Anyone prepared to defend the admin's go ahead on Arctic drilling?

[G_j]

???????????????

[Hydra]

1. Nope

Next question?

[immoderate]

2. The corporations DEMANDED it.

--imm

[Mojorabbit]

3. no

and their record on a lot of environmental issues leave a lot to be desired. I want to cry when I watch what they are allowing re wolves.

[G_j]

5. I HEAR you on the wolf issue!!

it's an all out slaughter!

[rwsanders]

16. This is an infuriating one.

Everytime I got a call during the 2010, 2012, 2014 campaigns asking for money I brought up this issue.
I'll be doing it again during 2016.
I'm just as frustrated with the environmental groups though. I still give to Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife, but I think it is time they both step up and try some other tactic rather than just another court case.
Pushing a "wildlife safe" label, like the campaign for the dolphins is needed. It is about time that the public realized everytime they buy a burger, their funding the slaughter.

[G_j]

45. thank you

good post!

[Triana]

4. NO. Nor the TPP.

HELL no.

Both are UNCONSCIONABLE.

[haikugal]

6. No! Nor TPP!

Nor the lack of effort on the Bundy ranch case....etc. etc. etc.

Not to forget the Gulf and Corexit...

[Oilwellian]

7. This is yet another example...

of why I refuse to vote for a Third Way, corporate Democrat again. Even Bush couldn't get Arctic drilling to pass.

[lark]

13. You think Jeb/Scott wouldn't do even more drilling?

We have to vote against the wholesale destruction of the middle class and going back to the dark ages for women - in other words vote against the worst candidate - the R. OK, I know, you don't HAVE to vote at all, but I do think it's our duty to vote for at least some sanity instead of for total insanity. Purism will just get us screwed over even more.

[rwsanders]

18. Maybe it is time for the 3rd way folks to cave and admit it isn't working. Bernie could coast to

victory in the primaries and we could have sanity in the white house at least.
I'm one of the ones who'd rather vote for the Green Party than support the status quo.

[Blue_In_AK]

8. Absolutely not,

and I'm so sick of this state being exploited by the oil companies. Shell's record with this project is abysmal, and someone needs to shut them down permanently. The fact is Alaska doesn't even get any financial benefit from offshore drilling, unlike Louisiana and the Gulf states, so we get none of the benefits but all the risk.


Old article, but relevant
http://www.adn.com/article/will-offshore-oil-development-alaskas-arctic-make-state-rich-dont-count-it

[truebluegreen]

9. Hmm. Crickets from the usual fans. nt

[Hekate]

10. Oh gosh, I hate to spoil your stereotype. I don't approve.

I think you should join others in letting the POTUS know how you feel about it too.

[Ned Flanders]

28. Lead by example: crickets

Can anyone tell me just what, exactly, is HRC's stance on Arctic drilling? No wonder the more cynical among us expect crickets, when she leads by example.

And on a relevant tangent here, when people ask women if they support HRC "just because she's a woman," maybe it's because they're not hearing any good reasons to vote for her, other than the usual, "she's been good for women's rights." Occam's razor, ya know?

(Not to mimimize the importance of bringing true equality to women, but there are other important issues as well, and we should not be voting based upon just one issue!)

[truebluegreen]

37. Oh gosh, I'm way ahead of you

regarding letting POTUS know how I feel about it.

[jalan48]

11. Why is the question for me. He's a lame duck, he doesn't need poitical capital at this point.

[lark]

14. Getting his take.

He is now cashing in with the buy $$ folks and doing their bidding on so many things. Well, it's either that or he's being threatened and I don't buy that.

[jalan48]

15. I had the same feeling though a fellow DUer was quite offended when I voiced it the other day.

[Marr]

25. It's exactly *because* he's a lame duck.

Remember that episode in his first term when he was unaware that his microphone was on and was overheard saying he'd have so much more 'flexibility' in his second term? He's shown us exactly where he stands on issues like this since the election. He's for arctic drilling. It's as simple as that.

[Doctor_J]

35. because he's a corporate conservative?

Duh

[jalan48]

36. LOL-well, I was hoping he would be an environmentally friendly one.

Let's hope he stays strong on opposing the Keystone pipeline.

[lark]

12. Not here.

It's totally indefensible. Trojan horse president syndrome shows itself again. He said he supported green energy, guess not so much.

[City Lights]

17. Not me.

[A Simple Game]

19. Hows this?

If God didn't want us drilling for oil up there in the Arctic, why did he go ahead and melt all of that ice?

Just in case:

[Cleita]

20. No and I'm heartsick. eom.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

21. Oh please, what is the point even discussing it?

Precious few here will approve of oil sourced from absolutely anywhere. Hell, we have people here who advocate banning cars.

Oil from Canada: BAD!
Oil from Fracking: BAD!
Oil from Offshore Drilling: BAD!
Oil from Middle East: BAD!
Oil from Russia: BAD!
Oil from Third World: BAD!
Oil by Pipeline: BAD!
Oil by Train: BAD!

[brett_jv]

27. The fact that if all the oil dried up overnight that probably 4-5 BILLION people ...

Would be dead within a year or two ... doesn't seem to register to most people here on DU.

Unless you're living completely self-sufficient and off the grid, using seeds from your own previous crops, tilling your fields w/draft animals (that you also feed with your own crops), with your own dam providing you with hydro-power ... with no plastics, asphalt, purchased fertilizers, etc, used in your life ... then you're in some way dependent on oil. How many people live like that in the USA today? A few hundred, maybe? And there's absolutely NO WAY that 'everyone' ... could.

Look, I'm 100% firmly in favor of MOVING away from fossil fuels to the extent that it's possible. But getting completely off them, without a HUGE drop in the standard of living of the average person is not something that we're even remotely close to being able to do. So until such time as we ARE ... we're going to need to get the oil from somewhere.

But drilling in the Arctic is a TERRIBLE option. And isn't the fact that the whole reason we can even consider it is BECAUSE we've polluted the atmosphere with so much CO2 FROM burning fossil fuels ... enough reason to give everybody serious PAUSE about the wisdom of such a maneuver?

Cause it damn sure ought to be. The 'warning bells' should REALLY be going off at this point. But some people only see $$$ signs and that's all that matters to them ... Very, very sad to see.

[dougolat]

32. They are committing to delaying the use of multiple alternatives.

Just watch, Keystone is next.

[truebluegreen]

38. That's because fossil fuels ARE Bad! Oil is BAD!

Burning them is killing the planet and will kill us, too; spilling them everywhere and polluting our soil and water just speeds up the process. There is NO safe way to use them, and instead of this BS about "cleaner natural gas" and/or needing a bridge fuel before we get to renewables, we can and should be moving to renewables yesterday.

There is NO free market solution to this. No energy company is willingly going to develop a product that puts them out of business...but that's where we need them to be.

[hifiguy]

22. No. Nae. Never.

No more corporatist Democrats.

[bvar22]

34. I FOUGHT HARD against the "Moderate Republicans" policies back in the 80s.

....and NOW I am supposed to vote for them?


I think NOT.


--bvar22
A mainstream, Center FDR Democrat

[marble falls]

24. Whose State Department former Presidential candidate head was responsible for initializing this?

[hughee99]

26. Clearly, this is Bush's fault...

That's all I got.

[PatrickforO]

29. Arctic drilling is a really BAD idea.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. To play the devil's advocate, here, how many of the people opposed don't drive a car?

I mean, as long as we- and let's be honest, "we" pretty much includes all of us- are using fossil fuels, those fuels are gonna come from somewhere.

Maybe the thing to do is take some of that profit from domestically produced oil and channel it into massive increases in research funding into game-changing energy technologies.

[MerryBlooms]

39. Unless everything in your home was personally acquired by hand and produced by hand,

and personally packed in on your back, the fossil fuel industry was involved-- every.single.thing. However, there is NO reason to be drilling in climate sensitive areas. None. I'm terribly disappointed in the Obama administration on this one.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Still, the larger problem is fossil fuels in general. And as long as we're all using them, they need

to come from somewhere.

I'm not saying I support this either, but it's not really the core of the issue. And the fact of the matter is, there isn't anywhere on the planet to drill that isn't "climate sensitive". It seems as though the objections to this particular locale are philosophical, i.e. we shouldn't take advantage of drilling which is only made possible because of already in progress climate change. But in reality it doesn't matter all that much where the oil comes from - except that some sources, like tar sands, are more energy-intensive to produce- what matters is the CO2 it puts into the atmospheric cycle.

[MerryBlooms]

43. I was using your/you in the collective...

I figured since you're a lefty like the rest of us, you'd have major reservations. Sorry I wasn't clear on that and in no way did I mean to insult or insinuate you were in favor.

I think the US needs to be a leader in setting guidelines in drilling. Yes, I suppose every area is 'climate sensitive', the already fragile arctic though, is extremely vulnerable.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

31. I know this one! A troll paid by Exxon/Mobil.

[NuclearDem]

33. No, because it's a monumentally stupid idea.

[neverforget]

40. What could possibly go wrong drilling in the harshest environment on Earth?

The oil companies got this!!

[CanonRay]

42. I'll pass, it's indefensible.

[AuntPatsy]

44. No

[raouldukelives]

46. Not publicly.

Privately, some are one of the many owners of oil corporations who not only defend it, they demand it happens.