Round 2 : Senator Arlen Spector vs. DeadMouseGirl on ANWR...
Round 2 : Senator Arlen Spector vs. DeadMouseGirl on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge...
(Actual correspondance. Only DMG's name has been deleted.)
Dear (DeadMouseGirl),
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the possibility of opening a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to energy exploration and development. I appreciate hearing from you.
In my twenty?four years in the Senate, there have been few more heavily lobbied issues than ANWR exploration. I have personally visited the area and my support for oil and natural gas exploration in ANWR is a tough policy choice for me, but one I view as necessary in light of the rising costs for home heating oil, diesel fuel, gas at the pump, and our long-range national security needs. It is especially difficult because of my commitment to protecting the environment for future generations, as evidenced by my strong environmental voting record.
On one occasion in the past, I voted against exploration in ANWR, but the time has come where we must reduce our reliance on OPEC oil through a number of means, including at least limited oil exploration in ANWR. Of course, this must be done with the maximum protection for the environment that is possible, which would be required under Federal law. Past energy bill proposals would limit acreage eligible for exploration, which, combined with today’s technology can mitigate environmental impacts of exploration in the area. Such technological advances include: the extended reach of multi-directional drilling, which can decrease “footprintsâ€, reduce waste, and increase the amount of product recovered; high resolution imaging that produces more precise well locations and consequently reduces the number of wells needed to access reserves; and the use of ice roads and winter season drilling techniques to maximize the season and reduce the amount of time to bring the reserves to market, while recognizing the needs of wildlife.
Tapping domestic supplies is only one of many steps that must be taken to free the U.S. from dependence on OPEC. To rely on the Saudis and Iran is to court disaster. Our reliance on domestic oil has broad?ranging implications on our policy in the Middle?East including our support for Israel. While debating energy policy during the 107th and 108th Congresses, I supported significant increases in renewable energy, generated from wind, the sun, biomass, hydro and geothermal sources. I have also supported expanding tax credits for clean coal technologies and I led efforts to mandate a reduction of U.S. oil consumption by one million barrels per day by 2013. It is only through concerted efforts to reduce projected U.S. oil consumption and to utilize domestic energy resources that our nation will be able to become energy independent.
Again, thank you for your thoughts on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Rest assured that I will take your thoughts into consideration if the Senate debates this issue in the 109th Congress. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://specter.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen. Spector-
Thank you for responding to me.
While I am glad that you support renewable energy sources, I would still urge you to discontinue any support for opening the Artic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and natural gas exploration. You state that "this must be done with the maximum protection for the environment that is possible, which would be required under Federal law." The maximum protection for the environment that is possible is NOT ENOUGH, and the Bush administration has systematically sought to dissassemble the Federal laws protecting wildlife and the environment. This statement is void of any true impact or action plan, and it concerns me.
I would like to suggest that you channel your commitment to protecting the environment into a new, unprecedented demonstration of American ingenuity and passion, and spearhead an alternative effort that will have a positive impact on the American economy, arctic wildlife, and the environment.
Wouldn't it be great if every time someone purchased a car, the country rejoiced because it actually helped to clean up the existing pollution, with zero negative impact, instead of pushing out fumes, creating more problems? Wouldn't it be great if you broke the mold of the current culture of "imagination failure" among politicians and set an example of America as a 21st century pioneer in globally beneficial/locally implemented technology? This kind of difference can only be made if someone takes it seriously. Are you serious, Mr. Spector?
Why not push American companies to develop and offer more choices regarding energy sources? There is definitely enough of a precedent in other countries that we can build on and improve existing technologies, rather than try to wean America slowly off gas-powered SUVs while we contribute to the problem and pass it on to the very children riding in them. I would specifically like to see more conversion attempts regarding existing vehicles. There is a growing movement of everyday citizens converting old diesel busses to run on vegetable oil. This is genius. Why aren't American car companies engineering this type of effort, rather than hybrid cars, which are still so reliable on petrol-products?
Why doesn't the government recognize it's own power regarding partnerships with the auto industry, when it involves pressure to change the existing structure? The U.S. government certainly had a huge impact on the development of Ford when it came to building the U.S. highway system. The U.S. government certainly has an impact on the auto industry concering import laws and taxes.
Why are we shy when it comes to asking the auto industry to give back? We all agree that we need to free ourselves from dependancy on the Middle East, so what's the problem?
There is big business to be made in every venture, so I am sure that there is a way to make money from using renewable energy sources as well. Maybe Monsanto could stop feeding us their genetically modified products, and put it in our gas tank instead. I know that existing businesses lobby hard to maintain their corporate "lifestyles", but for the sake of logic, please consider an alternate plan. The United States of America and (through repercussion) the whole world, is counting on you, after all.
-(DeadMouseGirl)
(Actual correspondance. Only DMG's name has been deleted.)
Dear (DeadMouseGirl),
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the possibility of opening a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to energy exploration and development. I appreciate hearing from you.
In my twenty?four years in the Senate, there have been few more heavily lobbied issues than ANWR exploration. I have personally visited the area and my support for oil and natural gas exploration in ANWR is a tough policy choice for me, but one I view as necessary in light of the rising costs for home heating oil, diesel fuel, gas at the pump, and our long-range national security needs. It is especially difficult because of my commitment to protecting the environment for future generations, as evidenced by my strong environmental voting record.
On one occasion in the past, I voted against exploration in ANWR, but the time has come where we must reduce our reliance on OPEC oil through a number of means, including at least limited oil exploration in ANWR. Of course, this must be done with the maximum protection for the environment that is possible, which would be required under Federal law. Past energy bill proposals would limit acreage eligible for exploration, which, combined with today’s technology can mitigate environmental impacts of exploration in the area. Such technological advances include: the extended reach of multi-directional drilling, which can decrease “footprintsâ€, reduce waste, and increase the amount of product recovered; high resolution imaging that produces more precise well locations and consequently reduces the number of wells needed to access reserves; and the use of ice roads and winter season drilling techniques to maximize the season and reduce the amount of time to bring the reserves to market, while recognizing the needs of wildlife.
Tapping domestic supplies is only one of many steps that must be taken to free the U.S. from dependence on OPEC. To rely on the Saudis and Iran is to court disaster. Our reliance on domestic oil has broad?ranging implications on our policy in the Middle?East including our support for Israel. While debating energy policy during the 107th and 108th Congresses, I supported significant increases in renewable energy, generated from wind, the sun, biomass, hydro and geothermal sources. I have also supported expanding tax credits for clean coal technologies and I led efforts to mandate a reduction of U.S. oil consumption by one million barrels per day by 2013. It is only through concerted efforts to reduce projected U.S. oil consumption and to utilize domestic energy resources that our nation will be able to become energy independent.
Again, thank you for your thoughts on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Rest assured that I will take your thoughts into consideration if the Senate debates this issue in the 109th Congress. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://specter.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen. Spector-
Thank you for responding to me.
While I am glad that you support renewable energy sources, I would still urge you to discontinue any support for opening the Artic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and natural gas exploration. You state that "this must be done with the maximum protection for the environment that is possible, which would be required under Federal law." The maximum protection for the environment that is possible is NOT ENOUGH, and the Bush administration has systematically sought to dissassemble the Federal laws protecting wildlife and the environment. This statement is void of any true impact or action plan, and it concerns me.
I would like to suggest that you channel your commitment to protecting the environment into a new, unprecedented demonstration of American ingenuity and passion, and spearhead an alternative effort that will have a positive impact on the American economy, arctic wildlife, and the environment.
Wouldn't it be great if every time someone purchased a car, the country rejoiced because it actually helped to clean up the existing pollution, with zero negative impact, instead of pushing out fumes, creating more problems? Wouldn't it be great if you broke the mold of the current culture of "imagination failure" among politicians and set an example of America as a 21st century pioneer in globally beneficial/locally implemented technology? This kind of difference can only be made if someone takes it seriously. Are you serious, Mr. Spector?
Why not push American companies to develop and offer more choices regarding energy sources? There is definitely enough of a precedent in other countries that we can build on and improve existing technologies, rather than try to wean America slowly off gas-powered SUVs while we contribute to the problem and pass it on to the very children riding in them. I would specifically like to see more conversion attempts regarding existing vehicles. There is a growing movement of everyday citizens converting old diesel busses to run on vegetable oil. This is genius. Why aren't American car companies engineering this type of effort, rather than hybrid cars, which are still so reliable on petrol-products?
Why doesn't the government recognize it's own power regarding partnerships with the auto industry, when it involves pressure to change the existing structure? The U.S. government certainly had a huge impact on the development of Ford when it came to building the U.S. highway system. The U.S. government certainly has an impact on the auto industry concering import laws and taxes.
Why are we shy when it comes to asking the auto industry to give back? We all agree that we need to free ourselves from dependancy on the Middle East, so what's the problem?
There is big business to be made in every venture, so I am sure that there is a way to make money from using renewable energy sources as well. Maybe Monsanto could stop feeding us their genetically modified products, and put it in our gas tank instead. I know that existing businesses lobby hard to maintain their corporate "lifestyles", but for the sake of logic, please consider an alternate plan. The United States of America and (through repercussion) the whole world, is counting on you, after all.
-(DeadMouseGirl)
posted by Dead Mouse Girl at 2:02 PM
1 comments
links to this post
