overhaul package. The bill includes language that opens up ANWR for drilling, and it will be taken up by the Senate this week, although the vote could be delayed if the Senate struggles to put together enough votes. The outcome of the legislation is unclear.

Also at Quad-Cities Online (opinion) and Alaska Public Radio


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by alincler on Monday November 27 2017, @12:27PM (4 children)

    by alincler (6447) on Monday November 27 2017, @12:27PM (#602037)

    RTFAs, CTRL+F climate
    0/0
    Business as usual.

    "Supporters also argue that advancements in technology allow for energy production
    to occur safely and with minimal environmental impact"

    And they're planning to put the resulting CO2 in which planet's atmosphere?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @12:50PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @12:50PM (#602042)

    And they're planning to put the resulting CO2 in which planet's atmosphere?

    As long as there is demand for oil, all that CO2 will be put in that same atmosphere anyway. The only difference the unthinking eco-cultists can make, is put the dollars into someone else's pocket.
    And as a strange coincidence, the pocket-owners and the cultist-handlers' financiers just happen to be the same.

    • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday November 27 2017, @04:34PM (2 children)

      by meustrus (4961) on Monday November 27 2017, @04:34PM (#602095)

      Last time I checked, oil executives are several orders of magnitude more wealthy than scientists and climate activists. If you're trying to say that the former are financing the "eco-cultists"...well, [citation needed].

      --
      If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @04:54PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @04:54PM (#602105)

        Saudi & Russian oil exec are orders of magnitude wealthier than Western oil execs.

        They DO finance eco-cultists to kill off their competition.

        • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday November 27 2017, @06:09PM

          by meustrus (4961) on Monday November 27 2017, @06:09PM (#602130)

          That could explain the climate-related fights over getting certain reserves out of the ground, which I suppose is on-topic here. But that's a side conflict for environmentalists, whose main push to fight climate change is promoting renewable energy. That fight cuts against all oil execs. Meanwhile, other concerns like habitat destruction, water pollution, and eminent domain abuse still must be considered on their own merits, regardless of outside interference.

          Also, [citation (still) needed].

          --
          If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?