SodaHead - Calumet's Blog

Drilling in Alaska costs much, yields little, destroys Treasure

2008-09-08T03:50:33Z

+4 raves

The Natural Resources Defense Council Issues: Wildlands Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Why Trash an American Treasure for a Tiny Percentage of Our Oil Needs? Drilling for oil in America's premier wildlife sanctuary would deface the pristine landscape and threaten Alaskan wildlife. On the northern edge of our continent, stretching from the peaks of the Brooks Range across a vast expanse of tundra to the Beaufort Sea, lies Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. An American Serengeti, the Arctic Refuge continues to pulse with million-year-old ecological rhythms. It is the greatest living reminder that conserving nature in its wild state is a core American value. In affirmation of that value, Congress and the American people have consistently made clear their desire to protect this treasure and rejected claims that drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge is any sort of answer to the nation's dependence on foreign oil. Twice in 2005, Congress acted explicitly to defend the refuge from the Bush administration and pro-drilling forces, with House leaders removing provisions that would have allowed for drilling from a massive budget bill, and the Senate withstanding an attempt by Republican leaders to open up the Arctic. Since then, concerned Americans have continued to push Congress to thwart recurring efforts to see the refuge spoiled. But in the face of soaring gas prices, President Bush has once again offered up Arctic drilling as a solution for America's energy crisis, despite evidence from the government itself that drilling wouldn't make a dent in the price we pay at the pump. Instead, the president is again ignoring the science and valuing oil and gas interests over America's precious natural heritage. In this continuing battle, America's premier wildlife sanctuary is at stake. Americans Have Steadily Opposed Drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge The controversy over drilling in the Arctic Refuge -- the last piece of America's Arctic coastline not already open to oil exploration -- isn't new. Big Oil has long sought access to the refuge's coastal plain, a fragile swath of tundra that teems with staggering numbers of birds and animals. During the Bush administration's first term, repeated attempts were made to open the refuge. But time after time, the American public rejected the idea. Congress has received hundreds of thousands of emails, faxes and phone calls from citizens opposed to drilling in the Arctic Refuge, an outpouring that has helped make the difference. And polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans oppose drilling, even in the face of high gas prices and misleading claims from oil interests. A June 2008 poll by the research firm Belden Russonello & Stewart found that 55 percent of the American public supports continued protection for the Arctic Refuge, and only 35 percent of Americans believe that allowing oil companies to drill in the refuge would result in lower gas prices for American consumers. Despite repeated failure and stiff opposition, drilling proponents press on. Why? They believe that opening the Arctic Refuge will turn the corner in the broader national debate over whether or not energy, timber, mining and other industries should be allowed into pristine wild areas across the country. Along with the Arctic, oil interests are now targeting America's protected coastal waters. Next up: Greater Yellowstone? Our Western canyonlands? The drive to drill in the Arctic Refuge is about oil company profits and lifting barriers to future exploration in protected lands, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with energy independence. Opening the Arctic Refuge to energy development is about transferring our public estate into corporate hands so that it can be liquidated for a quick buck. Arctic Refuge Oil Is a Distraction, Not a Solution What would America gain by allowing heavy industry into the refuge? Very little. Oil from the refuge would hardly make a dent in our dependence on foreign imports -- leaving our economy and way of life just as exposed to wild swings in worldwide oil prices and supply as it is today. The truth is, we simply can't drill our way to energy independence. Although drilling proponents often say there are 16 billion barrels of oil under the refuge's coastal plain, the U.S. Geological Service's estimate of the amount that could be recovered economically -- that is, the amount likely to be profitably extracted and sold -- represents less than a year's U.S. supply. It would take 10 years for any Arctic Refuge oil to reach the market, and even when production peaks -- in the distant year of 2027 -- the refuge would produce a paltry 3 percent of Americans' daily consumption. The U.S. government's own Energy Information Agency recently reported that drilling in the Arctic would save less than 4 cents per gallon in 20 years. Whatever oil the refuge might produce is simply irrelevant to the larger issue of meeting America's future energy needs. Handing On to Future Generations a Wild, Pristine Arctic? Priceless. Oil produced from the Arctic Refuge would come at an enormous, and irreversible, cost. The refuge is among the world's last true wildernesses, and it is one of the largest sanctuaries for Arctic animals. Traversed by a dozen rivers and framed by jagged peaks, this spectacular wilderness is a vital birthing ground for polar bears, grizzlies, Arctic wolves, caribou and the endangered shaggy musk ox, a mammoth-like survivor of the last Ice Age. For a sense of what Big Oil's heavy machinery would do to the refuge, just look 60 miles west to Prudhoe Bay -- a gargantuan oil complex that has turned 1,000 square miles of fragile tundra into a sprawling industrial zone containing 1,500 miles of roads and pipelines, 1,400 producing wells and three jetports. The result is a landscape defaced by mountains of sewage sludge, scrap metal, garbage and more than 60 contaminated waste sites that contain -- and often leak -- acids, lead, pesticides, solvents and diesel fuel. While proponents of drilling insist that the Arctic Refuge could be developed by disturbing as little as 2,000 acres within the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain, an NRDC analysis reveals this to be pure myth. Why? Because U.S. Geological Survey studies have found that oil in the refuge isn't concentrated in a single, large reservoir. Rather, it's spread across the coastal plain in more than 30 small deposits, which would require vast networks of roads and pipelines that would fragment the habitat, disturbing and displacing wildlife. (See a mapped scenario in pdf.) A Responsible Path to Energy Security The solution to America's energy problems will be found in American ingenuity, not more oil. Only by reducing our reliance on oil -- foreign and domestic -- and investing in cleaner, renewable forms of power will our country achieve true energy security. The good news is that we already have many of the tools we need to accomplish this. For example, Detroit has the technology right now to produce high-performance hybrid cars, trucks and SUVs. If America made the transition to these more efficient vehicles, far more oil would be saved than the Arctic Refuge is likely to produce. Doesn't that make far more sense than selling out our natural heritage and exploiting one of our true wilderness gems?

Obama ahead of McCain in Electoral College votes

2008-09-07T19:04:25Z

Calumet

+4 raves

With Barack Obama ahead with 238, 183 solid and 55 leaning Electoral College votes, to John McCain trailing 174, 142 solid and 32 leaning, the 12 toss up states are as critical as ever in a close presidential race for the White House. 270 votes are needed to win. McCain seems to have secured Texas, however other states with the largest EC votes, California, Pennsylvania and New York are in the Obama Camp. Ohio and Florida are in a dead heat. Barring toss up decisions, if the election were held today an Obama win would likely be secured.

As storms move Gulf-ward drill, drill, drill is dum, dum, dum!

2008-09-07T18:16:45Z

Calumet

+3 raves

Ike is the third hurricane this year bearing down on the Gulf of Mexico following Fay and Gustav. Three grim reminders that not only have we as stewards of our planet dropped the ball by destroying storm weakening barrier islands in our quest for off shore oil (most of which we export overseas), but that we are so addicted to the crude that we are considering continuing to put our environment, economy (including the Gulf Coast fishing industry) and lives further at risk by adding to the thousands of off shore rigs already threatened by perennial storms off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Between the vulnerabilities of our coasts and the threat to what is left of our untouched natural habitats in the great northwest, not to mention our national security, alternative energy innovation is the logical way to go. Energy Technology, ET, is the spearhead of the Obama energy plan, with the McCain plans central theme being drill, baby, drill. Investment in clean technologies is something that McCain and Palin have voted down regularly in their prospective areas of influence and together a McCain/Palin ticket will continue to thwart efforts to put America ahead on the world stage as they cow tow to the corporate (and personal) interests of big oil to which they are both beholden. It's more of the same if the Bush/Chaney/Oil cartel gets an extension through yet another Republican administration.

GOP drops the ball on blacks, both delegates & voters - as usual

2008-09-06T20:50:56Z

Calumet

0 raves

ST. PAUL, Minn. — This year's Republican National Convention is undoubtedly the most unpredictable in decades. It has also been the whitest. Four years after Republicans seated a record number of black delegates, this week's convention has had the lowest black representation in over 40 years, according to a study by the Joint Center for Politician and Economic Studies in Washington, D.C., which tracks racial diversity at political conventions. Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (a somewhat unlikable person as far as I'm concerned), one of the few blacks attending this convention, said the party has been ineffective in motivating black Republicans to become activists. "We dropped the ball," he said. "It's that simple." Shaker Heights City Councilman James Brady, 39, a black delegate, agreed. "It's part of the Obama effect" Brady said, "he has huge appeal to the African-American community," Brady said. "But I don't think we've done that good of a job reaching out to the African-American community. We've ceded that vote and said, look we're not going to get these votes so we're not going to go after them. I think it's a huge mistake." This year, 36 delegates are black, according to the Center's study. That's down 78.4 percent from 2004, when 167 of the Republican delegates were black. The 36 delegates this year represent the lowest number of black Republican delegates in 40 years, according to the report. In comparison, the Democratic National Convention in Denver this year drew 1,087 black delegates out of 4,440 total delegates. That's up from the 886 black delegates in 2004. "Personally, I don't see what the big deal is with all the race thing," said Ebony Grantonz of Cleveland, one of just a handful of blacks in the Ohio delegate. "For some reason the media is interested in race and Sarah Palin being a grandmother. I'm here as a Republican," Grantonz said.

GOP drops the ball on blacks, both delegates & voters - as usual

2008-09-06T20:46:03Z

Calumet

+4 raves

ST. PAUL, Minn. — This year's Republican National Convention is undoubtedly the most unpredictable in decades. It has also been the whitest. Four years after Republicans seated a record number of black delegates, this week's convention has had the lowest black representation in over 40 years, according to a study by the Joint Center for Politican and Economic Studies in Washington, D.C., which tracks racial diversity at political conventions. Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (a somewhat unlikable person as far as I'm concerned), one of the few blacks attending this convention, said the party has been ineffective in motivating black Republicans to become activists. "We dropped the ball," he said. "It's that simple." Shaker Heights City Councilman James Brady, 39, a black delegate, agreed. "It's part of the Obama effect" Brady said, "he has huge appeal to the African-American community," Brady said. "But I don't think we've done that good of a job reaching out to the African-American community. We've ceded that vote and said, look we're not going to get these votes so we're not going to go after them. I think it's a huge mistake." This year, 36 delegates are black, according to the Center's study. That's down 78.4 percent from 2004, when 167 of the Republican delegates were black. The 36 delegates this year represent the lowest number of black Republican delegates in 40 years, according to the report. In comparison, the Democratic National Convention in Denver this year drew 1,087 black delegates out of 4,440 total delegates. That's up from the 886 black delegates in 2004. "Personally, I don't see what the big deal is with all the race thing," said Ebony Grantonz of Cleveland, one of just a handful of blacks in the Ohio delegate. "For some reason the media is interested in race and Sarah Palin being a grandmother. I'm here as a Republican," Grantonz said.

McCain/Palin: As Right Winged Republican as you can get

2008-09-06T19:42:13Z

Calumet

+3 raves

The term "green" candidate is no longer the operative word for the GOP ticket. Sarah Palin, the Alaska governor, has advocated for drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and maintains a disbelief that mankind has played any roll in climate change. A policy for which McCain once opposed, but has now done a complete about face. Palin says, "The jury is still out on global warming" and she's the one hanging the jury. She scoffs the science that has proven it is fact mankind is playing a significant roll. And that John McCain deliberately avoided voting on all eight attempts to pass a bill extending the vital tax credits and production subsidies to expand our wind and solar industries, and given his support for lowering the gasoline tax in a reckless giveaway that would only promote more gasoline production and our addiction to oil, making the push for more oil drilling, not innovation around renewable energy, the centerpiece of his energy policy - in an effort to mislead voters that drilling today would lead to lower prices at the pump today - McCain has forfeited any claim to be called the green candidate. So when ever you see campaign fliers and posters with windmills and solar panels understand he did not support the bills that would fund them. In June the wizened old maverick, described as "one of the unbranded cattle" in a Republican Party round up has finally been roped in. He has further solidified a major flip-flop away from opposition to drilling in ANWR through is vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin, who has opposed holding big oil accountable and been dismissive of alternative energy while focusing on drilling on the wildlife refuge and off of our coasts. Indeed, Palin's much ballyhooed confrontations with the big oil industry have been about nothing more than who should get more of the windfall profits, not how to end our addiction. And while Obama has conceded for drilling off shore, his call is for a much more limited expansion. He has also refrained from misleading voters into thinking this is in any way a solution to our energy problems. Obama understands that Energy Technology will be the next great global industry, rivaling and perhaps surpassing Information Technology, and that the country at the helm will enjoy more economic power, strategic advantage and higher standards of living. Big oil and OPEC, and a McCain/Palin ticket are poised to keep this from happening.

Make no mistake: I'm an Democrat who supports Obama/Biden

2008-09-05T16:53:16Z

Calumet

+4 raves

McCain hit me emotionally with his Palin pick I must admit. Before then as a woman I was excited about the well qualified Senator Clinton although Senator Obama already secured my support. And now with Palin, as a woman I'm touched by it's historical implications. What woman isn't? With Palin though, that point is as far as it goes. I personally am not apposed to the snipets of her "regular" life. She is a woman and did things women do earlier in her life as Sarah Larson. I was a pageant contestant and could have gone on to be a Miss America or the like. But I never took stock in my physical beauty at the expense of someone's perception of my intelligence (or assumed lack thereof). So intellectually and reasonably Palin and I are as far apart on the issues as a Democrat and Republican can be. I don't care how qualified she is. Which, for the record, I don't think is enough to be VP and further believe what she does have is embellished by the Right to the point of insulting our intelligence. Obama may lack an almost entire 2 years of executive experience, but he is vetted, has legislative experience in both a State and United States Senates and has been in Washington long enough for me. Right wing pundits and McCainiacs are robotic in their pat talking points which angers me to no end. It smack of a Stepford Wives-type. I don't even know why they're interviewed. You can repeat what they all are going to say before they say it verbatim. The apparent homogeny of the McCain crowds is troubling. It demonstrates a philosophical exclusion of segments of America louder than anything anyone can explain. And Palin does not have my best interests at heart as far as the policies and issues I believe in. Obama is not perfect. No one is, but neither is the presidency a solo act. I'm confident Hillary Clinton and all my other Democratic public servants will be right there in the White House and on the Hill supporting a Democratic agenda, even if it means history favors both an African-American president and first lady, instead of an Irish-American (as Chris Matthews puts it, "Yawn!") and a Danish, German(?)-American woman VP.

McCain speech: Heart strings and balloons, but nothing more

2008-09-05T14:57:37Z

Calumet

+3 raves

The beloved patriot, Senator John McCain, didn't give any indication of anything new that he was fighting for. Yes, his bio was candid and emotional. The only thing that changed was that he gave an address with a lot of change in it - that is, he used the word "change" with almost hypnotic regularity. The issues he did get specific with, better schools and earmarks and terrorism were frankly nothing-new yawn material, despite the uninspired, not spontaneous, (McCain plant directed), cadence of cheers that signaled the conservative, decidedly more homogeneous crowd to follow suit after every sentence or short paragraph. The McCain Campaign certainly charged up the ultra-social conservative base with a far right VP pick in Alaska Gov Sarah Palin, but nothing bi-partisan or new in the bravado stood out as anything that separates him from the Bush Administration.

Polls: Post Palin - Obama Breaks 50% Minn, Leap in Iowa!

2008-09-04T13:17:03Z

Calumet

+7 raves

While The Republican National Convention winds down in anticipation of McCain's acceptance speech tonight on an up note with Palin fever energizing the party base and social conservatives the polls are aren't as all over the map as they were just a few days ago. Even as polls are not the last word they do reflect the pulse of the American conscience in microcosm. And they are important enough for the candidates to take note. Time/CNN Poll Obama 55% McCain 40% Gallup Daily Tracking Poll Obama 50%, McCain 43% On the National Stage Rasmussen Obama 50%, McCain 45% USAT/Gallup Tracking Obama 50%, McCain 43%

Being mother of five, though great, is not presidential criteria

2008-09-02T16:16:49Z

Calumet

+3 raves

I think we need to get off the family thing as a legitimate qualification for office. Many a president was a family man, did PTA meetings and juggled the hats of Commander in Chief, husband and dad, while, through primaries to presidential campaigns to election day acceptance speeches made little to no issue concerning these facts - most did. As a woman I laud Governor Palin for her principles and admire her large family and personal values. But quite frankly, being a hunter, having a downs syndrome baby and helping a teenage daughter through her decision to take on unwed motherhood (if she decides NOT to marry the father), while great PR for the NRA and Right To Lifers, are not presidential criteria. While mothers and women of America gush over her and favor McCain's selection of her for the VP slot out of that sheer feminine sentimentalism, keep in mind (if you possible can) that being vice president will not only take her out of Alaska, but even with family in tow, away from her them (and her disabled infant son) for great stretches of time. Few presidents or vices had more than 2 or 3 children in recent times. This certainly was a benefit as our world and the times becomes more and more unpredictable. Her need to have to do overseas jaunts and weeks long meetings with international heads of state will not be compatible with having an infant son on her arms. And if you want to get real with the traditional values: An infant son needs his mother. She won't have the luxury of a first lady to give that time to him, unless she neglects her office duties to do so. Remember too that Alaska, population 663,661, is not nearly as large as most metropolitan cities in the lower 48, of which she has governed less than 2 years. Now she is being appointed the responsibility to lead a nation of 300,000,000, protect our shores, and defend the Nation against terrorist cells worldwide? She's capable of being vice president...one day. There is no doubt. But not today. Governor is grueling enough for the mother of 5.