Palin speaks out in support of Bush's plan to lift ban on offshore drilling, ANWR
Published Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!PENSACOLA, Fla. — Governors in some coastal states promised to block attempts to tap offshore petroleum reserves, citing concerns about the environment and tourism. Others agreed with President Bush’s call to lift a 27-year-old federal ban on offshore drilling but said states should decide whether to allow it.
Bush on Wednesday joined Republican presidential candidate John McCain in calling for the lifting of a prohibition on drilling along the East and West coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. As the battle to lift the moratorium began to play out in Washington, states debated their stance.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin supports allowing exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which Bush also proposed opening. Palin believes “the answers lie right here in Alaska” for reducing foreign energy dependence, her spokeswoman Sharon Leighow said.
As the battle to lift the moratorium began to play out in Washington, states debated their stance.
“As governor of California, I will do everything in my power to fight the federal government on this issue and prevent any new offshore drilling,” Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a McCain supporter, said Wednesday.
Another McCain ally, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, reversed his opposition to oil exploration off the state’s beaches after the presidential candidate said he supported lifting the moratorium. Crist said the issue is about local control.
“I think that not having that moratorium, blanket moratorium, and letting states rights be recognized, if you will, certainly is appropriate,” he said.
Crist said he didn’t know if Florida legislators would approve drilling, but like McCain he said states should be allowed to make their own decisions. McCain favors lifting the moratorium at the federal level, but allowing states to decide whether to allow drilling.
The moratorium applies to all federal waters, which extend three miles from the states’ coastlines. If Congress lifts the federal moratorium without special provisions giving states a say, states would have little control over oil companies’ exploration of federal waters.
If that happens, anti-drilling states’ best recourse would be to sue the federal government for allowing activities that are odds with the states’ coastal management plans, said Lisa Speer, senior policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Politicians and the public are increasingly divided on the offshore issue as energy prices spiral.
Virginia and South Carolina have largely supported lifting the moratorium, as have the governors of Mississippi and Alaska. California is joined by North Carolina and New Jersey among the anti-drilling states.
“States should be able to control their own destiny with what happens,” said Joel Sawyer, a spokesman for South Carolina Republican Gov. Mark Sanford.
The state has “to be incredibly cognizant of our tourism industry and our other natural resources along the coast. We don’t want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg,” he said.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin supports allowing exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which Bush also proposed opening. Palin believes “the answers lie right here in Alaska” for reducing foreign energy dependence, her spokeswoman Sharon Leighow said.
Those in favor of opening closed areas to drilling say they could eventually yield 18 billion barrels of oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, but opponents say it could be years before production begins and that would do little to stem the current rise of energy prices.
A state’s openness to allowing drilling off its coast will have a big influence on energy companies’ decisions about where to explore, said Tom Moskitis, managing director of the American Gas Association, which represent utilities feeding 60 million customers.
“At this point, the energy companies are in favor of giving the states options,” he said. “They are looking more to the East Coast where there is a big potential for oil and natural gas. The political climate in California is such that just about everybody is opposed so it’s not logical that exploration would begin there.”
The Democratic governors of New Jersey and North Carolina joined Schwarzenegger in speaking out against lifting the moratorium.
“Our $35 billion economy is driven by tourism and the use of the shore,” said New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine.
North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley also argued to keep the moratorium in place.
“It’s doesn’t work for states to decide. If the state above or below you has a problem it affects your shores as well,” he said. “It’s too much squeeze for the juice when you look at real estate on the coast, recreational fishing and tourism that could be adversely affected by some problem.”
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
We should discourage new drilling in ANWR and encourage the use of LNG; converting
our infrastructure over to using gas to heat our homes, run of vehicles and businesses.
We should keep what oil we have in the ground; until such time beef becomes so
expensive, that is will be cheaper to use long chain carbon molecules to make synthetic
beef, at a much cheaper price or MAD cow spreads.
burke
Is it not right that tonight on "NBC News Nightly" they talked about offshore drilling in other places save for Alaska? Just ads to the persona that Alaska is not among the lower forty-eight.
Let's support new drilling everywhere, including Alaska. There is no reason not to open up the entire north slope.
We should discourage new drilling in ANWR and encourage the use of LNG; convertin our infrastructure over to using gas to heat our homes, run of vehicles and businesses. We should keep what oil we have in the ground; until such time beef becomes so expensive, that is will be cheaper to use long chain carbon molecules to make synthetic beef, at a much cheaper price or MAD cow spreads. With India and China coming online, with their one billion plus population, they will gobble up our natural resources faster than we can blink an eye. If anything we have to protect our natural resources from outside raiders. Once they are gone, they are gone and so is the future of Alaska and its grandchildren. We need to protect Alaska's future, not give it away to ecovultures. LNG is a proven technology and we have lots of it, if it is used wisely. Now is the time to shore up our resources, not when they are depleted and Alaska becomes a wasteland. We need tough, ecominded people in charge and a commitment by our State Government, to protect what we have and not give it away to the highest bidder.
Look at what is happening in Peru! China brought a whole mountain of copper for $400 a ton; when the going rate is $8000 a ton! And this is just one mine out of many, they own. China is taking over the Earth's nature resources and thinking far ahead. They will eventually come to Alaska and try to buy their
way in, to take over ours'. Don't let them. Alaskan's first should be on every
license plate and on Alaska's minds for the foreseeable future. When your child
grows up, will there be anything left for todays children to be tomorrows workers?
We need to concentrate ALL of our energy and resources on converting our infrastructure over to LNG, so whatever happens to the price of gas our economy and our State citizens won't be hurt. We need to be on top of this emerging eco-
disaster, before the ship shanks and take Alaska with in.
burke
The best reason to increase domestic oil production(including that from the 1002 area of ANWR)is for shoring up the U.S. dollar. Currently, crude oil and finished products comprise nearly half of the trade deficit and reducing that deficit, along with eliminating our budgetary shortfalls would do a lot to restore the value of our hard earned money.
The chickens have come home to roost. Decades of debt spending, money supply inflation, and eco-mental NIMBY-ism have brought us to the precipice of what may be a hyperinflationary depression. The only way back to prosperity is through hard work that produces real capital as well as sound investment based upon real savings. For Alaska that means bringing TAPS back up to capacity, as well as getting some kind of a gasline built,...and soon.
TundraRebellion - RIGHT ON!
This has been a long drawn out misinformed issue---regarding offshore drilling at least. I mean when ANWR and offshore drilling are placed side by side and compared to one another- ANWR is the preferred source due to the cultural and indigenous risks associated with oil spills in the Arctic Ocean.
Those, and I mean most of you, who do not rely on subsistance food that comes from the ocean will not actually understand what is at stake. Empathy may arise but a full understanding of how and why we depend on the whales and other sea mammals will never manifest. To understand means to live and breathe a set of interrelated concepts that makes an Inupiaq whole.
http://www.nsbsd.org/site/index.cfm/1,1,...
Don't get me wrong- we have benefited greatly from what comes from our land- our schools and whole livelyhood have greatly improved since the early and mid 70S. Petro Star funded these posters and I am completely appreciative.
But when it comes to jeopardizing what makes me ME- and what can make my son a great hunter- I'd rather be poor and emotionally happy than rich and confused/ungrounded.
The inalienable right we have as Inupiaqs to hunt and persevere in the place we call home should always be considered paramount. We will be the ones to stay after the last barrel of oil has left the Arctic Circle.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.