Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.
Alaska Public Radio Network reports, at a recent press conference President Bush pushed for ANWR drilling as he “scolded” congress for preventing it thus far. Citing estimates from the Department of Energy, the President stated the possibility of ANWR producing 1 million barrels of oil per day translates to 27 million gallons of gas and diesel which would “likely” mean lower gas prices.
Following the press conference, APRN spoke with Senator Ted Stevens. Legislation sponsored by Senator Stevens and Senator Lisa Murkowski, both from Alaska, allows for drilling in a designated section of ANWR if the price of oil reaches $125 per barrel and stays at that price for five consecutive days. These two Senators are advocates of drilling ANWR to obtain our own oil in order to drastically reduce the amount of oil we import from the middle east. Based on the amount of oil currently purchased and used per day, they say the oil obtained from ANWR would reduce our price at the pump.
According to Senator Stevens’ web site he supports a balanced approach to the energy crisis which includes retrieving domestic oil, conservation, and alternative energy sources. I agree with Senator Stevens, we need a balanced approach. Is drilling ANWR the answer? In April it was reported that billions of barrels of oil are sitting under the Bakken Shale, and that area is already being drilled. Would it make more sense to continue and expand our efforts there?
By Lisa Kivirist •
March 26, 2008
Pretend you hold the magic fairy wand of political change: What would you want the next president to do on the first day of his or her administration to tangibly address the planet’s most pressing challenges?
For me, I’m voting with my friend Roger Doiron and his campaign to get the next president to turn a chunk of the White House lawn into a kitchen garden. Roger contributed this idea (and currently leads the vote tally) to the On Day One project, a web platform of the Better World Fund to collect and share ideas about a to-do list for the President’s first day on the job.
Such a Presidential act would take the burgeoning local food movement to new levels of awareness and interest, and make an important global statement that America is taking self-reliant responsibility for our planet’s future. With a pack of zucchini seeds, the White House can send a message that the individual act of growing some of our own food can, collectively, combat and wrestle the looming weight of peak oil and global warming much more positively than further fertilizing the obese defense budget.
Interestingly, Roger’s crusade for the kitchen garden at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue roots in historic precedent. A local food advocate and founder of Kitchen Gardeners International, a global non-profit network of 4,900 gardeners in 90 countries working together to take a hands-on approach to championing the local food system, Roger admits this “is not so much a new idea as a good old one worth recycling.” As the first White House resident in 1800, President John Adams broke ground on a vegetable garden. And talk about eco-lawn care: During WWII, President Woodrow Wilson “hired” a herd of sheep to cut back the cost of maintaining the 18 acres of White House lawn, additionally resulting in thousands of dollars raised for the Red Cross through auctioning the wool. Eleanor Roosevelt inspired others with her Victory Garden on the White House lawn. Most recently, Alice Waters essayed to get the Clintons to plant a garden, but the idea never bloomed under that administration. Instead, the Clinton administration championed the North American Free Trade Agreement, steadfastly convinced its the economy, not ecology, that matters most.
By Ranjit Arab •
March 13, 2008
I don’t know if you caught it, but the whole Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama flap over NAFTA exposed a dirty little secret: The North American Free Trade Agreement isn’t about American jobs or cheap Mexican labor—it’s about Canadian oil.
Think as far back as two weeks ago. I know you can do it. Remember, Britney’s dad started taking control of her life… everyone you know bugged the hell out of you by constantly saying: “I drink your milkshake…”
Anyway, back then, Hillary and Obama were campaigning among blue-collar crowds in Ohio when news broke out that someone from the Obama camp called the Canadian government and reassured them that the tough talk on NAFTA was all just an act. Later, it was revealed that Hillary probably made a similar call.
All of which begged the question: Why would they care so much about Canada if this was about NAFTA? Hasn’t Uncle Lou told us time and time again that NAFTA is all about Mexico: its cheap labor, and its non-existent regulations, which entice American factories to relocate south of the border?
By Gavin Hudson •
October 30, 2007
With all respect (and perhaps some thanks) to Mr. Gore, taking action on climate change is now a major political issue as well as a moral issue. This is particularly true for U.S. voters this year, who are trying to decide on their nation’s next president.
The successful presidential candidate will be responsible for leading his/her nation in reducing its carbon emissions, increasing its fuel efficiency standards, and developing its nascent clean energy industry.
[...]
