adn.com | Alaska Politics : Stevens and Murkowski on ANWR....again

Alaska Politics

This is the place to talk about Alaska politics -- state, local, national. Public life in the Last Frontier may never have been more interesting than right now -- the broad and still-evolving corruption investigation, a big election, a popular governor, powerful members of Congress under scrutiny, and the usual hardball Alaska politics. Come here for news, tidbits and information, and join the discussion. Keep your comments civil and on point. Avoid personal attacks. Do not use profanity. Posts that violate the Terms of Use will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.

Contributors

Kyle Hopkins

Kyle Hopkins writes about Anchorage city government and politics. He covered last year's campaign for governor, and has blogged extensively about Alaska politics for the past year. He grew up in Southeast Alaska and was a reporter at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and Anchorage Press. E-mail Kyle at khopkins@adn.com

Sean Cockerham

Sean Cockerham writes about Alaska state politics. He spent three years based in Juneau for the Daily News before joining the Tacoma News-Tribune two years ago to write about Washington state politics. He went to Iraq twice for the News Tribune, and previously wrote about Alaska government and politics for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. Now he's back in Anchorage. E-mail Sean at scockerham@adn.com

Erika Bolstad

Erika Bolstad covers Alaska issues, including the congressional delegation, from Washington, D.C., for McClatchy Newspapers. Before joining the bureau this summer, she spent seven years as a reporter at the Miami Herald, where she covered politics, government and the state legislature. E-mail Erika at ebolstad@adn.com.

Stevens and Murkowski on ANWR....again

Posted by Alaska_Politics

Posted: May 16, 2008 - 4:22 pm

From Erika Bolstad in Washington D.C. --

Permission to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has long been the Holy Grail of Alaska's congressional delegation. It went underground the last couple of years, but re-surfaced this week for another vote.

Today, Sen. Lisa Murkowski led an energy forum for Senate Republicans, who focused largely on drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. The star panelist? Her fellow Alaskan, Sen. Ted Stevens.

Their focus was ANWR, the centerpiece of GOP efforts to open up more potential U.S. sources of oil to production.

"Apparently some here think Americans are willing to pay more for energy forever," Murkowski said. " I think they are flat wrong. So today we are launching a new effort to explain why we need a truly balanced national energy policy, one that promotes renewables and energy efficiency, but also calls for us to produce what energy we can without environmental harm."

Yet how realistic is the Murkowski-Stevens-GOP focus on landing approval for drilling in ANWR, which once again, failed to pass this week when it was part of a Republican energy package? More after the jump.

Both Murkowski and Stevens say they don't think the 42 votes they mustered up this week are a referendum on Senate support for drilling in the refuge, since the vote was packaged with a number of different energy proposals.

"If the people start saying "we want ANWR," then there are going to be changes," Stevens said. "I think we can win on an up or down vote."

But Democrats see it far differently. They fended off votes to drill in ANWR when they were in the minority -- and Bush was in the White House -- and they won't give up that iconic environmental victory now that they're in the majority in Congress.

"It was an important showdown on the Senate floor, and it was an important moment in the Senate," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada. "With that vote, we once and for all dealt with any idea that ANWR was going to be open up to drilling."

As for now? "There are not the votes to open up ANWR, period," Manley said.

The price of gasoline isn't a factor, either, said Drew Hamill, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
"We can't drill our way to the future," he said. "We've had more and more drilling on federal lands over the last four or five years -- and gas prices keep going up. Opening ANWR would have negligible effect on prices at the pump."

There's also something that Stevens and other Alaskans may fail to take into account about the refuge, said Athan Manuel, director of lands protection for the Sierra Club. Keeping the refuge off limits to development was the most significant conservation victory for American environmentalists over the past decade, Manuel said, and their grass roots activists simply won't let it be reversed.

Although the Alaskan delegation finds a way to continue to bring up votes on ANWR, for the most part, environmentalists see it as a successful fight that they've already won, Manuel said.

"If Ted Stevens couldn't get it passed in 2005 with a Republican House, a Republican Senate a Republican president...that was their high water mark," Manuel said. "Their moment in time has passed."

login or register to post comments

8 May 19, 2008 - 8:04am | Stags_Leap

just look at Mexico

when production declines, those surplus days are gone forever.

Article can be found here:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/080516/issues01.html

7 May 18, 2008 - 7:38pm | disenchanted01

The shame of it..

How dare our Senators and Congressman stand up for or promote Alaska's resources and development. What could they be thinking? 49 other states are in much greater need of pork and gravy than Alaska, and more accessible.

6 May 17, 2008 - 5:18pm | choomama

$$$$$

Let's see, our illustrious congressmen have been trying to open ANWR for a long time, even when oil was less than $20 per barrel. Now it's worth about $125 per barrel. Which is financially better for Alaska? Is it smart to open ANWR now or save it for when it's worth $500 per barrel? Alaska is already rolling in excess wealth at present, so why give the oil in ANWR away at today's prices? Save it for when it really valuable.

May 17, 2008 - 9:28pm | rfn

ANWR is all federal.

Drill it and Alaska gets nothing other than a new influx of Texans and Oklahomans who will stoop to anything to get a PFD so they can mail it "home" along with their paychecks.

Let the ANWR oil rot in the ground. NOT drilling it keeps the price of oil, hence Alaska's tax revenue on Alaskan oil, up.

May 19, 2008 - 7:15pm | _Syrin

So What!

ANWR is Federal...Big deal- Alaska is swollen with cash..

FYI ...Let the ANWR oil rot in the ground? Silly old man- oil doesn't rot. However, minds do ..

May 20, 2008 - 4:42pm | rfn

Of course metaphor

is a BIG word; it might be more easily understood were it spelled "_metaphor".

The grandest reason to keep ANWR closed is to run up the value of oil, hence increase the price of oil and, thanks to the foresight of the legislature in increasing Alaska's tax on petroleum as the price escalates....a genuine boon! $130/barrel today! Gotta love it.

Of course it would be best were the bounty of pruning Big Oil's obscene profits to accrue to Alaskans! Real Alaskans; not those who keep private post office "street addresses" to get The PFD while sending all these ill-got wages back to Texas. Or is that Oklahoma?

5 May 17, 2008 - 10:28am | leowassilie

Great!

Our elected officials (and appointed) CONTINUE to waste time in Washington.

Hey delegation, how about working on unfunded mandates from IHS contract support costs?

Just how effective is Arctic Power.

Letting the pols do Exxon's work, on the US dime and on Alaska's dime, is more coporate welfare.

Just how much more do we need to subsidize Exxon?

No wonder why Exxon won't develop Point Thompson and AGAIN, tie Alaska up in court. They want ANWR first.

4 May 17, 2008 - 9:43am | kaisersoze

Back to the Future

Well, here we sit--its 1973 again. OPEC continues to manipulate the US (and I must say, they are quite a bit more savvy about it) and we haven't learned a g..damed thing. Oil. The crack-cocaine of the planet....
Voters, we sent Ted and Don to DC over, and over, and over again and they did what we asked them to (Thanks Ted/ Don). Ted/ Don now need to go enjoy their retirement (enjoy it Ted/ Don).
In the mean time, lets use the extra money in the State's treasury to invest in hydroelectric projects, solar technology, building a methane infrastructure...and so forth. I am a big fan of our Governor, but strongly disagree with the proposed givaway--a better, short-term effort by the State--reduce speedlimits for large vehicles, increase consequences for speeding violations (etc).
We've had 35 years to figure this out--we didn't. Change must be forced on us, and the reason for it carefully passed on to the next generation, or we will again be back at this future.

May 17, 2008 - 10:16am | leowassilie

Sdog?

!sDog?

May 17, 2008 - 12:18pm | kaisersoze

Hey Leo, SDog,

and those of you who hog the blog--stop blaming the politicians--we elected them. When was the last time you ran over the speed limit (...10 seconds ago?). We all need to ACT...take responsiblility. A little less talk...a little more act..n. Your diatribes--while entertaining--are not helping to solve the problem.
You both appear to be fairly intelligent--how about offering a specific, realistic solution? I think even the dimmest of us understand there is a problem. I'll listen....

May 17, 2008 - 12:36pm | TheSdog

Short attention span?

There are solutions offered by me all the time on here.

I do my part to conserve but as with everything... changing the culture is very difficult. Inertia is a terrible thing.

May 17, 2008 - 2:29pm | kaisersoze

SDog

No need to make this personal--we know you are intelligent. Specific, realistic solutions.... Glad to hear you are a conservationist.

May 17, 2008 - 10:40am | TheSdog

Leo

Even if you buy this simple argument put forth above you need to ask yourself a couple of questions. 1973 is 35 years ago.

How many of those 35 years have the Ds controlled the House?

How many of those 35 years have the Ds controlled the Senate?

How many of those 35 years have the Ds controlled the presidency?

You answer those questions and add the numbers and the Ds will be considerably over 50%. The only one they get less then 50% on is the presidency.

There is no change when you put Ds there instead of Rs or vice versa for the most part. The Rs that got in there in 1994 did do a few good things but quickly returned to the political norm.

The Ds did not even wait in 2006 to return to the political norm. They are loading up earmarks. They are spending like crazy. They have not followed through on any of the things they promised the far left base either.

When the price of fossil fuel produced energy gets to be less competitive then you have a real chance for alternative energy production. It is one of the things Gore was right about in his book. You do not have to look very far to see that places like Europe have turned to alternatives since fossil fuels are expensive for them.

For years, liberals have been complaining that oil costs were kept artificially ow so alternatives would not be viable. Now they complain when they get too high that the oil companies are gouging. that should tell you right there that the arguments are all about politics.

Liberals also have been the ones fighting alternative projects. The wind project off Cape Cod comes to mind as well as opposition to hydroelectic and even solar plants over the years. and we all know how they go crazy over nuclear.

It is hard to do anything when CAVE(Citizens Against Virtually Everything) get involved. The frustrating thing is half the time it is just an effort to raise money to pay their salaries so they do not have to get a real job.

You think Bill Clinton using the strategic reserve was a good idea. Can you not see his action delayed things and actually put alternative means further on the back burner. Clinton only did it to delay economic slowdown which only exacerbates the problem which it did when things finally started turning in late 1999.

Bush finally agreed to stop putting oil in there yesterday. It is a bit late and this time it actually needs to happen unlike when Clinton did it. Clinton's actions are actually part of the reason things are worse now. He made it so people were not forced to start doing the things then that we need to start doing now.

There have been laws passed over the years to encourage people to conserve and to seek alternative energy. People have not had to do it because there was no need. More importantly, Americans are shortsighted and selfish beasts that seek instant gratification.

1973 was an interesting time in that people started driving more efficient cares and were learning to conserve. Unfortunately, this country has a short memory and withing a decade or so SUVs were ruling the world.

The problem is at the end of the day Ds and Rs fundamentally are not different. They blow with the winds of special interests. They pander to the popular short term selfish interests.

The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves because the mob is ruling.

May 17, 2008 - 6:56pm | PlayAlong

They are the same

Your right, no diff between the 2 parties. Self interest and greed.

My solutions;

1. Rotating terms by people selected at random through out the US that want to serve.
2. 2-3 term limits.
2. Clean elections.

Just changing the politicians will not solve our problems. The SYSTEM allows them to get away with incompetence. Its systemic, endemic and built in. Lets solve the REAL problem not perpetuate it.

3 May 17, 2008 - 8:06am | onemanfromalaska

Americans Should Act

The senate and house won't approve ANWR, as long as we keep sending them ted, don and lisa. You see, they are not as popular as they think. I will be continuing my investigation in Wash DC next week. If the Feds know as much as some of us peons, than they don't know what they are doing by not arresting these thugs. I am pro-law enforcement, but in Alaska that only means snubbing honest people, and letting thugs get away with all kinds of conspiracies. Mr. Wolf are you paying attention. The time is nearing when you need to come clean. We are a hell of alot more powerful than you think. America is against the wall, and people like you and your band of thieves, need to think twice about your involvement in screwing your very own statesmen.

2 May 16, 2008 - 6:43pm | TheSdog

Anybody who doubts

that the media can use subtle bias to try and influence an election need only read this piece.

So much for hard fact based journalism, the ADN will have none of that and iterject political commentary at will.

May 17, 2008 - 1:11am | Cartman3_15

If you want to leave

comments at the bottom of a straight news story, you should go to ADN's home page, click on a STORY link, and comment.

This is not a straight news story. That's why it's in the section of the website called "Alaska Politics BLOG."

But I would not expect you to know the difference.

May 16, 2008 - 8:35pm | celtic_diva_ak

Hello? This is the blog!!!

Opinion = allowed

May 16, 2008 - 9:18pm | TheSdog

On the blog...

yes.

On the starters? Only if you think the covering reporters should put bias in their new stories.

Would not expect you to see that difference.

1 May 16, 2008 - 4:30pm | rfn

If gas hits $5.00

between now and November Congress will be for The Republicans to lose. All they need is advertising that features the face/name of each Democrat opponent, an "equal" sign & a likeness of a gas pump with $5 on it, real big.

Then a narrative, brief, about how Congressman (or Senator) "X" believes you're not paying enough for gas.

Of course that wouldn't work in rural Alaska where $5 gas would be considered cheap.

May 16, 2008 - 7:49pm | leowassilie

or how about

a picture with GW and a caption that says "Bill Clinton used the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to keep the economy going. What do Republicans do with the SPR? Support Exxon's record profits."

Americans are not as stupid as they were when the boomers elected GW.

Generation X and Y VOTERS are not as stupid as that.

May 16, 2008 - 7:58pm | rfn

Wrong Clinton!

It's not Bill wot's running....it's his blushing (and with good reason) bride!

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad

Alaska Politics

Contributors

Archive

Stevens and Murkowski on ANWR....again