Last week’s votes on ANWR during the budget reconciliation bill were what Washington calls “message votes” designed to force votes on issues so they can be used against Senators later. There were three votes on ANWR:
First, there was a vote to strip the ANWR provisions from the Budget bill. I voted yes because I do not think that ANWR is the solution to our long term energy needs.
I took several votes like this when ANWR was part of the Energy bill – knowing it would kill the underlying bill I voted against it. As we all know, the energy bill finally passed – after four years of partisan bickering – Without any ANWR provision.
Later, there were two more votes related to ANWR.
First, I voted in favor of the provision that would prohibit the United States from exporting oil from ANWR. This amendment was successful, 83-16, and very loosely demonstrated that oil and gas development in ANWR was for the purpose of expanding domestic production for domestic use. Of course, the prohibition on exporting U.S. oil doesn’t apply to other sites. Despite this provision, oil companies are free to export oil from other U.S. sites and replace it with ANWR oil supplies, so the vote was more message than substance.
Second, an amendment to protect a 50-50 revenue-sharing relationship between the U.S. and the State of Alaska was defeated. This amendment would have dedicated 50% of the proceeds for the U.S. treasury. The protection measure failed, primarily due to assurances from the Senate leadership that the development of oil resources in ANWR is a matter of federal law and that any attempt by the State of Alaska to sue for an additional share of the proceeds would not be successful. The amendment would have provided more than verbal assurances.
I’ll put my record supporting energy independence up against anyone’s. When I was governor, we moved Nebraska to the forefront of ethanol production. In the Senate, I’ve promoted the development of alternative fuels and renewable energy.
I’ve said ANWR isn’t the answer to our long term energy needs and that we needed to develop new technology to become truly energy independent. ANWR exploration represents an old way of thinking – and one that is limited in potential and duration.
Ben Nelson
U.S. Senator
Nebraska
Im glad to see that even a moderate democrat understands that ANWR is not the answer to energy dependence, and isnt even the slightest of relief from oil problems. Energy dependence wont come from more domestic oil, or oil period. Renewable energy resources on a massive scale hopefully wont always be a dream.
I really appreciate the creation of ethanol plants and all the jobs it has brought to Nebraska. I would really like to see more wind generated power in Nebraska, though.
I am willing to agree that ANWR is not the answer to energy independence. I do belive we need to find additional sources of fossil fuels as a bridge toward renewable fuels and more efficient energy use. The resources in ANWR would only be a small start. Americans are far too short sighted to see the pending energy crunch around the world. There are 2.3 billion Chinese and Indians industrializing and buying automobiles. Auto sales in China will be up another 15% this year. More and more vehicles will be on U.S. highways in the comming years and it will take a good 15 years to cycle through our current fleet of gas guzlling vehicles. Lets look at the alternatives… Hybrid vehicles still use gasoline. Ethanol (E85) still contains gasoline and there is only so much corn that can fit on an acre of land. Agricuture in itself is a polluting industry: soil erosion, fertilizer and pesticide run-off, tractors burning diesel fuel, habitat destruction, etc. It would seem the activity that our ethanol production arises from is far worse for the environment than disturbing a few parcels of land in the tundra. How much pristine prarie has been destroyed in Nebraska alone?
Manufacturing firms in the U.S. are moving overseas because energy costs here have put them at a significant disadvantage. Consumers are spending more on gasoline and home heating with many having little extra in the budget to cover the additional expenses. There is an estimated 400 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the outer continental shelf that we refuse to harvest. This is enough energy to power a hundred million homes for the next 60 years. This is the bridge I mentioned earlier. Solar power is expanding rapidly but solar has been the victim of its own success as high demand has led to escalating costs of polysilicon used to make the devices. Wind energy is now as cheap as coal yet many folks simply don’t want to look at a wind farm in the back yard. Environmental groups have filed suits to stop expansion of California wind farms as they can harm migratory birds. New technology comming on line will reduce this unfortunate impact from an otherwise very clean source of energy.
I fear the price of oil will hit triple digits with gasoline in the $5 to $6 per gallon range in the comming years. U.S. refining capacity is at 96% which means we will have to import gasoline in the comming years. The clean energy revolution is comming but I just don’t think it will come fast enough to avoid real shortages of oil and gas. Maybe $5 gas will kickstart that revolution but at the expense of numerous politicians and the U.S. economy. I’m simply trying to see the big picture here.