For Immediate Release
February 18, 2004
Contact Brian Kennedy at (202) 226-9019
Activist Groups Oppose Energy Exploration...In the National Petroleum Reserve?
Washington, DC - Seven environmental litigation groups have filed suit in a U.S. District Court to stop the federal government from accessing oil in the National Petroleum Reserve, set aside by President Harding in 1923. Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA) issued the following statement:
Most Americans know that environmental organizations operate outside the realm of common sense and accountability, but this time Americans will see just how radical they have become. Suing to stop petroleum production in a petroleum reserve is like suing farmers to stop producing milk from cows. If we can't get petroleum from the National Petroleum Reserve, where can we get it?
These groups say they are pro-environment, but it is clear that they are just anti-energy, anti-American jobs, and anti-economic growth. The more they halt production at home, the more we send American jobs and money overseas to make up the difference. Last year alone, the United States sent over $100 billion worth of American jobs to foreign nations for energy that could have been produced here at home. As demand grows and so-called environmentalists continue to file lawsuits, Americans will lose more jobs and pay more for their energy. Given the choice, what taxpayer wouldn't want to spend $100 billion here on jobs, safe energy development, and a stronger economy?
There is a big difference between active environmentalism and environmental activism. Most Americans today fall into the first category, taking part in community conservation efforts and recognizing that balance must exist between man and the environment. The very shrill, vocal minority that fall into the latter category, such as those who filed this absurd lawsuit, do not believe in balance, nor can they claim to work on behalf of the environment. Their focus is on fundraising, politics, and obstruction.
The United States has the most advanced technology, the toughest safeguards, and the best workforce in the world. More domestic energy production, not less, will strengthen our economy and thus our environment. These groups have it backwards.
Full Version: Still No Common Sense
A few facts about the National Petroleum Reserve:
- 23 million acres of federal land
- largest block of federally owned land in Alaska
- largest piece of undeveloped federal land owned in the US
- President Harding set aside the oil reserve for future emergencies
- Congress transferred management of the area to the US Department of the Interior in 1976
- 2 of the top 5 reasons environmental groups state as reasons to not allow drilling are "Global Warming"
- BLM estimates that approximately 40 percent of all coal remaining in the US may underlie the Reserve
But I guess environmentalist would rather get our oil from the middle east instead of here at home where we have higher environmental standards.
- 23 million acres of federal land
- largest block of federally owned land in Alaska
- largest piece of undeveloped federal land owned in the US
- President Harding set aside the oil reserve for future emergencies
- Congress transferred management of the area to the US Department of the Interior in 1976
- 2 of the top 5 reasons environmental groups state as reasons to not allow drilling are "Global Warming"
- BLM estimates that approximately 40 percent of all coal remaining in the US may underlie the Reserve
But I guess environmentalist would rather get our oil from the middle east instead of here at home where we have higher environmental standards.
Which seven groups filed suit?
| QUOTE (KingGlamis @ Feb 19 2004, 07:57 AM) |
| Which seven groups filed suit? |
Good question... I'll see what I can dig up.
Vicki
Well, unfortunately it was as I'm sure we all suspected. This is from one of the black hats...
Conservationists Challenge U.S. Leasing Decision in Nat. Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; Lawsuit Highlights Violations of Federal Environmental Laws
2/17/04 2:34:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: National and State desks, Environment Reporter
Contact: Deidre McDonnell of Earthjustice, 907-586-2751; (additional contacts below)
JUNEAU, Alaska, Feb. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In an effort to restore a balance between development and wildlife protection in Alaska's western arctic, conservation groups announced today a lawsuit challenging a plan to open up the entire northwest portion of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (the Reserve) to oil and gas leasing. The groups contend the Jan. 22, 2004 decision to open 100 percent of the 8.8-million-acre northwest portion of the Reserve fails to permanently protect any of the region's most important wildlife habitat or hunting and fishing grounds.
Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are named in the suit, which alleges that the Jan. 22 decision violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act among other laws, and that the agencies did not adequately assess the impacts from and alternatives to oil development in the Reserve, which is located in America's western arctic.
"The administration had a chance to strike a real balance between conservation and development in the western arctic, but instead they took the most extreme option," said Deirdre McDonnell, attorney for Earthjustice in Juneau. "Instead of looking for the middle ground, they said, 'Let's drill it all: permanently protect nothing, make environmental rules even weaker, and put wildlife and people at risk.'"
The Reserve contains the country's largest block of unprotected land, including areas of unsurpassed beauty and essential habitat that are vital for wildlife and for the people who depend on them for subsistence.
Conservationists challenge that the administration's decision to open so much of the Reserve to oil and gas leasing ignores the need for permanent protection for sensitive wildlife habitat and makes misleading claims about the effects of oil and gas development.
The lawsuit highlights several violations of federal environmental law. The decision violates the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to provide adequate analysis of potential oil and gas leasing and development activities in the Reserve, the impacts of these activities, or the proposed mitigation measures.
"The Department of the Interior was hoping that no one would look closely at what they're doing in the western arctic," said Eleanor Huffines, the Wilderness Society's Alaska region director. "But when you read the details of their plans, all their claims about protecting special areas turn out to be smoke and mirrors. The 'special areas' don't get special treatment, and the 'strict environmental rules' are weaker than what we have now."
The agency failed to consider all reasonable alternatives to the lease-it-all course adopted by Secretary Norton. Audubon Alaska -- the National Audubon Society's Alaska State Office -- published a report outlining a wildlife habitat alternative in December 2002, which was supported by tens of thousands of public comments, but it was never taken seriously by the BLM.
"The Interior Department has ignored the public, the science, and the law in the rush to open every possible acre of the western Arctic to oil drilling," said Stan Senner. "Audubon's two-year study demonstrated that the Reserve is large enough to balance oil drilling and wildlife protection, if you protect the right places. We're asking Interior to go back and try again. And, this time, to do it right."
The status of threatened bird species that could be adversely affected by oil and gas development is also ignored in the decision. The Reserve contains extremely important breeding, molting, and migrating habitat for birds, including Steller's and spectacled eiders, which are listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act, and the rare yellow-billed loon.
"The USFWS has a clear obligation to ensure that their actions will not jeopardize the survival of these threatened birds," said Corrie Bosman, Alaska program director with the Center for Biological Diversity based in Sitka, Alaska. "By approving this project without carefully considering the full impacts of additional oil and gas leasing on the eiders and their habitat, the USFWS has violated the law and put the survival of these species at risk," Bosman said.
"The Reserve is supposed to be our oil of last resort. We didn't tap it during World War II and we don't need to destroy its most important habitat areas now. This is just another oil patch on the road to progress by an administration bent on doing anything to delay the development of clean fuel sources," said Charles Clusen, Alaska project director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The lawsuit was filed Monday, Feb. 16, in federal district court in Juneau by Earthjustice on behalf of the Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and The Wilderness Society.
For More Information, contact:
Deidre McDonnell, Earthjustice, 907-586-2751
Eleanor Huffines, The Wilderness Society, 907-272-9453
Stan Senner, National Audubon Society, 907-276-7034
Lexi Keogh, Alaska Wilderness League, 202-544-5205
Elliott Negin, Natural Resources Defense Council, 202-289-2405
http://www.usnewswire.com/
Conservationists Challenge U.S. Leasing Decision in Nat. Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; Lawsuit Highlights Violations of Federal Environmental Laws
2/17/04 2:34:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: National and State desks, Environment Reporter
Contact: Deidre McDonnell of Earthjustice, 907-586-2751; (additional contacts below)
JUNEAU, Alaska, Feb. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In an effort to restore a balance between development and wildlife protection in Alaska's western arctic, conservation groups announced today a lawsuit challenging a plan to open up the entire northwest portion of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (the Reserve) to oil and gas leasing. The groups contend the Jan. 22, 2004 decision to open 100 percent of the 8.8-million-acre northwest portion of the Reserve fails to permanently protect any of the region's most important wildlife habitat or hunting and fishing grounds.
Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are named in the suit, which alleges that the Jan. 22 decision violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act among other laws, and that the agencies did not adequately assess the impacts from and alternatives to oil development in the Reserve, which is located in America's western arctic.
"The administration had a chance to strike a real balance between conservation and development in the western arctic, but instead they took the most extreme option," said Deirdre McDonnell, attorney for Earthjustice in Juneau. "Instead of looking for the middle ground, they said, 'Let's drill it all: permanently protect nothing, make environmental rules even weaker, and put wildlife and people at risk.'"
The Reserve contains the country's largest block of unprotected land, including areas of unsurpassed beauty and essential habitat that are vital for wildlife and for the people who depend on them for subsistence.
Conservationists challenge that the administration's decision to open so much of the Reserve to oil and gas leasing ignores the need for permanent protection for sensitive wildlife habitat and makes misleading claims about the effects of oil and gas development.
The lawsuit highlights several violations of federal environmental law. The decision violates the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to provide adequate analysis of potential oil and gas leasing and development activities in the Reserve, the impacts of these activities, or the proposed mitigation measures.
"The Department of the Interior was hoping that no one would look closely at what they're doing in the western arctic," said Eleanor Huffines, the Wilderness Society's Alaska region director. "But when you read the details of their plans, all their claims about protecting special areas turn out to be smoke and mirrors. The 'special areas' don't get special treatment, and the 'strict environmental rules' are weaker than what we have now."
The agency failed to consider all reasonable alternatives to the lease-it-all course adopted by Secretary Norton. Audubon Alaska -- the National Audubon Society's Alaska State Office -- published a report outlining a wildlife habitat alternative in December 2002, which was supported by tens of thousands of public comments, but it was never taken seriously by the BLM.
"The Interior Department has ignored the public, the science, and the law in the rush to open every possible acre of the western Arctic to oil drilling," said Stan Senner. "Audubon's two-year study demonstrated that the Reserve is large enough to balance oil drilling and wildlife protection, if you protect the right places. We're asking Interior to go back and try again. And, this time, to do it right."
The status of threatened bird species that could be adversely affected by oil and gas development is also ignored in the decision. The Reserve contains extremely important breeding, molting, and migrating habitat for birds, including Steller's and spectacled eiders, which are listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act, and the rare yellow-billed loon.
"The USFWS has a clear obligation to ensure that their actions will not jeopardize the survival of these threatened birds," said Corrie Bosman, Alaska program director with the Center for Biological Diversity based in Sitka, Alaska. "By approving this project without carefully considering the full impacts of additional oil and gas leasing on the eiders and their habitat, the USFWS has violated the law and put the survival of these species at risk," Bosman said.
"The Reserve is supposed to be our oil of last resort. We didn't tap it during World War II and we don't need to destroy its most important habitat areas now. This is just another oil patch on the road to progress by an administration bent on doing anything to delay the development of clean fuel sources," said Charles Clusen, Alaska project director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The lawsuit was filed Monday, Feb. 16, in federal district court in Juneau by Earthjustice on behalf of the Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and The Wilderness Society.
For More Information, contact:
Deidre McDonnell, Earthjustice, 907-586-2751
Eleanor Huffines, The Wilderness Society, 907-272-9453
Stan Senner, National Audubon Society, 907-276-7034
Lexi Keogh, Alaska Wilderness League, 202-544-5205
Elliott Negin, Natural Resources Defense Council, 202-289-2405
http://www.usnewswire.com/
Besides some other old enemies on that list like the Sierra Club, a couple other names to make note of on that list:
National Resources Defense Council -- these guys have a lot of money and do a lot of access damage. They also were a "top sponsor" of the Rolling Stones tour a couple years ago... you remember the one, that's where the tickets were free so we could all be enlightened about global warming.
The Wilderness Society -- another old enemy that hides behind many fuzzy masks. When you get a packet in the mail asking if you'd like one of those cuddly looking calendars or some nice greeting cards with cute little bear cubs on them, check closely. Chances are that money ultimately goes to the Wilderness Society.
These groups are all very anti-human and their leaders stay warm and idle on our money.
grrrrrrrrrrr
Vicki
National Resources Defense Council -- these guys have a lot of money and do a lot of access damage. They also were a "top sponsor" of the Rolling Stones tour a couple years ago... you remember the one, that's where the tickets were free so we could all be enlightened about global warming.
The Wilderness Society -- another old enemy that hides behind many fuzzy masks. When you get a packet in the mail asking if you'd like one of those cuddly looking calendars or some nice greeting cards with cute little bear cubs on them, check closely. Chances are that money ultimately goes to the Wilderness Society.
These groups are all very anti-human and their leaders stay warm and idle on our money.
grrrrrrrrrrr
Vicki
Yet another reason to vote for Bush.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.