Poll of the Day > Senate may approve drilling in Alaskan wildlife refuge with tax bill.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/18/564909626/senate-may-approve-drilling-in-alaskan-wilderness-with-tax-bill

For all the negative headlines that 2017 have generated, Republicans are on the cusp of accomplishing two major policy goals that have eluded them for decades, at the same time.

The Senate could soon approve oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with its bill to overhaul the nation's tax code.

ANWR has long held an outsized symbolic role in the tug-of-war between environmental protection and the desire to increase domestic oil and gas drilling. In that regard, you could argue, it was the original Keystone XL Pipeline an issue activists on both sides could rally, fundraise and organize around.

Legislation opening up a portion of ANWR for leasing cleared a key Senate hurdle this week, when the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved it on a 13-10 vote. The measure is tied to the budget process that Republican leaders are using to advance the tax overhaul, which means the bill would only need 51 votes not the usual 60 to advance in the full Senate. That means they can conceivably pass their legislation with just Republican votes.

The measure would generate $1.1 billion over the coming decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. That figure would help Senate Republicans offset the cost of their proposed tax cuts. Under reconciliation rules, the tax changes can't add more than $1.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years, or they'd need 60 votes to advance.

Democrats are seizing on that cost disparity as they blast the bill.

"The Energy and Natural Resources Committee has been instructed to raise a billion dollars, and at the same time the Finance Committee is trying to increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion with tax cuts for corporations and millionaires," Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said at this week's committee hearing. "The fact our committee's contribution to that deal is about 7/100th of one percent of the Republicans' increased deficit spending shows that this is not a serious budget proposal. It's a cynical effort to open up the heart of the Artic Wildlife Refuge for oil."

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican and longtime proponent of drilling in ANWR, authored the bill. She pointed out that the legislation limits drilling to a relatively small area of the reserve.

"Alaskans will do this the right way," she said ahead of the committee vote. "We will protect the environment while providing substantial economic benefits all across America."

The leasing's estimated revenue comes at an opportune time for Republicans, who are scrambling to offset the costs of their proposed tax cuts. But it's not clear whether the industry would scramble to drill new wells in ANWR.

The United States experienced an unprecedented oil and gas drilling boom over the past decade because of advances in hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" technology. The combination of fracking and advanced horizontal drilling unlocked previously unobtainable oil and gas reserves, and eventually flooded domestic markets. That led to a substantial drop in oil prices, and a corresponding slowdown in drilling.

Still, over the past 40 years Republicans have repeatedly tried to approve ANWR drilling and repeatedly failed. The chance to use reconciliation and pass a measure with a bare 51-vote majority may be the best opportunity the GOP ever has to reach this coveted policy goal.

This attaching unrelated bills to other bills really needs to stop.
---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

This attaching unrelated bills to other bills really needs to stop.

It's probably just politicians trying to be sneaky and stealth one in with hopes it'll be passed, since it would/would not be approved otherwise.

WastelandCowboy posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

This attaching unrelated bills to other bills really needs to stop.

It's probably just politicians trying to be sneaky and stealth one in with hopes it'll be passed, since it would/would not be approved otherwise.

Oh, believe me, I know that's exactly what's going on here.
---

Well, do you want energy independence or don't you?
---

Oh boy, now the environment can be screwed along with the lower and middle class!
---

WastelandCowboy posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

This attaching unrelated bills to other bills really needs to stop.

It's probably just politicians trying to be sneaky and stealth one in with hopes it'll be passed, since it would/would not be approved otherwise.

Eh, riders are also a practicality issue since it takes so long to pass any legislation. Plus in other cases it's done as an active compromise where the rider is needed to shore up enough votes to get the bill to pass.

GanonsSpirit posted...

Oh boy, now the environment can be screwed along with the lower and middle class!

Given that the lower class is about the only class which receives a net-positive when comparing what they receive to what they contribute, the claim that they're being screwed is generally laughable. Plus oil extraction isn't nearly as environment-killing as you think, considering that it's already massively done.
---

The U.S. purchased Alaska for its resources, not because it had animals living in it.
---

Zeus posted...

Given that the lower class is about the only class which receives a net-positive when comparing what they receive to what they contribute, the claim that they're being screwed is generally laughable.

Given that the "lower class" has next to nothing to contribute (else they wouldn't be "lower class"), this is a really dumb thing to say.
---

Zeus posted...

Given that the lower class is about the only class which receives a net-positive when comparing what they receive to what they contribute, the claim that they're being screwed is generally laughable.

I dunno man. Not being able to eat sounds like being screwed to me.

Zeus posted...

Plus oil extraction isn't nearly as environment-killing as you think, considering that it's already massively done.

And when it is done, there are invariably disastrous consequences for the local environment. No single drilling project is going to usher in the apocalypse, no, but it's very bad for the area around it, and also contributes further to the global environmental consequences of continued oil drilling and use.
---

Stuff like this is what displaces killer polar bears into those areas where people think it's safe to go hiking and adventuring for a few months as a spiritual retreat. We all know what happens to them

I hope they drill and suck every last drop of oil out of the earth, gas under three dollars is very important

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

Given that the lower class is about the only class which receives a net-positive when comparing what they receive to what they contribute, the claim that they're being screwed is generally laughable.

Given that the "lower class" has next to nothing to contribute (else they wouldn't be "lower class"), this is a really dumb thing to say.

No, a dumb thing to say is claiming that a group that overwhelmingly benefits is being hurt.

adjl posted...

I dunno man. Not being able to eat sounds like being screwed to me.

Because it's not like there aren't dozens at programs at the state, city, and local levels giving them both money for food and food itself, many of which provide overlapping benefits... oh wait.

adjl posted...

And when it is done, there are invariably disastrous consequences for the local environment. No single drilling project is going to usher in the apocalypse, no, but it's very bad for the area around it, and also contributes further to the global environmental consequences of continued oil drilling and use.

While to some extent, it can be seen as adding straws to a camel -- just like anything else -- you're greatly overstating your case.
---

Who actually cares if they drill there or not?
---

Zeus posted...

No, a dumb thing to say is claiming that a group that overwhelmingly benefits is being hurt.

If it's claiming that they're being hurt by something that they're overwhelmingly benefiting from? Sure, because that's just demonstrably false. A group that is generally benefiting can still be hurt by individual decisions, though. You don't get to kick a guy on welfare in the balls and then tell him it didn't actually hurt because he's got a free dinner. Similarly, pumping a community's water supply full of carcinogens doesn't became okay simply because they're on welfare.

Zeus posted...

While to some extent, it can be seen as adding straws to a camel -- just like anything else -- you're greatly overstating your case.

So you believe that the local environment is not going to see significant negative effects from oil drilling? No wilderness is going to be bulldozed to make roads? No habitats are going to be lost to clearcutting? No water is going to be polluted because there are no chemicals of any sort involved in extracting oil?

How is it possible to understand so little about such a simple concept?
---

adjl posted...

Zeus posted...

No, a dumb thing to say is claiming that a group that overwhelmingly benefits is being hurt.

If it's claiming that they're being hurt by something that they're overwhelmingly benefiting from? Sure, because that's just demonstrably false. A group that is generally benefiting can still be hurt by individual decisions, though. You don't get to kick a guy on welfare in the balls and then tell him it didn't actually hurt because he's got a free dinner. Similarly, pumping a community's water supply full of carcinogens doesn't became okay simply because they're on welfare.

lolwut? How exactly do you kick a guy in the balls in this scenario? The worst that happens to him is that he gets a slightly smaller free dinner, which still means he's the biggest winner compared to everybody else who either pays for their meals or pays and gets no meal.

As for the probable allusion to the lead poisoning, the issue wasn't the water, it was the chemical used to treat the water which was rotting away the pipes. Had they not treated the water, the water would have been safe. More importantly, many of those people were PAYING for water, the problem was that the municipality was forced to carry too many people getting it for free so they couldn't pay for it. That's kind of the downside with far-left policy in general, since eventually you run out of other peoples' money.

Otherwise, you weren't making the point, but the benefits *do* hurt the people by making them less likely to better themselves. It's no different than NMB and other kids living at home with their folks who don't even look for work -- thus hurting themselves -- because their folks have them covered.

adjl posted...

So you believe that the local environment is not going to see significant negative effects from oil drilling? No wilderness is going to be bulldozed to make roads? No habitats are going to be lost to clearcutting? No water is going to be polluted because there are no chemicals of any sort involved in extracting oil?

Somehow it seems like there's a middle ground between "no damage" and "the sky is falling!!!!" More importantly, minor disruptions to wilderness isn't quite the same thing that people think of when they hear "environmental damage."
---

nesrtkfan posted...

I hope they drill and suck every last drop of oil out of the earth, gas under three dollars is very important

Uh, yeah, it kind of is, actually.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Who actually cares if they drill there or not?

the animals that live there

Zikten posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Who actually cares if they drill there or not?

the animals that live there

Oh so it isn't actually a big deal then.
---

Zeus posted...

As for the probable allusion to the lead poisoning

That was an allusion specifically to Fort Chip (I'm sure you're used to downplaying that one already, having been a fan of Harper), actually, and more broadly to any community located near a body of water that's affected by oil operations (lead's primarily a neurotoxin, not a carcinogen). Because of how property values work, poorer communities are disproportionately subjected to environmental contamination like that.

Zeus posted...

Somehow it seems like there's a middle ground between "no damage" and "the sky is falling!!!!" More importantly, minor disruptions to wilderness isn't quite the same thing that people think of when they hear "environmental damage."

Commencing oil operations in a wildlife reserve does not constitute a "minor disruption" to the wilderness, nor did anyone say anything about apocalyptic environmental damage. You're the one that seems to think there's no middle ground here; the rest of use are quite concerned about local damage, whereas you're downplaying it as nothing because it's not globally catastrophic.

_AdjI_ posted...

(I'm sure you're used to downplaying that one already, having been a fan of Harper),

lolwut? Not even sure where to start picking apart that stupidity.

_AdjI_ posted...

Commencing oil operations in a wildlife reserve does not constitute a "minor disruption" to the wilderness, nor did anyone say anything about apocalyptic environmental damage. You're the one that seems to think there's no middle ground here; the rest of use are quite concerned about local damage, whereas you're downplaying it as nothing because it's not globally catastrophic.

There's nothing to downplay, considering that it's nothing noteworthy in the first place.
---