Blue Party's GREEN-Centric Energy Plan Will Result in Black, Brown and Red for the Red, White & Blue

BARACK OBAMA: NEW ENERGY FOR AMERICA

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf



[GREEN = $$ Costly renewable portfolio standards promoting politically favored energy sources that states can ill-afford to pay rebates on, and that bypass available and less costly energy sources such as clean coal, nuclear energy, liquified natural gas, hydropower, geothermal power and shale and offshore drilling; high cost environmental greenhouse gas cap & trade regulations imposed on businesses & consumers that will filter throughout all sectors of the economy and result in a higher cost of living for all citizens. See, e.g. http://energy.maryland.gov/incentives/residential/solargrants/index.asp ; http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/energy/cwp/view.asp?a=1374&q=483024 ; http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reinsider/story?id=48217; http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=48686 ; http://cleantechnica.com/2008/06/25/new-jersey-may-end-solar-rebate-program-in-order-to-grow-market-faster/
BLACK = Blackouts - due to insufficient energy infrastructure capacity resulting from the GREEN energy policies above which preclude new coal, nuclear builds, shale and offshore oil & natural gas drilling.
BROWN = Brownouts - where the voltage level is below the normal minimum level specified for the system. Some brownouts, called voltage reductions, are made intentionally to prevent a full power outage. See Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_outage
RED = Business interruption/operating losses, business and residential casualty losses, vandalism losses and property theft losses; loss of drinking water, violence in the streets during BLACKOUTS & BROWNOUTS. For example, The Northeast Blackout of 2003 was a massive widespread power outage that occurred throughout parts of the Northeastern and Midwestern United States, and Ontario, Canada on Thursday, August 14, 2003. Although not affecting as many people as the later 2003 Italy blackout, it was the largest blackout in North American history. It affected an estimated 10 million people in the province of Ontario (about one-third of the population of Canada) and 40 million people in eight U.S. states (about one-seventh of the population of the U.S.).[1] Outage-related financial losses were estimated at $6 billion USD. See Wikipedia, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Blackout_of_2003 ; "Northeast Residents Struggle With Effects of Blackout", USA Today (8/14/03) at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-08-14-power-out_x.htm. During July 1977, the lights went out in New York City...the second blackout in twelve years. The purr of air conditioners, cooling millions of New Yorkers, was replaced by stultifying silence-and then the sound of breaking glass. See "1977 New York Blackout", Blackout History Project, at: http://www.blackout.gmu.edu/events/tl1977.html ; Robert Klara, "When New York City's Lights All Went Out", Book Review of James Goodman, "Blackout" (Northpoint Press 2005(c) at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0719/p14s03-bogn.html ; "1965 Great Northeast Blackout", Blackout History Project at: http://blackout.gmu.edu/events/tl1965.html. See also "Heat Wave Nearly Causes Rolling Blackouts in California", New York Times (Aug. 2, 2000) at: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01EEDE1E3DF931A3575BC0A9669C8B63&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FW%2FWeather ; "Rolling Blackouts Circular", The Los Angeles Police Department, at: http://www.lapdonline.org/get_informed/content_basic_view/23511
Eugene Tucker, "Crime and Disaster", Business
Recovery Managers Association newsletter (Sep. 2001), at: http://www.praetorianprotective.com/Crime_Disaster.pdf


Wouldn't a more intelligent Energy Plan permit market forces and individual entrepreneurship to secure offgrid/grid-independent energy sources and other means to ensure the power stays on?? See Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr, "The Real Cause of Blackouts", Ludwig Von Mises Institute (7/27/06) at: http://mises.org/story/2264 ].

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/25/power-hungry/

Appetite for electricity could bring blackouts back


ASSOCIATED PRESS


Washington Times


August 25, 2008


COLUMBUS, Ohio


Five years after the worst blackout in North American history, the largest power providers say the problems that turned out the lights on 50 million people have mostly been fixed.


That's not to say the country has stepped back from the brink. Potentially bigger and more damaging outages could be on the way.


Excess capacity in the system is shrinking, and construction, as well as plans for new plants, has slowed as costs to build and operate them have soared.


At the same time, it is estimated that electricity use will increase 29 percent between 2006 to 2030 - much of it driven by residential growth, according to a government report issued in June.


"I'm really not a Chicken Little player, but I worry that no one seems to be focusing in on this," said Michael Morris, chairman, president and chief executive of American Electric Power Co. Inc., which runs the nation's largest electricity transmission system.


Mr. Morris said massive outages this year in South Africa, which forced gold, diamond and platinum mines to stop production for five days, should serve as a warning to the United States.


Industry experts back Mr. Morris and say there is even more resistance to building new plants due to the debate over climate change and opposition to new transmission lines.


"The level of excess capacity has shrunk down in the last few years to a level barely within the planning toleration of the industry," said Marc Chupka, a principal with the Brattle Group, an energy consultant.


The blackout five years ago shut off power to vast swaths of the Northeast and Midwest for as much as four days. Rolling blackouts continued in Ontario for a week.


Hundreds of thousands of people lost access to tap water for days in Ohio, and the mayor of Cleveland accused shop owners of gouging people in need of drinking water.


Millions of New Yorkers, with subways shut down and office towers darkened, left the city on foot.


A U.S.-Canadian government task force largely blamed Akron, Ohio-based FirstEnergy Corp. for allowing a local power failure near Cleveland to cascade to the East Coast and into Canada.


Industry experts say changes have been made to protect against a similar outage that caused as much as $10 billion in damages to the U.S. economy.


But Mr. Morris fears that in 10 to 20 years there may be greater blackouts as demand surpasses supply.


"Just think of the economic hardship that would render," he said.


Rick Sergel, president of the North American Electric Reliability Corp. of Princeton, N.J., the agency that oversees the nation's power grid, agrees with Mr. Morris.


"We're to the point where we need every possible resource: renewables, demand response and energy efficiency, nuclear, clean coal - you name it, we need it," he said. "And we especially need the transmission lines that will bring the power generated by these new resources to consumers."


But even as Americans demand more power to feed flat-screen TVs, video games, surround-sound systems and appliances, there is broad opposition to infrastructure that experts say is needed, and the costs are only going up.


Construction of coal-fired generating plants has almost stopped and new nuclear plants are years away, if they are approved at all, said Arshad Mansoor, vice president of power delivery and utilization for the Electric Power Research Institute. Better efficiency will only go so far, he said.


"If you don't have generation and transmission ... something has to give," he said, and that could be a blackout or brownout.


AEP recently announced efforts to expand the nation's transmission system. It will partner with Duke Energy in a $1 billion proposal to build 240 miles of transmission lines. Similar deals have been announced in Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas and West Virginia to Maryland, some including the use of wind power.


Yet infrastructure projects take a lot of time. AEP announced a plan for a transmission line in West Virginia and Virginia in 1990 that was not finished until last year, due mostly to the regulatory approval process.


Power plants are an even bigger problem, Mr. Morris said, particularly for coal and nuclear power. In Kansas, for example, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has blocked plans for two coal-fired power plants.


In conjunction with the anniversary of the blackout, FirstEnergy announced several technological improvements and greater efforts to keep its 11,000 miles of high transmission lines free of trees.


A tree brushed a power line in Ohio in 2003, according to the task force report, setting off cascading outages.


The task force also blamed poorly trained grid managers, a lack of communication among power providers. Utilities have spent millions on improvements.


"The event was a major crisis and did probably force something to happen that would have otherwise not happened," Larry Makovich, vice president/senior power adviser for Cambridge Energy Research Associates in Cambridge, Mass.


But Mr. Morris sees a potentially dire situation ahead, including power rationing that occurred in South Africa when that nation, on a 14-year growth spurt following the end of apartheid, virtually turned itself off.


"It would ruin the economy," Mr. Morris said.


Industry experts say it is easy for those in Washington and across the country to forget what happened five years ago, which they say will occur again on a grander scale if nothing is done.


Mr. Makovich said the U.S. had its own warning five years ago.


"It's easy to take the power infrastructure for granted until something goes wrong," he said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/denver_dnc/article/0,3159,DRMN_29216_5593892,00.html

Blue party, green plans for Dem convention

Denver convention hopes to expand on environmentally friendly initiatives in Boston in '04

By Stuart Steers

Rocky Mountain News

June 20, 2007

Blue is the color of Democratic territory on the national map, but green will be the unofficial color of next summer's Democratic National Convention.


Party officials are vowing to make the convention the most environmentally friendly gathering in memory.


Thousands of delegates will be encouraged to ride bicycles between their hotels and the Pepsi Center, to recycle everything from confetti to coffee cups and to buy "carbon offsets" to repair the damage done from travelers flying to Denver from around the world.


"It will be the greenest convention we've ever had," said Leah Daughtry, CEO of the convention.


"We want to incorporate green principles into everything we do."

Why Won't Congress Approve Offshore Oil Drilling to Combat Record High Fuel Prices? Are They Pandering to Environmentalists at Consumers' Expense??

http://onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=165930

Domestic drilling split along party lines


By Jim Brown


OneNewsNow


7/8/2008


A veteran U.S. senator from Iowa laments that members of Congress beholden to the environmentalist lobby are still blocking domestic oil drilling opportunities as gas prices continue to skyrocket.


Last week in response to a question regarding soaring oil prices, President Bush called on American consumers to write their members of Congress and urge them to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the Outer Continental Shelf for oil drilling and to increase oil shale exploration.


Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) says there is not much division among the two parties on the need for more renewable energy sources and conservation -- but the Senate, he says, is deadlocked on oil drilling.


"I'd say 45 out of 49 [Republicans] want to drill almost every place where you can drill in the United States; and Democrats, except for one or two, are taking the view that we should not be drilling," says Grassley.


"That's the environmentalist point of view, and they respond to that environmentalist point of view to a great extent." [THIS SOUNDS EXACTLY LIKE WHAT THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION & EU PARLIAMENT DO - EMBRACE THE ENVIRONMENTALIST POSITION, NO MATTER THE COST TO CONSUMERS].


The Iowa Republican says he is constantly being asked why Congress will not approve oil drilling in the ANWR to combat record high fuel prices.


Two months ago, he says, constituents were not asking him that question. "Boy, I'm telling you, it's coming up at my town meetings in the last month. It's coming up in polls," he remarks. "And we're hoping that there's going to be a shift of opinion among Democrats to support more drilling.


But right now it's deadlocked with the end result that some people are willing to import more oil and send $140 [per barrel] overseas instead of keeping it in the United States."


Grassley says drilling in Alaska will yield 13 billion barrels of oil, but there is even more than that in the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/energy-bill-out-of-gas-2008-07-07.html

Energy bill out of gas


By Jared Allen and Mike Soraghan


07/07/08


House Democrats are in a bind on the focal point of their energy plan.


Worried that a floor vote on any energy-related measure would trigger a Republican-forced vote on domestic drilling, the leadership has scrubbed the floor schedule of the energy legislation that it vowed to tackle after the Fourth of July recess.


Just before leaving for their districts, a number of House Democrats called a press conference to declare victory on a number of energy bills — including overwhelming passage of a bill to rein in excessive oil market speculation.


Democrats declared victory on a bill they failed to pass on the suspension calendar — their “use it or lose it bill” to force energy companies to either start drilling on their federally leased land or give it back — saying they had put 176 Republicans on record as siding with the oil companies over consumers.


And they vowed that the bill, the centerpiece of their energy message, would be back.


“We’ve taken some bold steps this week, and we’re going to build on that [after recess] with the bills we take up,” Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman John Larson (Conn.) said at the press conference.


But, as of Monday afternoon, neither “use it or lose it” nor any other energy measure had been scheduled for floor action this week.


Democrats said they were simply taking a different approach to passing their top energy-related priorities.


Nadeam Elshami, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said energy activity this week is taking place at the committee level, noting that there are four hearings planned on the issue of speculation in oil trading.


“Different members have different ideas,” Elshami said. “We’ll bring forward the best piece of legislation based on the recommendations and hearings we are having this week.”


Republicans pounced, saying Democrats were backtracking after realizing they would be unable to defeat a Republican vote on increased domestic oil drilling in new areas.


“It’s panic time for Democrats,” said a senior Republican aide. “They are on the wrong side of three-quarters of the American people who support increased production of American-made energy.”


While Democrats were in their districts advocating their plans to end gas price-gouging, rein in speculation, pass “use it or lose it” and even call for President Bush to release millions of barrels of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), Republicans were touting polls showing that a healthy majority of Americans now support increased domestic energy production.


That is proving to be a particular concern for Democrats in that any non-suspension-calendar energy vote would be subject to a Republican alternative, almost certainly calling for offshore and Arctic drilling, that would very likely pass.


“If we could send deepwater drilling over, it would pass the Senate,” said a Republican leadership aide, highlighting just how much an energy vote could backfire on Democrats.


A senior Democratic leadership aide acknowledged this week that there are plenty of members of the majority caucus “who want to drill and want to drill where Republicans want to drill.”


Even if Democratic leaders could beat back a GOP motion on drilling, the vote could be used as political ammunition against their vulnerable members this fall.


The Democratic setbacks come after they scored a political victory this spring when they overwhelmingly passed an SPR bill over initial White House objections. But Republicans now claim they have the upper hand, noting that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is citing drilling repeatedly on the campaign trail.


Further complicating matters for Democrats is the growing number of pro-drilling Democrats who are becoming increasingly worried that voters might throw them in with their anti-drilling leadership.


One pro-drilling Democrat predicted that the backlash against Congress for gas prices could rival the outrage voters felt about the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.


Another, Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.), is frustrated at not being listened to.


“My concern with my leadership is that they’re not letting all the people in the room to present the facts,” said Melancon, a proponent of more offshore drilling. “Where are all the pro-oil legislators? I’m not in the room. I don’t know who is. My feeling is we are not being all-inclusive to pass legislation that can get through the Senate and avoid a veto.”


For now, though, there will be no legislation to pass, as the only energy-related action this week will occur at the committee level.


Republicans may try to continue a strategy they demonstrated before recess by forcing drilling votes as energy amendments to bills being considered at the committee level, including appropriations bills.


And Republicans may go one step further by trying to get amendments added to the energy and water appropriations bill, a likely contender to see the floor this week.


“We’re going to demand a pro-production energy vote before Congress goes home for the month of August,” said House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (Fla.). “We’ve tried to highlight efforts to solve America’s energy problem a thousand ways to Sunday, and [Democrats] keep pulling them from committee, pulling them from the floor and kicking the can down the road.”


Exactly when Democrats will change their present course and bring an energy bill to the floor remains uncertain.


“Right now, our strategy on gas prices is ‘Drive small cars and wait for the wind,’ ” said a Democratic aide.

EU Influences, Congressional Climate Change Chicanery and Environmental Extremists Continue to Hold U.S. Energy Security Hostage

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/bush-renews-call-for-offshore-oil/20080618093109990001

Bush Renews Call for Offshore Oil Drilling


By H. JOSEF HEBERT,


AP


June 18, 2008


WASHINGTON (June 18) -- With gasoline topping $4 a gallon, President Bush urged Congress on Wednesday to lift its long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, saying the United States needs to increase its energy production. Democrats quickly rejected the idea."There is no excuse for delay," the president said in a statement in the Rose Garden. With the presidential election just months away, Bush made a pointed attack on Democrats, accusing them of obstructing his energy proposals and blaming them for high gasoline costs. His proposal echoed a call by Republican presidential candidate John McCain to open the Continental Shelf for exploration.


"Families across the country are looking to Washington for a response," Bush said.


Congressional Democrats were quick to reject the push for lifting the drilling moratorium, saying oil companies already have 68 million acres offshore waters under lease that are not being developed. [???]


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Bush's proposals "another page from (an)... energy policy that was literally written by the oil industry — give away more public resources."


[MS. PELOSI PREFERS AN ENERGY POLICY WRITTEN BY THE EUROPEANS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMISTS]

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee, rejected lifting the drilling moratorium that has been supported by a succession of presidents for nearly two decades.


[MR. OBAMA WOULD PREFER HIGHER GAS, OIL PRICES, AS THE EUROPEANS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMISTS WANT, SO THAT WE COULD JOIN WITH THEM IN CLIMATE CHANGE KUMBAYA!!]


"This is not something that's going to give consumers short-term relief and it is not a long-term solution to our problems with fossil fuels generally and oil in particular," said Obama. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, lumping Bush with McCain, accused them of staging a "cynical campaign ploy" that won't help lower energy prices.


"Despite what President Bush, John McCain and their friends in the oil industry claim, we cannot drill our way out of this problem," Reid said. "The math is simple: America has just three percent of the world's oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil."


[MESSRS. OBAMA AND REID: THE MATH IS SIMPLE - WINDMILLS, SOLAR PANELS AND ETHANOL ARE NOT GOING TO MEET CURRENT OR FUTURE U.S. ENERGY NEEDS ALONE. THE U.S. NEEDS TO EXPLOIT ALL ENERGY SOURCES AND TO DEPLOY CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES ALONG THE WAY TO ADDRESS OUR IMMEDIATE ENERGY CRISIS.]


Bush said offshore drilling could yield up to 18 billion barrels of oil over time, although it would take years for production to start. Bush also said offshore drilling would take pressure off prices over time.


[THIS IS TRUE, GIVEN THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE MARKETS WHICH LOOK FOR POLICY DIRECTION AND POCKET BOOK RELIEF.]


There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by Bush's father in 1990. Bush's brother, Jeb, fiercely opposed offshore drilling when he was governor of Florida. What the president now proposes would rescind his father's decision — but the president took the position that Congress has to act first and then he would follow behind.


Asked why Bush doesn't act first and lift the ban, Keith Hennessey, the director of the president's economic council, said: "He thinks that probably the most productive way to work with this Congress is to try to do it in tandem."


Before Bush spoke, the House Appropriations Committee postponed a vote it had scheduled for Wednesday on legislation doing the opposite of what the president asked — extending Congress' ban on offshore drilling. Lawmakers said they wanted to focus on a disaster relief bill for the battered Midwest.


Bush also proposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, lifting restrictions on oil shale leasing in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and easing the regulatory process to expand oil refining capacity.


[WHILE ANWR IS NOT NECESSARY, THERE IS NO LOGICAL REASON WHY OIL SHALE LEASING IN THE GREEN RIVER BASIN OF COLORADO, UTAH AND WYOMING, AND EVEN COAL MINING IN MONTANA SHOULD NOT PROCEED IMMEDIATELY. THE ONLY REASON WHY THEY HAVE NOT PROCEEDED, IS BECAUSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMIST OPPOSITION AND CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITY SUPPORT.]


[See: Why Do Environmentalists Continue to Block Montana's Exploitation of Vast Inexpensive Coal Reserves That Could Be Made Greener With New Technologies? , ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-do-environmentalists-continue-to.html ; Are Wall Street Carbon Credit Traders So 'Invested' That They Are Blocking Exploitation of Known U.S. Oil Reserves in Montana??, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/06/are-wall-street-carbon-credit-traders.html ; Former Greenpeace Co-Founder Exposes 'Pop-Environmentalism' as the Root of Climate Change Hysteria, While Calmly Discussing Virtues of Nuclear Energy, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/04/former-greenpeace-co-founder-exposes.html .]


With Americans deeply pessimistic about the economy, Bush tried to put on the onus on Congress. He acknowledged that his new proposals would take years to have a full effect, hardly the type of news that will help drivers at the gas stations now. The White House says no quick fix exists.Still, Bush said Congress was obstructing progress — and directly contributing to consumers' pain at the pump.


"I know the Democratic leaders have opposed some of these policies in the past," Bush said. "Now that their opposition has helped drive gas prices to record levels, I ask them to reconsider their positions.


"Bush said that if congressional leaders head home for their July 4 recess without taking action, they will need to explain why "$4 a gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act. And Americans will rightly ask how high gas prices have to rise before the Democratic-controlled Congress will do something about it."


Bush said restrictions on offshore drilling have become "outdated and counterproductive.


"In a nod to the environmental arguments against drilling, Bush said technology has come a long way. These days, he said, oil exploration off the coastline can be done in a way that "is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills."


Congressional Democrats, joined by some GOP lawmakers from coastal states, have opposed lifting the prohibition that has barred energy companies from waters along both the East and West coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico for 27 years.


On Monday, McCain made lifting the federal ban on offshore oil and gas development a key part of his energy plan. McCain said states should be allowed to pursue energy exploration in waters near their coasts and get some of the royalty revenue.Obama retorted that the Arizona senator had flip-flopped on that issue.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following excerpts are taken from: Lawrence A. Kogan, ARCTIC ESCAPADES - Can The Precautionary Principle Be Invoked via UNCLOS to Undermine U.S. Polar Interests?, Prepared for the National Defense University Symposium "Unfrozen Treasures- National Security, Climate Change and the Arctic Frontier", (May 14, 2008, at pp. 47-48, at: http://www.itssd.org/Programs/KOGANIII.ppt .


►The U.S. oil & gas industries support US ratification of the UNCLOS & its application in the Arctic because U.S. environmental activists have thus far left the OCS in [the northern shores of] Alaska as the only place within the U.S. to undertake new drilling. Wouldn’t it be rational for the USG to reopen OCS drilling along the eastern & western U.S. coastlines, and to enable U.S. coastal states to share in the revenues, to ensure US energy security in the short-medium term while newer cleaner technologies are being developed???


§“Oil and gas leasing has been prohibited on most of the outer continental shelf (OCS) since the 1980s. Congress has enacted OCS leasing moratoria for each of fiscal years 1982-2006 in the annual Interior Appropriations bill, allowing leasing only in the Gulf of Mexico (except near Florida) and parts of Alaska. President George H.W. Bush in 1990 issued a Presidential Directive ordering the Department of the Interior not to conduct offshore leasing or preleasing activity in areas covered by the annual legislative moratoria until 2000. In 1998 President Clinton extended the offshore leasing prohibition until 2012. Proponents of the moratoria contend that offshore drilling would pose unacceptable environmental risks and threaten coastal tourism industries, while supporters of expanded offshore leasing counter that more domestic oil and gas production is vital for the nation’s energy security.” (See: Marc Humphries, Outer Continental Shelf: Debate Over Oil & Gas Leasing and Revenue Sharing, CRS Issue Brief for Congress (April 7, 2006) at p. CRS-1).


►U.S. environmental activists effectively invoke the Precautionary Principle – they recently sued to block ALL OCS oil & drilling around Alaska, alleging that “the Minerals Management Service did not fairly evaluate the potential effects if offshore petroleum fields were developed in the lease area...


§“Earthjustice attorney Eric Jorgensen said the lawsuit does not seek an injunction to block the sale, but asks the court to declare leases invalid if they are sold improperly. He said the groups hope federal authorities will cancel the sale based on the lawsuit and pending legislation. On Tuesday, U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., introduced legislation to prohibit oil and gas exploration in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas until the full effect on polar bear populations was understood. Jorgensen said the lawsuit seeks a more thorough environmental review.” (See: Environmentalists, Natives Sue Feds to Halt Petroleum Lease Sale in Alaska, Associated Press (Feb. 1, 2008)).



§“Environmental groups and Alaska Natives who harvest whales, seals, walrus and salmon said not one acre should have been opened for drilling until oil companies prove they can overcome a basic environmental hurdle: cleaning up a major spill in sea water that's partially covered by broken ice. No oil spill responders have demonstrated that they can clean up oil in broken ice that ranges from slush to cakes, said Margaret Williams of the World Wildlife Fund in Alaska...The same conditions that contribute to oil spill risk — darkness during the long Alaska winter, extreme cold, moving ice, high wind and low visibility — would make spill response difficult or ineffective, according to the WWF...The stakes are enormous as federal policy makers look to find new sources of domestic oil and conservation groups turn to lawsuits to protect northern marine mammals and birds already facing habitat loss from the effects of global warming on sea ice... Williams said the MMS pushed ahead with the Chukchi sale despite information gaps, including an agreement for spill cleanup with Russia. The burden to prove risk continues to fall on conservation groups, she said. The Arctic and vulnerable wildlife already are undergoing stresses with global warming and don't need more from seismic activity, marine traffic and the potential for petroleum spills, she said. (See: Icy Area Opens to Drills, But What About Spills, Associated Press (April 13, 2008)).


... ►Apparently, Ted Stevens, the U.S. Senator from Alaska, sought administration support for OCS drilling to bring jobs & economic growth to the State of Alaska, and suggested that Alaska be cited as an example of how USG OCS licensing could be structured elsewhere in the U.S. (See: Senator Stevens Asks for Bush Administration Support for OCS Revenue Sharing for Alaska, Opening ANWR, Press Release, Office of United States Senator Ted Stevens for Alaska (April 15, 2008)).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. environmental extremist groups have been notorious over the years for blocking the exploration and drilling for oil and natural gas along U.S. coastlines and up to 200 miles therefrom. However, many Americans have only begun to realize how U.S. environmental extremist groups, now backed by the 110th Congressional Majority, have long blocked the construction of use of nuclear power, clean coal technology using plants, hydroelectric power stations and of liquified natural gas terminals (even if the gas is not drilled in the US). Without any exploration and drilling over the past several decades, this type of policymaking has left the United States in an extreme energy security quandary.


The political debate seems now to be focused only on what the environmentalists will let the country do or not do. This sounds pretty similar to what occurs in the European Union, and has practically left the EU with high fuel and home heating & airconditioning costs and dependent on natural gas imports from volatile, unfriendly and/or unreliable regimes.


Is this what we want for the U.S.? Who will step into the current political leadership vacuum??


How much do Americans have to suffer before something is done??


How can the president and the congress permit the environmental extremists to kidnap and hold hostage to their demands our country's energy security and the well being of the U.S. economy???


Don't our leaders understand that the market prices of oil, gas and other energy sources is largely psychological, and that their policies and prescriptions must prudently address that psychology?


Why hasn't the president tapped the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve to relieve the pressure on oil prices??


Is it prohibited from doing so by the International Energy Agency??


"According to the United States Energy Information Administration, approximately 4.1 billion barrels (650,000,000 m³) of oil are held in strategic reserves, of which 1.4 billion is government-controlled. The remainder is held by private industry. At the moment the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve is one of the largest strategic reserves, with much of the remainder held by the other 26 members of the International Energy Agency.[1] Recently, other non-IEA countries have begun creating their own strategic petroleum reserves, with China being the largest of these new reserves. According to a March 2001 agreement, all 26 members of the International Energy Agency must have a strategic petroleum reserve equal to 90 days of oil imports for their respective country...In addition to maintaining a domestic stockpile of petroleum, several countries also have agreements to share their stockpiles in the event of an emergency...The United States has the largest reported Strategic Petroleum Reserve with a total capacity of 727 million barrels. If completely filled, the US SPR could theoretically replace about 60 days of oil imports." See Global Strategic Petroleum Reserves, Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_strategic_petroleum_reserves .


Apparently, the U.S. cannot touch its Strategic Petroleum Reserves because of the European Union dominated and climate change-focused Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) International Energy Agency Treaty by which it is bound:


"The International Energy Agency (IEA, or AIE in Romance languages) is a Paris-based intergovernmental organization founded by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1974 in the wake of the oil crisis. The IEA was initially dedicated to preventing disruptions in the supply of oil, as well as acting as an information source on statistics about the international oil market and other energy sectors. Recently, they have expanded their mandate to include energy security, economic development, and environmental protection. The latter has focused on mitigating climate change.[1] [Environment (HTML). OECD/IEA. Retrieved on 2007-12-23. ] They have a role in promoting and developing alternate energy sources, rational energy policies, and multinational energy technology co-operation. Until recently, it did not study nuclear power in detail, except as a contribution to the overall energy balance and economy. Nuclear power is also covered by the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD and the International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations.


IEA member countries are required to maintain total oil stock levels equivalent to at least 90 days of net imports. At the end of June 2007, IEA member countries held a combined stockpile of almost 4.1 billion barrels of oil, 1.5 billion of which governments control for emergency use." See International Energy Agency, Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency .


One last question for our leaders: How much longer will you permit the EU-dominated and climate change focused IEA determine U.S. emergency needs???