Securing our... what?
They called it the Securing America’s Future Energy Act, but House leaders should have named it the Pork-barrel for Alaska, Payback for Big-Contributors, Court-the-Teamsters and Stick-it-to-the-Environmentalists Act.
As we reported in the last Green Elephant, thirty-three courageous GOP congressmen voted against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (See that issue for a list of those who voted no.) Had it been up to our side of the aisle, the proposal likely would have failed.
Other forces were at work, however, most notably the Teamsters union (all in the name of “jobs”), saving the day for the oil companies and the “Spoil for Oil” leaders in the House.
In hindsight, the “jobs” argument just doesn’t wash. Since it’s outside the scope of The Green Elephant to discuss that complicated issue, we’ll recommend two well-researched documents produced in the wake of that vote.
1. Hot Air Over the Arctic? An assessment of...the economic impact of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Published Sept. 4, 2001 by Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. This excellent 10-page briefing paper can be downloaded from the web.
2. Jobs and Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: A summary and review of the current literature
Published Sept. 25, 2001 by Pete Morton, Ph.D., resource economist at The Wilderness Society. The executive summary and other useful material can be downloaded from the web.
Opportunism, plain and simple
On September 28, the Wall Street Journal contained this little gem: “Oklahoma’s GOP Senator James Inhofe stalls debate on a defense bill to force action on Bush’s energy initiative, including drilling in Alaska’s wildlife refuge. Post-attack, Republicans name it the ‘Homeland Energy Security Act.’” (emphasis added)
And on October 3, the WSJ editorialized: “We’d like to suggest a new post-September 11 rule for Congress. Any bill with the word ‘security’ in it should get double the public scrutiny, and maybe four times the normal wait, lest all kinds of bad legislation become law under the phony guise of fighting terrorism.”
Kudos to the WSJ, because that’s exactly what has happened with the Bush administration’s original energy bill. Seizing the moment, oil-patch senators and reps who have long been itching to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling used the terrorist attacks to wrap their ambition in the flag of patriotism.
This “Homeland Energy Security Act” contains the same ol’ proposals that environmentalists have been fighting for years. All of a sudden, however, proponents like Senator Inhofe found a new excuse to despoil one of the last pristine wildernesses left in North America. (For the record, Inhofe has raised over $800,000 from energy interests during his years in Congress... one of that industry’s top ten recipients in ‘90-’00.)
Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski had previously announced his intention to introduce the amendment, but then said it would be “inappropriate and in bad taste” to take advantage of the terrorist attacks to push for drilling in the Refuge. However, after Inhofe picked up the idea, Murkowski decided it was too good a chance to pass up and jumped back on the bandwagon.
And then there was Tom DeLay...
Environmentalists had been planning a big lobby day in Washington on September 25, to urge their senators to spare the Refuge. REP members from around the country—including State Rep. Mindy Jaffe (HI) and REP President Martha Marks, among others—were scheduled to be there. But the environmental community cancelled its plans out of respect for the victims and their families.
So it was truly offensive to see Rep. Tom DeLay (R, TX) hold a press conference that very day to urge senators to stick his “Homeland Energy Security Act” onto their defense appropriations bill, lock, stock and barrel... without giving the appropriate Senate committee time to review it.
Wisely, the Senate finally voted 99 to zip not to attach Inhofe’s rider to the Defense appropriations bill. But the fact that they even considered it shows that the pro-drilling forces will use any excuse to get their way.
Guys like Inhofe, Murkowski and DeLay give opportunism a bad name.
Cheers for a very good move
We’re pleased to report that several GOP senators are backing a proposal that would save millions of acres of open space. The Conservation Tax Incentives Act of 2001 (S 1329) gives landowners financial incentives for placing their land under conservation protection. Co-sponsors in the Senate include Christopher Bond (MO), Orrin Hatch (UT), Lincoln Chafee (RI), Charles Grassley (IA) and Gordon Smith (OR).
In the House, Rob Portman (R, OH) introduced a similar bill which has the backing not only of the Bush administration but also a diverse assortment of non-profits, including Ducks Unlimited, Defenders of Wildlife and even the American Farm Bureau.
Let’s hope this bill has “legs”!
Applause, too, for Whitman
REP was glad to learn that EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman plans to impose strict pollution controls on the engines used in snowmobiles, power boats, and off-road vehicles, which generate hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide. Those are harmful to the air we breathe, so this is a very good move on her part.
However, we are concerned that some may find in those newer, cleaner engines an excuse for allowing noisy, disruptive, habitat-destroying vehicles to continue degrading our national parks and other high-quality public lands. Vigilance will be the key here.
Science or politics?
On Sept. 10, a Federal District Court judge in Oregon dealt a blow to the Endangered Species Act and to the Pacific salmon protected under the Act. The judge held that a 1998 rule by the National Marine Fisheries Service protecting coastal coho salmon was unlawful. He said that the ESA did not allow a distinction between hatchery and wild fish for ESA listing purposes, despite overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that hatchery and wild fish differ both genetically and behaviorally.
This holding could have the absurd result of preventing NMFS from acting on the ESA’s most basic premise: protecting wild animals in their natural habitat rather than captive-bred animals. The ruling denied NMFS the discretion that an agency usually has to interpret the laws that it is charged with implementing.
In addition to removing protections for Oregon’s coastal salmon, this also opens the possibility that nineteen other salmon stocks in the Pacific Northwest will be de-listed.
As the defendant in this case, NMFS could appeal the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The final decision on whether to appeal, though, lies with the solicitor general of the United States. We will watch and see if the Bush administration allows its fisheries agency to appeal this destructive decision.
