Help to Stop Oil Drilling in the Arctic and other Tree-hugger Activities

[joyfulgirl]

House suspends Alaska drilling push
Leaders drop Arctic oil proposal from budget bil

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/09/arctic.refuge.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House leaders late Wednesday abandoned an attempt to push through a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling, fearing it would jeopardize approval of a sweeping budget bill Thursday.

They also dropped from the budget document plans to allow states to authorize oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts -- regions currently under a drilling moratorium.

The actions were a stunning setback for those who have tried for years to open a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, to oil development, and a victory for environmentalists, who have lobbied hard against the drilling provisions.

 

[AvsGirl41]

Awesome!!

Now we just have to keep it up and make sure it doesn't EVER get through.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The oil in the oilsands is much more difficult to extract. It's a lengthy process and as far as pollution goes, extremely damaging.

Law of natural resource, as prices rise reserves become viable, the drive to exploit them enables new more effective technologies of extraction.

 

[DrTeeth]

You'd think that with all the environmental, geopolitical and increasingly financial costs of oil based economies, the Powers That Be would at some point scratch behind their ears and look for alternatives. But I guess even a little vision is too much to ask.

 

[randhail]

You'd think that with all the environmental, geopolitical and increasingly financial costs of oil based economies, the Powers That Be would at some point scratch behind their ears and look for alternatives. But I guess even a little vision is too much to ask.

That would be pretty logical, but we have to remember that these are politicians afterall and logic doesn't apply often. It doesn't help that many of them are wealthy oilmen themselves. I used to think that the automobile industry would be a hindrance too, but them seem to be coming around in terms of developing alternative cars.

 

[nbcrusader]

You'd think that with all the environmental, geopolitical and increasingly financial costs of oil based economies, the Powers That Be would at some point scratch behind their ears and look for alternatives. But I guess even a little vision is too much to ask.

Why do we sit around expecting someone else to come up with alternatives?

If there is a viable (cost effective) alternative, a free market would produce it absent a sinister plan to keep it a secret.

 

[phanan]

House suspends Alaska drilling push
Leaders drop Arctic oil proposal from budget bil

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/09/arctic.refuge.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House leaders late Wednesday abandoned an attempt to push through a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling, fearing it would jeopardize approval of a sweeping budget bill Thursday.

They also dropped from the budget document plans to allow states to authorize oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts -- regions currently under a drilling moratorium.

The actions were a stunning setback for those who have tried for years to open a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, to oil development, and a victory for environmentalists, who have lobbied hard against the drilling provisions.

 

[Jamila]

Thanks joyfulgirl for your article - that is GREAT news!


Here is an email I received today:


Dear NRDC Action Fund Supporter,

Fantastic news! Late last night, after months of intense pressure from
millions
of pro-environment activists like you, the House leadership dropped its
plan to
allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of
the budget
bill.

In the end, they were forced to retreat after some 22 courageous
Republican
Congressmen stood their ground and promised to vote against their own
party's
budget if it sacrificed America's greatest wildlife refuge. With every
single
Democrat also opposing the budget, the leadership blinked.

It was the kind of showdown at high noon that restores one's faith both
in
democracy and the sanctity of America's natural heritage.

Make no mistake: we must now remain vigilant. Senate and House
negotiators
could still revive the Arctic drilling provision when they hammer out a
final
budget measure next month (the Senate version of the budget includes
Arctic
drilling).

If that happens, we'll be calling on you to shore up Republican
moderates in
the House who have promised to oppose and defeat any such last-ditch
ploy to
sneak Arctic drilling into the final budget legislation.

But last night's development is a stunning setback for President Bush,
for
Congressional leaders, and for the oil lobby -- all of whom vowed that
2005
would be the year they finally pried the Arctic Refuge out of the
clenched
hands of the American people.

And it is a huge -- and I mean HUGE -- victory for all of us in the
environmental community.

Just one year ago, Washington insiders were saying that Arctic drilling
was a
done deal. President Bush was claiming a post-election mandate to
industrialize
the Arctic Refuge, and the pro-oil contingent of the Republican Party
had just
tightened its majority grip on both houses of Congress. You couldn't
find a
pundit anywhere who would give us a wisp of a chance.

But millions of people like you did the impossible! Petition by
petition, phone
call by phone call, contribution by contribution, you helped us turn
the tide
in one of the toughest uphill political battles of the past decade.

Although this battle may not be over, yesterday was a red letter day
for the
Arctic Refuge -- the greatest day since it was first protected by
Congress 25
years ago -- but it is much more than that, too. It is a triumph for
America.

November 9, 2005 was the day that nature prevailed over corporate
greed, that
beauty triumphed over a dead-end energy plan. It was the day we
reminded
Washington that preserving wilderness is a core American value -- and
that we
intend to keep it that way.

I know we can count on your help next month if Senate and House leaders
dare to
bring Arctic drilling back to the floor for a vote.

Sincerely,

John H. Adams
NRDC Action Fund

National Resources Defense Fund


Now - let's concentrate on PRESERVING THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT !

 

[foray]

I'm really glad for people who aren't so human-centric in their thinking. But I really dislike the term "tree-hugger". I think it's best to do away with terms like that and "environmentalist" when calling for support from the general public because it tends to turn people away who don't feel they're the type.

foray

 

[trevster2k]

How bout "Earth Lover"?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Cult of Green seems to be most apt.

 

[Jamila]

I don't really like the term "tree-hugger" either but since the opponents of environmentalism like to try to throw that term in our faces when we speak of protecting the earth from unscrupulous pillage for profit, I have decided to fight fire with fire and take on their moniker for environmentalists and wear it proudly!

Earth Lover is nice.

Cult of Green isn't bad either, A_Wanderer.

 

[AvsGirl41]

I'm a LOTR nerd, so Treehugger is just fine with me because it makes me think of Ents and hobbits.

I'd much rather hug a tree than most people.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Cult of Green isn't bad either, A_Wanderer.

And to think I use it derrogatorily every day

 

[foray]

 

[Angela Harlem]

I'm wondering what percentage of people in here support Japan slaughtering whales, too. There's this misconception that doing so is like killing Free Willy.












.Oh, damnit, it IS killing them!

Silly me.

 

[Jamila]

"And to think I use it derrogatorily every day. "

To each his/her own, A_Wanderer.

Little digs like that long ago have ceased to surprise me or concern me here in FYM.

I stay ABOVE them.

 

[Jamila]

Here is another issue for concern for anyone who wants the earth to be around and in workable condition in fifty years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4414000.stm



Last Updated: Monday, 7 November 2005, 14:04 GMT


Greenhouse gas 'to rise by 52%'


The IEA warns that energy consumption must be reduced
Global greenhouse gas emissions will rise by 52% by 2030, unless the world takes action to reduce energy consumption, a study has warned.
The prediction comes from the latest annual World Energy Outlook report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).

It says that under current consumption trends, energy demand will also rise by more than 50% over the next 25 years.

The IEA adds that oil prices will "substantially" rise unless there is extra investment in oil facilities.

It says the world has seen "years of under-investment" in both oil production and the refinery sector.

The organisation estimates that the global oil industry now needs to invest $20.3 trillion (£12 trillion) in fresh facilities by 2030, or else the wider global economy could suffer.

'Unsustainable'

"These projected trends have important implications and lead to a future that is not sustainable," said IEA chief Claude Mandil.

If investments [in oil fields] do not come in a timely and sufficient manner, there will be higher oil prices, and global economic growth will suffer

IEA chief economist Fatih Birol

"We must change these outcomes and get the planet onto a sustainable energy path."

The IEA's warning comes at a time when the Kyoto climate change agreement calls on developed nations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

It also cautions that oil producers need to double annual investments in their oil fields or else see another £13 a barrel on the projected price of oil over the next 25 years.

Economic impact

The IEA says this extra investment is vital to avoid the supply bottlenecks that saw oil prices rise above $70 a barrel in late August.


"If investments do not come in a timely and sufficient manner, there will be higher oil prices, and global economic growth will suffer," said IEA chief economist Fatih Birol.

The IEA says the world has enough oil supplies to last until 2030, and that the core issue is instead the need to improve the supply chain.

Greenpeace said the latest figures from the IEA showed just how important it was for countries to meet their Kyoto targets.

"The Kyoto protocol doesn't amount to much in terms of emissions reductions but at least it breaks the curve [of rising emissions] among countries that have accepted its targets," said Steve Sawyer, climate policy expert at the environmental pressure group.

"We have to work out the trick of how to get the US and the rapidly industrialising developing countries to break the curve as well."

The IEA is made up of the 26 main industrialised nations who are the major oil consumers.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I hope that you will do whatever you can to lessen the negative impact that we all have on the earth.

 

[nbcrusader]

Cult of Green seems to be most apt.

Especially when you realize the $$$ involved

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yeah but big oil is a cabal, thats one better than cult

 

[Jamila]

Here is a VERY HOPEFUL article that I just found:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051120/sc_nm/environment_mexico_butterflies_dc


Mexico sees bigger butterfly migration By Anahi Rama
20 minutes ago



EL ROSARIO, Mexico (Reuters) - Wildlife officials say good weather should bring a surge in the number of monarch butterflies migrating to Mexico this year, after last year's cold resulted in the lowest numbers in more than a decade.

Each fall tens of millions of the bright orange and black butterflies begin arriving in central Mexico's Michoacan state to winter in the fir trees after a 3,000-mile (4,800-km) trek from Canada that fascinates biologists.

At El Rosario reserve, one of five butterfly sanctuaries in Mexico, officials expect the insects to occupy far more forest this year than the 2.2 hectares (5.4 acres) they took up last year, which saw the smallest migration in 14 years.

"There is good news for the monarch butterfly this year," said Eduardo Rendon, of the Monarch Program that brings together government officials and environmental groups. "The omens are there will be many more, after last year's adverse weather meant there were so few."

Experts should know by December how much territory will be occupied by the monarchs this year, the best indication of their numbers. The largest migration on record was in 1996-97, when the insects took up 18 hectares (44 acres).

The migration has long been a focus of study and source of mystery for scientists and wildlife watchers. Not one butterfly makes the round-trip journey, and the descendants of those who start it head instinctively for a place they have never been.

After leaving Mexico, it takes three or four generations of monarch butterflies to reach their summer grounds in Canada and the northern United States.

The last generation, which has a longer life span, then makes the journey south to Mexico for the winter.

The fragile insects are not considered in danger of extinction, but their numbers are threatened by the use of pesticides in the United States and Canada, and by logging that erodes their wintering grounds in Mexico.

Wildlife officials are working to provide tourism jobs to poor residents around the sanctuaries, which draw some 120,000 visitors a year.

"They know the butterflies are not rivals, because about 2,000 people are benefiting from tourism jobs," Rendon said.

Still, residents say they are not provided sufficient incentives to protect the reserves rather than take advantage of lucrative timber resources.

Earlier this month an ultralight aircraft that had accompanied the butterflies from Canada landed in another Mexican reserve with the first arrivals.

Vico Gutierrez flew his 420-pound (190-kg) plane alongside the monarchs for 72 days to film their flight and highlight the need for their preservation.

-------------------------------------------------------------