Bush stoppt alle Anweisungen von Clinton zum Umweltschutz - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[M-B-S]

Es geht schon los !

[sachte]

Wo war oder ist das zu lesen?
sachte

[Glemei]

M-B-S

was willst Du uns durch die Blume sagen

raus aus Umweltaktien

hab gar keine, weil die Grünen 2002 m. E. nicht mehr an der Macht sind.

Gruß
Glemei

[Gildenkölsch]

@Glemei
...ob die grünen dran sind, oder nicht, ist völlig egal. die förderung regenerativer energien ist längst EU-weit festgeschrieben!
alsjute,
GK

[Gildenkölsch]

...und zwar in dem ausmaß, daß es einer lizenz zum gelddrucken gleichkommt ....

[Kaptah]

@M-B-S

Dein Interesse an Umweltfragen in allen Ehren, aber glaubst
Du nicht, dass Du manchmal ein wenig übertreibst?
Im allgemeinen hast Du nicht ganz unrecht, aber es
besteht die Gefahr, dass Du Deine Glaubwürdigkeit
verspielst!
Wie kannst Du heute schon wissen, wie die nächsten
4 (oder 8? ) Jahre unter Bush aussehen werden.
Ich teile Deine Besorgnis bis zu einem gewisswen Grade,
aber ich weiß auch, dass ich nicht den geringsten
Einfluß auf die amerikanisache Politik habe.

Laß uns doch in einem Jahr von heute an, noch einmal
darübrt reden

Kaptah

[Gildenkölsch]

M-B-S hat schon recht. ich erlaube mir mal aus dem thread von RudiRich zu zitieren:

Als erste Amtshandlung legte Bush einige der Verfügungen
auf Eis, die Clinton während seiner letzten Tage im Weißen
Haus noch erlassen hatte. Dazu gehören auch mehrere
Umweltschutzmaßnahmen, die Bush nun noch einmal prüfen
will. Zum Abschluss des Vereidigungstages wurden George W.
Bush und seine Frau Laura auf acht Bällen zum Ehrentanz
erwartet."

In den nachrichten von radioKöln gabs auch gerade eine entsprechende Meldung...

...er ist halt ein zynisches arschloch, wie er es in texas schon unter beweis gestellt hat...

unserem umweltsektor kann es nur recht sein, wenn er bessere rahmenbedingungen als in den usa hat ...

alsjute,GK

[RudiRich]

Habe unter der Rubrik "Grüne Aktien" leider dieses
"Bush"-Thema auch neu begonnen. Hätte ich gewußt,
dass das Thema unter "Allgemeines" schon existiert,
dann hätte ich hier meine Beiträge gepostet.

RR

[RudiRich]

Also hier mein Gesammelter "Monolog":

folgt Zitat aus einem heutigen Spiegel-Report:

"Als erste Amtshandlung legte Bush einige der Verfügungen
auf Eis, die Clinton während seiner letzten Tage im Weißen
Haus noch erlassen hatte. Dazu gehören auch mehrere
Umweltschutzmaßnahmen, die Bush nun noch einmal prüfen
will. Zum Abschluss des Vereidigungstages wurden George W.
Bush und seine Frau Laura auf acht Bällen zum Ehrentanz
erwartet."

Jeder weis, dass die amerikanische Umweltbewegung mit
ihrem Präsidentschaftskandidaten Nader erstmals ihre
wachsende Stärke in den USA unter Beweis stellen konnten.
Das Umweltbewußtsein in Amerika hat weite Kreise erfasst.
Ein Präsident, der von Anfang an einen derartigen Konfron-
tationskurs fahren will, wird es schwer haben. Ich sehe
im Umweltbereich eine gewaltige Oppositionsbewegung in
Amerika aufkeimen, die psychologisch noch durch die vielen
Demokraten bestärkt werden wird, die sich um die Wahl be-
trogen fühlen. Bush`s erste Ansätze zeigen keine Spur von
Integration oder Zusammenführen der "feindlichen" Lager.
Ich beobachte es eher so: "Seine Worte sind Balsam, aber
seiner Taten sind Feuer auf`s Öl." So hat es auch keine
Zugeständnisse nach der knappen Wahl an die Demokraten
gegeben, nicht ein einziger Minister ist aus dem demo-
kratischen Lager.

Wenn Bush diese Politik "durchzieht", wird er sehr schnell
mit offenen Protesten zu rechnen haben, die an die Vietnam-
Demos unter Ford und Nixon erinnern werden.

Ich bin mir ganz sicher, dass es so kommen wird. Die Mehr-
heit wird ihn nach kurzer Zeit "satt haben". Nach 4
Jahren muß er gegen Hillary antreten (mein Tipp).

RR

von RudiRich 21.01.01 10:07:28 2738861
"Die Saat von Nader wird aufgehen!"

Habe oft mit Spannung seine Interviews im
Fernsehen verfolgt. Ihm wurde immer wieder
vorgeworfen, den Demokraten mit seiner
Kandidatur den Wahlsieg zu vermasseln.

Aber Nader will offenbar mehr und er hat
Zeit. Wahrscheinlich brauchen die Amerikaner
erst einmal dieses "Bush-Feuer", um dann um
so überzeugter den Umweltgedanken aufnehmen
zu können.

von RudiRich 21.01.01 10:12:26 2738874
Außenpolitische Kontroversen:

"Menschenrechtspolitik - Todestrafe"

"Star-Wars"

Innenpolitischer und außenpolitischer Zündstoff
genug und das alles mit einem fraglichen Wahlsieg.

RR

[Gildenkölsch]

...aber der Kongress wird ihn schon zügeln...vielleicht bekommt er ja schon bei dessen neuwahl in 2 jahren eins aufs dach....oder die amis werden wieder ganz geil auf die "starker-mann-schiene"....wäre auch möglich...billyboy war schon ok...

[RudiRich]

Aus der "BILD"

"Bush blockiert Maßnahmen Clintons
Nur Stunden nach Amtseinführung hat US-Präsident Bush letzte von Vorgänger Clinton getroffene Maßnahmen gestoppt, die noch nicht in Kraft getreten sind. U.a. sollen bei Bundesbehörden vorläufig keine neuen Mitarbeiter eingestellt werden. Auf Eis gelegt wurden auch zahlreiche Dekrete zum Umweltschutz. Indes ist ein Teil der Ministerriege vereidigt worden. Nach erfolgreichem Anhörungsverfahren im Senat legten Powell (Außen), O`Neill (Finanzen), Rumsfeld (Verteidigung) und Abraham (Energie) den Amtseid ab."

Einziger Vorteil: Europa bekommt einen mindestens vier-
jährigen Technologievorsprung in Sachen
Umweltschutz.

[Tse-Tse]

wenn ich mir die performance von plambeck so anschaue, bin ich mir nicht mehr sicher ob das eine lizenz zum gelddrucken ist.

[Caldor]

eben !

der bush macht nur , was die mehrheit der amis wollen ! die haben keinen bock , ihr sauer verdientes geld fuer abstruse umweltsubventionen auszugeben , sondern haben bessere verwendung dafuer !

[M-B-S]

Oil industry lobbies to open federal lands to gas exploration
Reuters Company News - January 24, 2001 19:01




Copyright 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
By Bernie Woodall

NEW YORK, Jan 24 (Reuters) - Record natural gas prices, the California electricity crisis and an oilman in the White House have energized the lobby to open federal lands for oil and gas exploration.

The American Petroleum Institute (API), the Domestic Petroleum Council and EOG Resources ,a leading natural gas company, sent officials to New York on Wednesday to make their pitches to financial reporters.

U.S. demand for natural gas will increase by more than 30 percent in the next 10 years, with production lagging at current levels of 1.5 percent to 2 percent annual growth, said Edmund P. Segner III, president and chief of staff of EOG.

Natural gas fuels about 25 percent of the nation`s electrical power plants, a figure that is projected to increase as more plants come on line to meet higher electricity demand, Segner said.

Natural gas can`t affordably be shipped from overseas as is about 60 percent of crude oil used in the United States. So, natural gas must U.S.-produced -- more than 85 percent of it is -- or produced in Canada.

The best way to solve the supply problem is to open up lands now off limits to gas exploration, Segner said.

"Access. Clearly (those) in the industry are going to need expanded access to federal lands (which holds) 47 percent of the unproven resource base," said Segner.

Debbie Sease, the Sierra Club legislative director in Washington, said the industry is beating a well-worn drum. FOCUSED MANTRA "Every 10 to 15 years when there is a price spike the oil and gas industry bring this up," Sease said. "They go into a very focused mantra: `all of your problems will be solved if you give us access.`"

The gas industry seeks to open up land currently off limits in the Rocky Mountain region, which it sees as the most likely to be approved.

Underwater exploration off the Atlantic Coast and Pacific coasts as well as the eastern Gulf of Mexico are desired but the industry sees opening up those areas as politically more difficult, said Segner.

There are about 160 trillion cubic feet of proven U.S. natural gas reserves, and about 1,500 trillion to 1,600 trillion cubic feet in estimated unproven reserves, Segner said.

About 11 trillion cubic feet to 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas will be unavailable if vehicles are kept off about 58.5 million acres of national forests as President Clinton decreed in his final days in office, said William F. Whitsitt, president of industry group Domestic Petroleum Council.

"The problem we`ve got today is limitations to access to those other two-thirds which are multiple-use lands that were intended by Congress to be used for the resources potential, for grazing and other economical purposes," Whitsitt said.

The Sierra Club`s Sease said there are good reasons for those lands to be off limits to exploration and people should take the stance of the oil and gas industry "with a huge grain of salt."

While it would take Congressional action to open up the Alaskan wildlife refuge -- which the Bush administration supports -- opening some of the acreage in the Rocky Mountain area could be done by regulatory agencies controlled by the administration, Sease said.

[technostud]

Mit diesem Bush Junior hat die Welt einen neuen Reagan am Hals.
Bush senior war ja recht gemässigt, nicht so sein Sohn, wie mir scheint.
Gerade der Schaden, der durch mangelnden Umweltschutz entsteht, ist halt durch die nächste Regierung nicht mehr gutzumachen. Zerstört ist zerstört.
Schade

technostud

[M-B-S]

Offshore oil lease tests Bush brothers` ties
Energy policy differences: President`s pledge clashes with Florida Governor`s stand


The Associated Press; Reuters
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Governor Jeb Bush has fired a letter off to Washington telling the new administration headed by his brother to forget about opening up the Gulf Coast to more offshore drilling.

The letter to the U.S. Interior Department opposes the sale of an oil and gas lease that could allow drilling in millions of hectares of federal waters south of Alabama near the Florida border.

"These are leases that are close to Florida waters, and I think it`s appropriate for the Florida Governor to represent Florida`s interests in that regard," Gov. Bush said on Thursday of his letter.

Throughout his White House campaign, President Bush said he wanted to boost domestic production of oil to make the United States less reliant on foreign sources.

In his letter, Gov. Bush voiced his opposition to the sale of an oil and gas lease covering nearly 2.43 million hectares of federal waters just southwest of the Alabama-Florida state line.

The last federal lease sold in the Gulf was in 1988.

"There is strong support among the state`s citizens and within the Florida congressional delegation for no new leasing in the eastern Gulf -- a position that has been upheld through the years by administrative deferrals, Congressional action and Presidential moratoria," Gov. Bush wrote.

"Few other issues so completely unite Floridians. I am confident that the new administration will recognize the need to protect sensitive natural resources located both offshore and along Florida`s coastline for the benefit of the entire nation."

Jeb Bush has been an adamant opponent of offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf. Florida banned this activity in state waters in 1990.

Environmentalists praised Gov. Bush`s letter, saying it sends a strong message that Florida officials will continue to oppose drilling off the state`s Gulf coast.

"The most significant thing about the letter is that it is a change in state policy on offshore drilling that goes even farther than [previous] administrations," said Mark Ferrulo, who tracks offshore oil drilling issues for the Florida Public Interest Research Group. "It takes a position on waters that are not Florida`s own."

Mr. Ferrulo said the letter represents the second time a Bush has stepped in to oppose offshore oil drilling in the eastern Gulf. In 1990, then president George Bush banned offshore drilling in federal waters off the Florida Keys.

"The governor`s strong stance should put the Interior Department on notice that this is not a state where offshore oil drilling will happen," said Eric Draper of the Florida Audubon Society. "We`re thrilled with his support."

Florida is battling a proposal by Chevron Corp., which wants to drill in federal waters about 40 kilometres off the coast of Pensacola. The company`s request is now before the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Gov. Bush`s letter comes less than two weeks after Florida-based Coastal Petroleum Co. filed a lawsuit in state court demanding Florida officials compensate the company for an oil lease it holds in state waters off the Gulf coast. The company, which bought rights to 356,100 hectares in the 1940s, has been refused a permit to drill.

Fazit : Oel fördern ja, aber nicht bei mir Bruderherz

[Caldor]

wie ich oben schon sagte : in dieser sache stimmt bush mit der grossen mehrheit der amis ueberein ! da sollten sich die umweltgurus bloss keine illusionen machen .
ist aber in deutschland auch so . nur die gruenen ideologen wollen das einfach nicht einsehen .

[RMD]

@Caldor:
Und Dein Fazit daraus? Die Masse hat immer Recht???

[M-B-S]

Quelle LA - Times

In Alaska, the Hunt for Oil, Gas Only Begins at Wildlife Refuge
Energy: High prices, pro-business government fuel the drive for drilling. Activists are gearing up.


By KIM MURPHY, Times Staff Writer


CORDOVA, Alaska--As Congress prepares to square off over oil drilling in Alaska`s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a small company has quietly applied to drill 680 miles to the south, on the Copper River Delta.
It is hard to imagine a plan more likely to set off alarm bells with environmentalists, for the 700,000-acre delta is the most important shorebird stopover on the Pacific Coast--and home of the best-tasting salmon in the world.
But ramped-up oil and gas production now is possible in regions all over the Alaskan frontier--from the Copper River Delta and offshore sites along the Cook Inlet in the south to the frozen Beaufort Sea in the north. Some of the areas that previously held little interest for oil producers now are prime for exploration for two key reasons: soaring fuel prices and the support of a new, more business-friendly Republican administration.
The Arctic refuge is simply the first flash point. A GOP-drafted federal energy package, following President Bush`s lead, calls for drilling in the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain--a region so rich with wildlife that it is known as America`s Serengeti.
"Alaska has seen that, with a Republican administration and a Republican House and a Republican Senate, all the constellations have aligned for them," said Allen Smith, Alaska regional director of the Wilderness Society. "They are preparing to have their day, and oil and gas are at the front of the line."
No wonder that in his state of the state address last month, Alaska Gov. Tony Knowles--a Democrat but also a former oilman and Bush`s fraternity brother at Yale--proclaimed Alaska "on the verge of a new era." Anchorage Mayor George Wuerch is unabashedly upbeat. "The Clinton era is over," he said. "If you care about Alaska, our economic future is about to change."
Like the Bush administration, Knowles believes in economic development--and says it does not have to come at the expense of the environment.
The governor has already pledged to expedite permit reviews for the nation`s single biggest energy development project in more than two decades: an $8-billion to $10-billion pipeline to carry natural gas from the North Slope down through Canada and the U.S. Midwest.
"Help is on the way," Knowles told a conference of Western governors Friday in Portland, Ore.--noting that the pipeline will provide access to 36 trillion cubic feet of new natural gas, the largest proven reserves in North America.
But the fact that the cheapest way to build the pipeline is to bury it under the ocean off the coast of the Arctic refuge could make it nearly as controversial as drilling in the refuge itself. Knowles has backed a route that could be $2 billion more expensive, running down the existing trans-Alaska pipeline and well clear of the refuge.

Babbitt Delayed Oil Lease Sale
Other controversies are possible in the waters off Alaska`s shore as the federal Minerals Management Service in the coming months prepares its next five-year development program.
"Given this administration, I think it will be unlike anything we`ve ever seen," said Jenna App, a lawyer with Trustees for Alaska who has challenged offshore drilling in the Beaufort Sea. "We`re potentially looking at Alaska pretty much on all sides being surrounded by [offshore] leasing."
Two days before leaving office, former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt deferred a pending lease sale on nearly 10 million acres that could have allowed drilling in the Beaufort Sea off the Arctic refuge and the National Petroleum Reserve.
Since 1979, the government has issued 688 leases in the Beaufort Sea--although the first actual production well, known as Northstar, only now is nearing operation. Federal officials said it is not clear whether the new administration will seek to lift Babbitt`s deferral.
BP Exploration and Phillips Alaska--two of the biggest oil firms operating in the Arctic--admit they are setting their sights on the frozen Beaufort Sea, where there are substantial questions about the industry`s ability to clean up oil spills in the shifting, broken ice of spring and fall. And Phillips is eyeing expansion in the Cook Inlet, where heavy opposition until now has restricted most offshore drilling to the more developed, less ecologically sensitive upper inlet.
In an interview, Knowles said it was doubtful that the oil industry would seek to expand drilling much beyond the existing infrastructure. "Basically, drilling and extraction in Alaska is such an expensive proposition--and the environmental concerns are so great--there really has been a concentration on the area where there is an existing infrastructure" on the North Slope, he said.
With that in mind, the big oil companies are not ruling out expanding their footprint in the National Petroleum Reserve.
The 23-million-acre reserve, an area west of Prudhoe Bay, is in many ways as ecologically prized as the Arctic refuge. A little more than 4 million acres of the reserve were opened to oil production in 1998. But the Clinton administration banned drilling around the breathtaking raptor nests of the Colville River bluffs and around Teshekpuk Lake, the only molting habitat of its kind for millions of migratory waterfowl.
Given that a good share of the known oil reserves there are near the lake, many conservation groups predict companies will seek to shrink the 6-mile-wide buffer zone and expand drilling all over the reserve.
BP Exploration and Chevron are building 70 miles of temporary ice roads within the reserve to drill three exploratory wells this year. "If we have success in this effort, there`s a good chance that we will be seeking access to other areas" of the reserve, BP spokesman Ronnie Chappell said.
North Slope producers also say they will be undertaking major new oil development ventures within the existing Prudhoe Bay field. Thanks to higher oil prices and new technology, BP is preparing to tap as much as 20 billion barrels of viscous oil--equivalent to creating the second-largest oil field in the nation--that previously lay untouched.
Still, the poster child for expanded oil drilling in Alaska has been the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And the coming debate in Congress likely will emerge as the first big environmental battle of the Bush administration.
Bush has placed the refuge near the top of his program to develop new domestic energy sources--a plan sure to spark a showdown in Congress because protection of the refuge has become a line in the sand for environmentalists.

Refuge Rich With Wildlife, Birds
The 1.5-million-acre coastal plain on the refuge is a vital gathering point for wildlife. Millions of birds migrate to the Arctic each summer from as far away as South Texas, Argentina and Chile. The refuge shields polar bears, grizzlies, musk oxen, wolves and moose--in addition to providing a critical calving site for the 150,000 caribou of the porcupine herd that migrate as far as 800 miles from Canada each year.
"The oil industry will tell you we can have it all; that we can have the largest industrial oil facility in the U.S. and abundant birds and wildlife. But it`s simply not true," said Sara Callaghan, the Sierra Club`s Arctic coordinator. "You have to put a place aside to allow the Arctic environment to do its own thing. The refuge is one of the only places left in the Arctic where wildlife has been growing and changing for thousands of years in a continuous natural cycle."
The refuge is thought to be capable of producing anywhere from 650,000 to 1.9 million barrels a day, depending on the amount of oil ultimately found there. The North Slope sends about 1 million barrels of oil a day down the pipeline; the U.S. uses about 18.7 million barrels of oil a day. So whatever is recovered from the refuge would fall far short of rendering the country self-sufficient--although it certainly would help.
It also would do almost nothing to directly alleviate the current energy crisis in California. Yet a number of polls show that more and more Americans want to reduce the country`s dependence on foreign oil.
"People in the industry have been saying this for the last 10 years as background noise: `We have a problem coming, folks,` " said Judith Brady, director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Assn.
And the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the nation`s most visible answer to that problem.
Industry officials say technology that now allows wells to be set on a small pad and drilled horizontally for miles, along with temporary ice roads, could allow the refuge to be drilled with minimal effect or damage to the underlying tundra.
As for potential harm to the porcupine caribou herd, industry officials cite a recent study that showed a 35% increase in the size of the herd around existing oil operations at Prudhoe Bay. "Thirty years . . . at Prudhoe Bay have proved that production and wildlife can coexist," said Cam Toohey, head of the industry lobbying group Arctic Power.
Drilling opponents argue that, although the caribou may have increased in numbers, they have experienced significant reductions in their productivity rate.
Similar wildlife concerns are being raised concerning the Copper River Delta, where the Chugach Alaska Corp. has proposed a small drilling operation.
The area was the site of Alaska`s first oil well, but it had stopped producing by the 1930s.
Since then, biologists have come to recognize the unusual habitat value of the delta. The largest wetlands complex on the Pacific Coast, it is home to 16 million migratory shorebirds and waterfowl--as well as large populations of wolves, lynx, sea lions, beaver, otter and mink.
"If this area was oiled, it could take out the entire Pacific Coast flyway, literally," said Riki Ott, a marine biologist at Cordova and an opponent of oil drilling in the region. "We get 90% of the birds here. This is one of the two most important wetlands in the world, because it`s strategically located: They simply can`t miss it."
Then there are the fabled Copper River runs of 2 million salmon. The Cordova fishing fleet, still reeling with the collapse of herring and pink salmon from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, brings in $13.5 million a year from the Copper River`s prized kings and sockeyes.
A 1982 native land claims settlement gave subsurface rights in a small part of the southern edge of the delta to Chugach Alaska, a Native American company. But the firm has only until 2004 to find paying quantities of oil on the site. Otherwise, subsurface rights on that and surrounding lands revert back to the federal government.
"It is an environmentally sensitive area, and any development there would have to be respectful of the other resources," company spokesman Rick Rogers said. "But . . . the Chugach gave up substantial aboriginal land rights for a very small fraction of the lands they previously occupied. And part of that settlement was the ability for them to develop their own economic self-determination. They can call it wilderness if they want to, but Chugach still owns that land."
Few expect the U.S. Forest Service, whose land surrounds the Chugach Alaska site, to block access. Indeed, a successful test well could mean the company would be entitled to develop oil on thousands of acres of public land in the delta.
The nearby town of Cordova already is drawing up battle lines. Half the town--especially the fishermen who rely on the Copper River salmon--wants oil development prohibited. The other half points out that Cordova is paying 23 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity. They`re hoping for a share of the bonanza.
"You either develop it yourself," said former Cordova Mayor Margy Johnson, "or you train every new president to get down on his hands and knees to go out and beg [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein."

Fazit die Oel Lobby macht Druck !

[Paladin]

Das ist ja ihr gutes Recht, Druck zu machen. Die Frage ist halt, wie die jeweilige Regierung darauf reagiert. Bzw. was die Bevölkerung selbst will.

[M-B-S]

Cordova, Alaska -- As Congress prepares to square off over oil drilling in Alaska`s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a small company has quietly applied to drill 680 miles to the south, on the Copper River Delta.

It is hard to imagine a plan more likely to set off alarm bells with environmentalists, for the 700,000-acre delta is the most important shorebird stopover on the Pacific Coast -- and home of the best-tasting salmon in the world.


But ramped-up oil and gas production now is possible in regions all over the Alaskan frontier -- from the Copper River Delta and offshore sites along the Cook Inlet in the south to the frozen Beaufort Sea in the north. Some of the areas that previously held little interest for oil producers now are prime for exploration for two key reasons: soaring fuel prices and the support of a new, more business-friendly Republican administration.

The Arctic refuge is simply the first flash point. A GOP-drafted federal energy package, following President Bush`s lead, calls for drilling in the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain -- a region so rich with wildlife that it is known as America`s Serengeti.

"Alaska has seen that, with a Republican administration and a Republican House and a Republican Senate, all the constellations have aligned for them," said Allen Smith, Alaska regional director of the Wilderness Society. "They are preparing to have their day, and oil and gas are at the front of the line."

No wonder that in his state of the state address last month, Alaska Gov. Tony Knowles -- a Democrat but also a former oilman and Bush`s fraternity brother at Yale University -- proclaimed Alaska "on the verge of a new era." Anchorage Mayor George Wuerch is unabashedly upbeat. "The Clinton era is over, " he said. "If you care about Alaska, our economic future is about to change."

Like the Bush administration, Knowles believes in economic development -- and says it does not have to come at the expense of the environment.

The governor already has pledged to expedite permit reviews for the nation`s single biggest energy development project in more than two decades: an $8 billion to $10 billion pipeline to carry natural gas from the North Slope down through Canada and the U.S. Midwest.

"Help is on the way," Knowles told a recent conference of Western governors,

noting that the pipeline will provide access to 36 trillion cubic feet of new natural gas, the largest proven reserves in North America.

LOCATING THE PIPELINE

But the fact that the cheapest way to build the pipeline is to bury it under the ocean off the coast of the Arctic refuge could make it nearly as controversial as drilling in the refuge itself. Knowles has backed a route that could be $2 billion more expensive, running down the existing trans- Alaska pipeline and well clear of the refuge.

In an interview, Knowles said it was doubtful that the oil industry would seek to expand drilling much beyond the existing infrastructure. "Basically, drilling and extraction in Alaska is such an expensive proposition -- and the environmental concerns are so great -- there really has been a concentration on the area where there is an existing infrastructure" on the North Slope, he said.

With that in mind, the big oil companies are not ruling out expanding their footprint in the National Petroleum Reserve.

The 23 million-acre reserve, an area west of Prudhoe Bay, is in many ways as ecologically prized as the Arctic refuge. A little more than 4 million acres of the reserve were opened to oil production in 1998. But the Clinton administration banned drilling around the breathtaking raptor nests of the Colville River bluffs and around Teshekpuk Lake, the only molting habitat of its kind for millions of migratory waterfowl.

Given that a good share of the known oil reserves there are near the lake, many conservation groups predict companies will seek to shrink the 6-mile-wide buffer zone and expand drilling all over the reserve.

EXPLORATORY DRILLING

BP Exploration and Chevron are building 70 miles of temporary ice roads within the reserve to drill three exploratory wells this year. "If we have success in this effort, there`s a good chance that we will be seeking access to other areas" of the reserve, BP spokesman Ronnie Chappell said.

North Slope producers also say they will be undertaking major new oil development ventures within the existing Prudhoe Bay field. Thanks to higher oil prices and new technology, BP is preparing to tap as much as 20 billion barrels of viscous oil -- equivalent to creating the second-largest oil field in the nation -- that previously lay untouched.

Still, the poster child for expanded oil drilling in Alaska has been the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And the coming debate in Congress likely will emerge as the first big environmental battle of the Bush administration.

Bush has placed the refuge near the top of his program to develop new domestic energy sources -- a plan sure to spark a showdown in Congress because protection of the refuge has become a line in the sand for environmentalists.

The 1.5 million-acre coastal plain on the refuge is a vital gathering point for wildlife. Millions of birds migrate to the Arctic each summer from as far away as South Texas, Argentina and Chile. The refuge shields polar bears, grizzlies, musk oxen, wolves and moose -- in addition to providing a critical calving site for the 150,000 caribou of the porcupine herd that migrate as far as 800 miles from Canada each year.

"The oil industry will tell you we can have it all; that we can have the largest industrial oil facility in the U.S. and abundant birds and wildlife. But it`s simply not true," said Sara Callaghan, the Sierra Club`s Arctic coordinator. "You have to put a place aside to allow the Arctic environment to do its own thing. The refuge is one of the only places left in the Arctic where wildlife has been growing and changing for thousands of years in a continuous natural cycle."

CARIBOU, BIRDS, SALMON

The refuge is thought to be capable of producing anywhere from 650,000 to 1. 9 million barrels a day, depending on the amount of oil ultimately found there.

The North Slope sends about 1 million barrels of oil a day down the pipeline; the U.S. uses about 18.7 million barrels of oil a day. So whatever is recovered from the refuge would fall far short of rendering the country self- sufficient -- although it certainly would help.

Industry officials say technology that now allows wells to be set on a small pad and drilled horizontally for miles, along with temporary ice roads, could allow the refuge to be drilled with minimal effect or damage to the underlying tundra.

As for potential harm to the porcupine caribou herd, industry officials cite a recent study that showed a 35 percent increase in the size of the herd around existing oil operations at Prudhoe Bay. "Thirty years . . . at Prudhoe Bay have proved that production and wildlife can coexist," said Cam Toohey, head of the industry lobbying group Arctic Power.

Drilling opponents argue that, although the caribou may have increased in numbers, they have experienced significant reductions in their productivity rate.

Similar wildlife concerns are being raised concerning the Copper River Delta, where the Chugach Alaska Corp. has proposed a small drilling operation.

The area was the site of Alaska`s first oil well, but it had stopped producing by the 1930s.

Since then, biologists have come to recognize the unusual habitat value of the delta. The largest wetlands complex on the Pacific Coast, it is home to 16 million migratory shorebirds and waterfowl -- as well as large populations of wolves, lynx, sea lions, beaver, otter and mink.

"If this area was oiled, it could take out the entire Pacific Coast flyway, literally," said Riki Ott, a marine biologist at Cordova and an opponent of oil drilling in the region. "We get 90 percent of the birds here. This is one of the two most important wetlands in the world, because it`s strategically located: They simply can`t miss it," Ott said.

Then there are the fabled Copper River runs of 2 million salmon. The Cordova fishing fleet, still reeling from the collapse of herring and pink salmon after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, brings in $13.5 million a year from the Copper River`s prized kings and sockeyes.

[Caldor]

was die bevoelkerung will :

niedrige steuern und ordentlichen anteil von ihrer arbeit lohn behalten !! und nicht wie hier in deutschland von diesen oeko-fantikern alles abgenommen bekommen !

[M-B-S]

Alaska refuge oil isn`t the answer

By Joseph I. Lieberman & Edward J. Markey, 2/26/2001


UDGING FROM RECENT statements by President Bush, it seems just about all we have to do solve our national energy woes is look under the tundra. The president has made drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska a centerpiece of his energy policy, suggesting that it will provide a quick fix to the current price crunch and a long-term solution to America`s debilitating dependence on foreign sources of oil.


We have been hearing this pat answer to a complicated problem for years, but the fact that the president is endorsing it now doesn`t make it any more correct. The reality is that opening the Arctic refuge to drilling will accomplish little except immeasurably and irreversibly degrading one of the last pure preserves of its kind in the world.


This is not just the collective wisdom of the environmental community, which has been fighting this misguided proposal for years, but of most impartial analysts. Even the conservative CATO Institute dismissed the notion that increased domestic production from federal lands such as the refuge could solve our energy problems, declaring it not just foolish but ``nonsense on stilts.``


That is because the fact is that opening this pristine place for drilling would not provide any energy for at least the next 10 years. This is not just a wild guess but a conservative estimate from the Department of the Interior under President Bush`s father.


Why, then, is the administration linking drilling in the refuge to chilling California`s immediate energy crisis? That is a very good question. Most experts tell us that California`s troubles are not even related to the supply of oil - in fact, about 1 percent of the power generated from power plants in California results from burning crude.


There is not much more sense to the argument that the refuge is the answer to our long-term energy needs. Estimates vary widely, but a study by the US Geological Survey completed in 1998 estimated that only 3.2 billion to 5.2 billion barrels, a mere six- to eight-month supply, would be ``economically recoverable`` from the refuge over its 50-year lifespan.


In exchange for this short-term return, we would have to pay a very high long-term price, threatening one of the planet`s most unique animal and plant habitats. Scientific analyses by the US Fish & Wildlife Service have concluded that drilling would severely harm the refuge`s abundant populations of caribou, polar bears, musk oxen, and snow geese.


But the environmental consequences of drilling go well beyond wildlife. Data from the Alaska Department of Conservation show that the Trans-Alaska and Prudhoe Bay oil fields have had an annual average of 409 spills since 1996 of everything from crude oil to acid.


Current oil operations in Alaska`s North Slope every year emit about 56,427 tons of nitrous oxides, which cause smog and acid rain, and release up to 110,000 tons of methane, a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming.


All these factors should make it clear that opening the refuge to oil exploration represents a hollow response to a very real national problem - our addiction to foreign oil.


Americans consume 25 percent of the world`s petroleum but possess only 2 percent of the supply. It is clear that we can never hope to drill our way out of our energy problems. Rather, we must develop an energy policy that produces oil and gas where we can but focuses on developing alternative, renewable and cleaner sources of energy; otherwise, we will burden future generations with problems we can and must solve today.


As an alternative, we would suggest that the president broaden his focus. With dramatic changes in the global marketplace and with the accumulating evidence of global warming, we have entered a new world that requires new solutions to our energy challenges. That means adopting a less crude and more creative national energy policy that aims to harness a range of energy sources other than oil.


Increasing our national gas supply is one option. While we cannot rely on natural gas exclusively, this relatively clean fuel has become a staple of our energy generation and has the potential to become an even bigger part of our energy stock.


The North Slope of Alaska is estimated to hold between 32 trillion and 37 trillion cubic feet of natural gas - almost a two-year supply - but the gas and oil industries have not developed the infrastructure to bring this gas to market. The gas is entirely outside the refuge. It can be developed relatively inexpensively and would bring much-needed fuel to US power plants.


New technologies offer the greatest long-term hope. We must invest boldly in the power potential of renewable and alternative sources of energy such as fuel cells, solar energy, wind energy, and geothermal energy.


Finally, we should not only boost our supply and delivery of the traditional and alternative fuel sources but also take aggressive steps to diminish our demand for fossil fuels. We can do so without significantly sacrificing our quality fo life and through relatively simple measures that increase our energy efficiency and conservation.


One good idea is to offer tax credits for purchasing hybrid cars, which are already on the market and get 60 to 70 miles per gallon. In fact, if we just set a goal of increasing the efficiency of our automobile fleets by 3 miles per gallon, we would save the same amount of oil over the next 10 years that would be drilled out of the refuge.


Think about that. Slightly more efficient Mustangs and Cougars would mean significantly longer-living caribou and elk. Now that is a tradeoff worth making.


Joseph I. Lieberman is a US senator from Connecticut. Edward J. Markey is a US representative from the 7th District of Massachusetts


Ja, denken wir einmal darüber nach ! Ist es richtig das lezte oekologisch intakte Naturreservoir zu opfern um
günstig Auto zu fahren ? - Nein !

Lieberman hat recht ! Wir müssen jezt die Alternativen aktivieren sonst ....................END !

[M-B-S]

Source: Reuters


By Yereth Rosen

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - To oil drillers, Alaska`s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) coastal plain is a desolate and frozen place whose most interesting feature is the natural oil that seeps in the rock outcroppings.

Republicans in Washington on Monday will unveil a broad energy bill that in part proposes opening the ANWR to drilling. Touting a recent government estimate of up to 16 billion barrels, they assert the coastal plain will yield a petroleum bonanza.

``I believe it will eventually happen. Our national security demands it,`` said Sen. Frank Murkowski, an Alaska Republican who heads the Senate Energy Committee and is chief sponsor of the new bill.

To environmentalists the coastal plain is the fragile heart of a unique Arctic ecosystem. Beneath its surface, they say, is most likely only six months` supply of oil, far too little to justify sacrificing a precious wilderness.

Oil development would ``doom our nation`s premier birthing ground for polar bears, caribou and Arctic wolves,`` a recent mailing from the National Resources Defense Council said.

``Make no mistake -- we are in for a titanic battle over ANWR. The battle will begin this Monday,`` Murkowski said.

Claims about potential oil in the 1.5 million-acre plain differ as much as descriptions of the stretch of northeast Alaska tundra squeezed between the peaks of the Brooks Range and the Arctic Ocean.

To back their positions, advocates on both sides quote the U.S. Geological Survey`s most recent petroleum assessment for the coastal plain. Because that includes several different assumptions, the numbers are quoted in contradictory ways, said Suzanne Weedman, the USGS energy program coordinator.

``Many people do have agendas on either side of the development issue and they use the numbers to fit their agenda,`` Weedman said.

The 1998 USGS assessment estimates in-place oil, technically recoverable oil and economically recoverable oil. The estimate for in-place oil is 20.7 billion barrels, for example, while the estimate for economically recoverable oil is far smaller.


`YOU NEVER KNOW UNTIL YOU DRILL`

At a West Coast price of $24 a barrel, the USGS has 95 percent confidence that the plain holds 2.03 billion recoverable barrels and 5 percent confidence that it holds 9.38 billion barrels, Weedman said. The estimate ranges ``all have meaning if they`re presented correctly. Now, it`s all hypothetical. You never know until you drill.``

The latest USGS estimates make use of recent seismic studies and data from wells drilled near the coastal plain. Thanks to that newer information, Weedman said, the 1998 estimates were higher than those issued by the USGS in 1987.

Environmentalists often cite the USGS studies as evidence that the coastal plain most likely holds 3.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil, which they say is a six-month supply for the nation.

Former President Jimmy Carter, an adamant foe of drilling, cited that estimate on a trip to Alaska in August, saying a small increase in motor vehicle fuel mileage would save more oil in a short time than could be produced from the refuge.

Why rip up the tundra ``for a very transient benefit in oil production?`` Carter asked in a speech to conservationists. ``Once it`s destroyed, it doesn`t repair itself.``

But Cam Toohey, executive director of Arctic Power and head of an Anchorage-based group campaigning to open the refuge to drilling, said he finds these claims annoying.

``This `six months of oil` is a bunch of garbage,`` he said, adding it is not based on science but is ``just somebody in Birkenstocks saying how much oil is up there.``

Drilling supporters prefer the figures the USGS has reported as technically recoverable. It says it has 95 percent confidence that the area, including adjacent state and private land, holds 5.7 billion barrels and 5 percent confidence of 16 billion barrels. If anything, supporters say, that is conservative since more oil becomes recoverable over time as technology improves.

Politicians in oil-dependent Alaska, whose residents pay no state income or sales taxes but receive annual dividends from a $28 billion state trust fund created by oil wealth, have long campaigned for drilling in the refuge and are almost uniformly bullish about its prospects.

``We certainly recognize that it would be a tremendous benefit to the state and the nation, so why stop trying?`` asked state House Speaker Brian Porter.


`LOCK IT UP AND THROW IT AWAY`

The Anchorage Republican said environmentalists ignore the low impact of modern exploration techniques that would yield more information about ANWR`s oil. ``So one has to wonder whether they really want to know the answer to that question, or they want to lock it up and throw it away,`` he said.

Amid past stalemates -- prior efforts to allow drilling have been blocked by either the Clinton administration or a Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress -- there have been few peeks at the wildlife refuge`s oil potential.

A handful of experts know the results from the sole onshore well drilled east of the Canning River, the braided waterway that forms the western boundary of the Arctic refuge.

The well was drilled in 1986 by Chevron USA Inc. on Native Alaskan land next to the refuge. The $40 million KIC Well -- named for the Kaktovik Inupiat Corp., the Native group that owns the land -- was plugged and abandoned but it is considered by many to the best source of information on ANWR`s oil reserves.

Only a few people -- company geologists and a few government officials bound by confidentiality rules -- know what that well revealed. ``It`s a pretty exclusive group. The governor doesn`t know what that well says,`` said Bob King, press secretary to Alaska`s Democratic governor, Tony Knowles.

Better known are results from exploration drilling around the refuge`s edges. Several discoveries have been announced on state land west of the refuge boundary or offshore, but none have resulted in production.

On state land, for example, is BP Amoco`sSourdough prospect. The company announced positive exploration results there in 1997 and said it could hold 100 million recoverable barrels, but none of that is likely to flow through pipelines soon.

``Sourdough development is not in our current five-year plan,`` said BP spokesman Ronnie Chappell.


MORE GAS THAN OIL

Nearby is Point Thomson operated by Exxon Mobil, where development has stalled in part because the prospect holds more natural gas than oil. Another discovery, the offshore Kuvlum prospect in the Beaufort Sea, was touted in 1992 as holding up to 6 billion barrels, but it was dropped by its discoverer, Arco Alaska Inc., as too costly and difficult to develop.

These and other eastern North Slope prospects suffer from their remoteness. The nearest pipeline is at BP`s Badami field, about 20 miles to the west. Badami itself is a poor performer, producing just 2,500 barrels a day rather than the expected 35,000, according to Chappell.

While development has sputtered there, industry fortunes seem to be the reverse on the western side. The newest major oil field, Phillips Petroleum`s ultra-modern Alpine unit in the Colville River Delta, began pumping in November. Estimated to hold 429 million recoverable barrels, it was discovered by Arco Alaska Inc. and taken over by Phillips last year when the company acquired Arco`s Alaska business.

Alpine`s discovery and encouraging data from other Colville River Delta exploration sparked interest in that area and in the bordering National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA), a huge federal unit dismissed by industry for years as unpromising.

The Clinton administration in 1999 offered 4 million acres in the reserve for leasing. BP and Phillips, Alaska`s major producers, bid actively and have launched busy exploration seasons this winter. Phillips and Anadarko Petroleum also plan more exploration on state and Native land.

The eastern North Slope would be the focus of more activity, Toohey predicted, if exploration were allowed in the Arctic refuge coastal plain. ``You open up the east side, we`ll see so much more interest in ANWR than you see in NPRA it`ll be crazy.`` ^ REUTERS@

Die Gegenseite ist an der Macht !

Fazit : Alaska wird wohl geopfert um kurzfristige strategische Interessen der USA ( Oel-Lobby Bush jr. ) zu
befriedigen !

Anstatt das Oelzeitalter zu beenden wählt Amerika einen
Oel - Lobbyisten zum Präsidenten !

Die Technik ist längst vorhanden !

Hoffnung : Europa ?

[M-B-S]

Alaska senator to offer bill allowing oil drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge


by Seth Borenstein
Knight Ridder Newspapers

Frank Murkowski
WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans today will propose to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and give the energy industry $21 billion in subsidies to spur production.

In what is considered a preview of the Bush administration`s still-developing national power plan, Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, will introduce a bill proposing dramatic changes in U.S. energy policy, mainly by putting heavy new emphasis on increasing supplies.

Murkowski said drilling in the refuge would send "a very significant signal" to the Middle East that the United States intends to lessen its dependence on foreign oil.

Adam Kolton, Arctic campaign director for the environmental group Alaska Wilderness League, countered: "Drilling in the Arctic refuge will do nothing to help consumers now or in the future. It would be as shortsighted as damming the Grand Canyon for hydroelectric power or tapping Yellowstone`s Old Faithful for geothermal energy."

"Make no mistake: We are in for a titanic battle over ANWR. The battle will begin this Monday," Murkowski said.

No one knows exactly how much oil can be gotten out of the refuge. Environmentalists say it is a six-month supply; proponents of drilling say it could be a few years` worth. If the prices remain the same for oil, drilling in the refuge would probably provide 6 billion barrels of oil total, about 300 days worth of oil, said Ken Bird, who led a 1998 U.S. Geological Survey study of potential oil in the refuge.


It would take five to 10 years for this oil to reach consumers.


The bill also would favor technologies out of favor during the Clinton administration: coal and nuclear power.

Amid a backdrop of electricity shortages in California and soaring natural-gas prices, Murkowski, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, proposes to give the energy industry incentives denied them in the past.

The Bush administration won`t say when its plan is coming out or if it will be similar to Murkowski`s, although experts expect them to contain common ideas.

21 MRD Dollar Oel Subventionen !

Dieser Betrag pro Jaehr in die solare Wasserstoff- Wirtschaft investiert und Amerika wäre in 10 Jahren unabhängig vom Oel !Ich hoffe die Amerikaner leisten erbitterten Widerstand gegen den Ausverkauf der US-Natur-Wunder an die Bush -Oel-Lobby !

titanic battle = the last battle for Oil

[M-B-S]

Thursday March 1, 8:02 am Eastern Time
FEATURE-Oil frenzy in Alaska reserve as Congress debates refuge
By Yereth Rosen

ANCHORAGE, Alaska, Mar 1 (Reuters) - As the debate heats up in Congress on whether to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), oil companies have launched a mini-frenzy of exploration just across the North Slope at another federal reserve in Alaska without much notice.

By the end of this winter, after frozen-hard conditions have allowed drilling, BP Exploration Alaska Inc. (quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: BP.L) and Phillips Alaska Inc. (NYSE:P - news) plan to have up to six wells at the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA).

BP has finished building a 70-mile (113-km) ice road to its prospects, company spokesman Ronnie Chappell said. And it has submitted a plan to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to drill up to two dozen wells over five years in the federal petroleum reserve.

Phillips, which is completing its ice road and ice pads this week, has identified five NPRA prospects to the BLM and also has an aggressive plan for drilling them, as well as doing more seismic surveys.

That is a lot of activity for an area once considered too remote to be worth the bother, said Chuck Logsdon, chief petroleum economist for the state of Alaska.

``They`ve leased it, they`re drilling it and, by golly, maybe there`s oil -- as opposed to ANWR, which has almost reached totemic status,`` Logsdon said.

SLOW STARTER

President George W. Bush has made ANWR development a central part of his energy strategy, and U.S. Sen. Frank Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, this week introduced new legislation to open up the refuge to oil drilling.

Past attempts at opening ANWR were blocked either by Congressional Democrats or the Clinton administration to protect the unique Arctic ecosystem.

In contrast, 60 miles (97 km) west of Prudhoe Bay and 120 miles (194 km) west of the Arctic Refuge, lies the 23 million-acre (9.5 million ha) NPRA which was dismissed by industry and government as unpromising.

Although established by President Warren Harding for its energy potential, it has only been probed for oil sporadically since the 1940s, with no commercial discoveries until recently.

A discovery announced in 1995 by Arco Alaska Inc. at Alpine, a field at the Colville River Delta on state lands across the eastern border of the federal reserve, plus the advance of oil-field technology, touched off new interest in

Npra.


The Clinton administration launched studies and in 1998 authorized a lease sale in the eastern 4 million acres (1.6 million ha) of the reserve.

Compared to the previous lease sale held in 1984 which drew no bids, the May 1999 sale, however, drew heated bidding. Companies put up a total of $104.6 million, and offers for several individual tracts exceeded $1 million.

Arco led the bidding and last winter, drilled three wells in the petroleum reserve. When BP acquired Arco, it sold Arco`s Alaska assets to Phillips to satisfy federal regulators` antitrust concerns.

Phillips, which in Alaska consists largely of former Arco employees, is continuing Arco`s program and deflecting rumors of a big discovery there.

Phillips spokeswoman Dawn Patience declined to discuss last year`s results except to say that the company has returned to two of the sites it drilled.

``We were there last year, and we`re back this year,`` she said.

According to a 1997 BLM study, the eastern section of the reserve is believed to hold about 3 billion barrels of recoverable oil, distributed in pockets the size of the Alpine field, which holds 429 million barrels and began production in November.

The estimate is less than what industry supporters claim is ANWR`s potential. But it is enough to draw drilling rigs, Logsdon said.

``If they`re drilling wells, it looks like they`re identified something worth drilling,`` he said.

NO BATTLE ON THIS GROUND

Despite that excitement, the NPRA oil prospects appear to have been overshadowed at times by the fight over the ANWR.

Even Bush admitted last October that he had been unaware of the new NPRA leasing, or even the reserve`s existence.

"I just found out the other day that there`s a national petroleum reserve right next to Prudhoe -- or in Prudhoe Bay

-- that your administration had opened up for exploration in that pristine area," Bush told then-Vice President Al Gore during the October 11 presidential debate and 17 months after the lease sale.

The decision to allow development in the NPRA should not be confused with any endorsement of ANWR drilling, said Deborah Williams, who served as former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt`s top official in Alaska.

``I felt very, very comfortable, and in fact was very proud of that decision, because I do believe in a balance,`` said Williams, who is now executive director of the Alaska Conservation Foundation.

``You could say that was an appropriate place to drill. That is in stark contrast, stark contrast to the ANWR,`` she said.

The leased NPRA area is nothing like the ANWR`s narrow strip of coastal land, wedged between the Brooks Range peaks and the Arctic Ocean.

There are no polar bear dens or muskoxen in that area of NPRA, for example while the ANWR coastal plain holds Alaska`s highest concentration of polar bear dens and is key muskoxen habitat, Williams said.

It is however the use as a calving ground for the Porcupine caribou herd gives the ANWR coastal plain a special status. she said. It is considered sacred to the Gwich`in Athabaskan Indians who have depended historically on the herd.

``It is the Jerusalem for the Gwich`in,`` Williams said. "There is not a sacred aspect to the land that was opened up in ................

Erst wenn der letzte Fisch gefangen, der letzte Baum gefällt , das letzte Oel ..........

[M-B-S]

LA - Times :

An Oil Battle Best Left Unfought



The Bush administration first sought to link searching for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to California`s energy crisis. But all the oil in Alaska wouldn`t turn on a single light bulb in California.
Now, the administration suggests in its budget document that federal revenues collected from oil companies for the right to lease portions of the refuge be used to finance research into solar and wind power and other alternative energy sources. Is this a bad joke or just oil patch cynicism?
Although there were few details, the White House budget plan said the $1.2 billion would be reaped by 2004 by leasing a coastal slice of the refuge for exploration and production of oil and gas in an "environmentally sensitive" manner.
The administration presumably will present its Alaskan oil plans in detail with its comprehensive energy plan this spring. Bush would be better off dropping the idea of drilling in the refuge. It is a battle better left unfought.
It`s curious that the administration has seized Arctic oil with such vigor as its symbol of energy independence. A modest improvement in auto fuel standards would free up more energy. Perhaps Bush`s idea is to show how wrong-headed environmentalists are that they dare put this remote wilderness area on an equal plane with the nation`s energy independence.
Administration officials argue that modern drilling technology will allow a minimum of disruption along the 1.5 million acres of coastal plain, perhaps affecting just a couple of thousand acres.
They underestimate the meaning of this wild area. This is truly the last frontier where an entire ecosystem is intact and undisturbed by American progress and the profit motive. Drilling for oil here would be like building a geothermal power plant in Yellowstone--worse, in fact. Environmental advocates will be keeping tabs on how members of Congress vote on this issue at every turn. These will be fodder in the 2002 and 2004 elections.
Richard Feinberg, an environmental consultant from Anchorage, eloquently described the meaning of it to columnist Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times: "Wilderness as a concept is immutable. . . . Oil development in a wilderness, no matter how sensitive, changes the very nature of it. It means it`s no longer wilderness."
There are many possible sources for energy development. There is only one Arctic refuge. It should remain wilderness, immutable.

Schaun wir mal !

[M-B-S]

Bush U-turn angers environmentalists



Bush cited legal grounds for the decision

Environmentalists have reacted with anger to a decision by US President George W Bush not to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power stations.
Dan Becker, of the Sierra Club lobby group, accused Mr Bush of turning his back on the most important environmental problem facing the country.



He`s ended the shortest honeymoon in history

Sierra Club spokesman
An official from Japan`s Environment Ministry was quoted as saying that the decision, if confirmed, was regrettable and could undermine the 1997 Kyoto protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.

The European Union has also expressed concern about the remarks.

"I think it`s very important for the United States to continue these [climate] negotiations and we hope they will not refrain from further measures," said Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, representing the current EU presidency.

Mr Bush said in a letter to Republican Senator Chuck Hagel that the decision was prompted by fears of aggravating the energy crisis faced in particular by the far west of the United States.

Mr Bush originally pledged the reduction during last year`s presidential election campaign.

He is now seeking justification for his change of policy on technical grounds, noting that the 1970 Clean Air Act does not class carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

`Promise broken`

The letter says that three other substances included in the original strategy - nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and mercury - will be controlled as part of a balanced policy.



Action on nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and mercury will go ahead

Mr Becker told the BBC that the president had reneged on a pledge he had made to fend off criticism of his environmental record in Texas.

"He has betrayed a campaign promise, he`s turned his back on the entreaties of world leaders... and he`s ended the shortest honeymoon in history," he said.

He described as a "red herring" the Clean Air Act`s failure to mention carbon dioxide, saying that powerful industrial lobbies had prevented any new consideration of global warming within it.

The main body of scientific opinion now recognised the gas as a major contributor to global warming, he added.


Policy review

The change of position has resulted from a review of policy led by Vice President Dick Cheney.

The "four pollutant strategy", announced in September, was one of Mr Bush`s few specific proposals on climate change.

Christie Whitman, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, recently reasserted the pledge at a meeting with environmental ministers from major industrial countries in Italy.

But her remarks prompted a lobbying campaign by coal and utility companies, some of whom are strongly opposed to mandatory controls on carbon dioxide.

Mr Bush`s letter was released on the same day that the Department of Energy announced its participation in a new institute in the state of Washington to study global warming.

Bush -nicht nur für die Börse ein Wahnsinniger

[M-B-S]

Quelle Sonnenseite.com : "
+ Klimakiller George Bush +
Der Präsident der USA bricht seinen Wahlkampfversprechen. George Bush ist - wie schon sein Vater als Präsident - der Klimaschutz völlig schnuppe. Klimaschutz, so argumentiert der neue US-Präsident ganz im Sinne und Auftrag der US-Öllobby, bedeute "schwere ökonomische Schäden" für die US-Wirtschaft. Wie viel ökonomische Schäden es bedeutet, das Klima nicht zu schützen, sagt Georges Busch nicht.

Das Kyoto-Protokoll, in dem sich die USA verpflichten, bis 2012 5 Prozent weniger Treibhausgase zu produzieren als 1990, bezeichnet Bush als "unfaires und ineffektives Mittel" , denn "80 Prozent der Welt" würden ebenfalls die Treibhausgase nicht reduzieren. Damit meint Bush hauptsächlich China und Indien.

Der US-Präsident schämt sich seiner primitiven Argumentation nicht, obwohl ein US-Amerikaner heute durchschnittlich 10 mal mehr Treibhausgase produziert als ein Chinese und 20 mal mehr als ein Inder und 50 mal mehr als ein Mensch in Tansania oder Bangladesch!

Der Tiefpunkt der Bush-Argumentation: "CO2 ist für das Klima gar nicht schädlich" . Schon nach wenigen Regierungswochen verdankt der Rest der Welt den US-Präsidenten die Erkenntnis, dass Naturgesetze gar keinen Naturgesetze sind. Zumindest Geld im Sinn nicht, wenn sie US-Bestimmungen widersprechen.

Über diese Polit-Kriminalität reagieren Umweltorganisationen in USA und Europa empört und verärgert. Die nächste Klimakonferenz im Sommer 2001 in Bonn ist jetzt nahezu chancenlos. Sie lohnt die Spesen nicht. Klaus Töpfer , Chef der UN-Umweltbehörde nannte Bush`s neueste Erkenntnis "einfach schrecklich".

"Es ist einfach schrecklich" - Ja Herr Töpfer( CDU) , da haben sie recht !

Aber vom Oel - Mann Bush ist nichts anderes zu erwarten !

Machen wir uns auf das schlimmste gefasst !

Ein trauriger M-B-S

[M-B-S]

US-Regierung erwägt Bau neuer Atomkraftwerke WASHINGTON (dpa-AFX) - Die neue US-Regierung erwägt den Bau neuer Atomkraftwerke. Das teilte Vizepräsident Dick Cheney in einem Interview des Nachrichtensenders MSNBC mit. Sein Expertenteam für eine neue Energiepolitik sehe Atomkraftwerke als eine Möglichkeit, den Ausstoß von Kohlendioxid zu begrenzen.

Dies sei eine bessere Möglichkeit zur Bekämpfung des Treibhaushauseffekts als ein "stark abgeschwächtes" Kyoto-Abkommen, sagte Cheney in dem Interview am Mittwoch. Schließlich produzierten Atomkraftwerke keine Treibhausgase. Cheney warnte zugleich, die USA müssten künftig mehr Energie im eigenen Land produzieren, sonst drohten überall Stromverknappungen wie in Kalifornien. Die USA bräuchten deshalb in den nächsten 20 Jahren 1.300 neue Kraftwerke.

US-Präsident George W. Bush hatte kürzlich unter anderem mit dem Hinweis auf eine Energiekrise ein Wahlversprechen gebrochen und angekündigt, den Kohlendioxid-Ausstoß von Kraftwerken nicht zu senken. Die Entscheidung steht im Widerspruch zu den Vereinbarungen von Kyoto im Jahr 1997. Allerdings wurde dieser Umweltpakt vom US-Senat nicht ratifiziert, und Bush selbst lehnt ihn ab./tm/DP/gb US-Präsident Bush widerruft Umweltstandards

Washington/Genf/Berlin (dpa) - Kurz vor dem Weltwassertag an diesem Donnerstag hat US-Präsident George W. Bush damit begonnen, geplante strengere Umweltstandards aus der Zeit der Vorgängerregierung rückgängig zu machen.

Die staatliche Umweltschutzbehörde EPA verwarf am Dienstag (Ortszeit) ein Gesetz zur Verminderung giftigen Arsens im Trinkwasser. Es sollte am Freitag in Kraft treten und die zulässige Höchstgrenze des krebserregenden Stoffes zum ersten Mal seit den 40er Jahren um ein Fünftel reduzieren............

Schmutziges und verseuchtes Wasser gefährdet nach den Worten des UN-Generalsekretärs Kofi Annan nicht nur die Gesundheit, sondern verletzt auch die Menschenwürde. "Wir müssen den globalen Vorrat an sauberem Wasser hüten und Sorge tragen, dass jeder Mensch Zugriff zu ihm hat", sagte Annan zum Weltwassertag.

............

Umweltschützer befürchten nach dem Machtwechsel in Washington einen herben Rückschlag für den weltweiten Naturschutz. Erst in der vergangenen Woche hatte Bush sein Wahlkampfversprechen gebrochen, den Kohlendioxid-Ausstoß von Kraftwerken in den USA gemäß dem internationalen Umweltabkommen von Kyoto zu verringern. Dies hatte auch Empörung im Ausland ausgelöst. Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder forderte Bush in einem Schreiben auf, das Abkommen von Kyoto einzuhalten.

Kritiker werfen Bush Nachgiebigkeit gegenüber Interessengruppen aus der Wirtschaft vor. "Dieser empörende Akt ist nur ein weiteres Beispiel dafür, wie die Umweltverschmutzer die Regierung übernommen haben", sagte Erik Olson, Anwalt der Umweltschutzorganisation Natural Resources Defense Council, zu dem Trinkwasserbeschluss. Die Regierung Bush erwägt darüber hinaus, strengere Waldschutzgesetze aufzuheben, die Ex-Präsident Bill Clinton kurz vor seinem Amtsende erlassen hatte.


Mit AKWs die Umwelt - schützen ! Das kann nur von Bush kommen !

[M-B-S]

Bush jr. Lösung :
einfach nur Lächerlich !

Wenn man nicht wüsste, daß der Bush - Clan sein Geld im Oelgeschäft verdient !

Bei dem Nachfrage und Angebotsverhältnis um so verständlicher

[Caldor]

immerhin , die beliebtheit von bush bei den amis ist am steigen !

klar , die freuen sich auf dei steuersenkungen . da koennte sich schroeder mal ein biespiel dran nehmen !

[Neemann]

Und die Ökosteuer abschaffen?

[Caldor]

holla neemann , du wirst doch nicht etwa deine meinung geaendert haben ?

ich weiss ja das du ein fan der oekoesteuer bist , aber selbst du wirst zugeben ,dass es ihre wahlchancen erhoehen wuerde !

[Paladin]

*g* Wo er recht hat, der Caldor, da hat er nun mal recht. Da gibt es nichts zu deuteln.

[M_B_S]

Mississippi River

Die Amis müssen erst bis zum Hals im Wasser stehen !

Bush Lösung : Mehr Klimagase !

[M_B_S]

Umweltminister sprechen über Umsetzung des ``Kyoto-Protokolls``

Umweltminister und hochrangige Beamte aus 41 Ländern haben in New York mit informellen Gesprächen über die Zukunft des Klimaschutzprotokolls von Kyoto begonnen. Das Treffen, an dem auch Bundesumweltminister Jürgen Trittin (Grüne) teilnahm, stand im Zeichen des Rückzugs der USA von den Vereinbarungen in Kyoto 1997. Es ist das erste Treffen der beteiligten Staaten seit den gescheiterten Klimaverhandlungen in Den Haag im vergangenen November. Über die Umsetzung des Kyoto-Protokolls soll im Juli in Bonn verhandelt werden. Rund hundert Meter vom Tagungsort entfernt protestierten etwa ein Dutzend Greenpeace-Mitglieder gegen die Haltung der USA im Klimaschutz.
US-Präsident George W. Bush hatte im März erklärt, die von seinem Vorgänger Bill Clinton ausgehandelte Vereinbarung sei für ihn gestorben. Das Abkommen sieht vor, dass 38 Länder ihren Ausstoß an Treibhausgasen um insgesamt 5,2 Prozent gegenüber 1990 verringern. Damit es in Kraft treten kann, müssen unter den ratifizierenden Ländern genug Industriestaaten sein, auf die 1990 zusammen 55 Prozent des CO2-Ausstoßes entfielen. Fallen die USA heraus, könnte dies rechnerisch nur kompensiert werden, indem Japan und Russland die Seite wechseln und das Protokoll mittragen. Trittin hatte sich vor dem Treffen in New York skeptisch über die Möglichkeit geäußert, die USA wieder in das Kyoto-Protokoll einzubinden.








© ARD-aktuell

[Caldor]

danke paladin ! ist aber nur die realitaet !