Obama To Seek Wilderness Designation For Alaska Refuge

[Webster]

Union Gazette: Obama To Seem Wilderness Designation For Alaska Refuge

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — President Barack Obama is proposing to designate the vast majority of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a wilderness location, which includes its potentially oil-rich coastal plain, drawing an angry response from major state elected officials who see it as a land grab by the federal government.

"They've decided that right now was the day that they have been going to declare war on Alaska. Well, we are ready to engage," stated U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and chair of the Senate power committee.

The designation would set aside an extra 12.2 million acres as wilderness, including the coastal plain on Alaska's northeast corner, providing it the highest degree of federal protection obtainable to public lands. Far more than 7 million acres of the refuge currently are managed as wilderness.

The refuge's coastal plain has extended been at the center of the struggle involving conservationists and advocates of greater energy exploration in the U.S. Political leaders in Alaska have supported allowing for exploration and production inside the coastal plain. They have opposed attempts to further restrict improvement on federal lands, which comprise about two-thirds of the state, like inside the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.

A resolution passed the state Legislature with bipartisan assistance final year urging Congress to enable for exploration and improvement on the coastal plain. A federal lawsuit brought by the state more than the Interior Department's refusal to think about a proposed exploration strategy for the refuge's coastal plain is pending. The state in 2013 proposed an exploration plan that it said was aimed at determining the true oil and gas potential in the refuge.

The Republican congressional delegation, along with Alaska's new governor, Bill Walker, sent out a joint news release Sunday morning calling the action "an unprecedented assault on Alaska." Walker changed his GOP affiliation to undeclared in operating for workplace last year.

In a White Property video released Sunday, Obama said he is looking for the designation "so we can make confident that this awesome wonder is preserved for future generations."

The Interior Department issued a comprehensive plan Sunday that for the 1st time recommended the added protections. If Congress agrees, it would be the largest wilderness designation since passage of the Wilderness Act in the 1960s, the agency said.

Having said that, the proposal is likely to face stiff resistance in the Republican-controlled Congress. Murkowski said in an interview that Obama is going immediately after one thing "that is not possible in this Congress." She mentioned she sees it as an attempt by the administration to "score some environmental points" and to rile passions ahead of yet another announcement by Interior in the coming days that Murkowski stated she was told would propose putting off-limits to improvement specific areas of the offshore Arctic.

Murkowski mentioned she spoke with Interior Secretary Sally Jewell and Jewell's chief of staff in the last few days.

An Interior Division spokeswoman, responding by email Sunday, did not supply specifics but said a proposed 5-year offshore drilling strategy is forthcoming and that environmental testimonials of lease places in the Arctic waters off Alaska's shores are underway.

The department pegged the timing of Obama's announcement in element to recent legislation proposed in Congress and talks involving potentially opening the refuge to development. Earlier this month, U.S. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, introduced a bill that would allow for improvement on the coastal plain. On Wednesday, in his initial State of the State speech, Walker talked about operating with the congressional delegation to tap the oil within the refuge. Murkowski referenced the refuge — and the financial benefits that she mentioned could come from tapping a component of the refuge — in an energy-focused Republican weekly address on Saturday.

Murkowski, who also chairs the Interior appropriations subcommittee, said Sunday that the days of Obama administration officials realizing they can call her and get a contact back are performed.

Young, in a statement, named the proposed wilderness delegation a violation of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. "Just place, this wholesale land grab, this widespread attack on our people today and our way of life, is disgusting," he stated.

Conservation groups hailed Obama's announcement.

David Houghton, president of the National Wildlife Refuge Association, said in a statement released by conservation and some Native organizations that the refuge's coastal plain "is 1 of the final places on earth that has been undisturbed by humans, and we owe it to our young children and their young children to permanently defend this invaluable resource."

Robert Thompson, who lives within the refuge's borders at Kaktovik and is chairman of the group Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands, worries that oil and gas development would displace Native subsistence activities. He mentioned he was pleased with Obama's action, even if it is symbolic.

Thoughts?

 

[+paradox]

it should be protected against the evil and greedy oil companies that give two shits about the, wildlife, land, air and the environment...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Can Obama shoot himself in the foot for once instead of our country. Not allowing us to use our own resources is suicide. And all who oppose it need to sell there cars, turn off the power to there homes and forfeit all there electronics.

 

[DrLeftover]

His "oil drilling is bad" video is posted in Off Topix's Laugh Lounge.

There's a reason it belongs there:

President Barack Obama released an anti-oil drilling environmental video shot aboard Air Force One–an aircraft that has a 53,611 gallon fuel capacity.

http://offtopix.com/showthread.php?tid=34006

 

[+paradox]

america is getting plenty of our oil and gas from where we are currently getting it from, we don't need to go into alaska and start to destroy that place when we don't need/have to...

america is independent and the top exporter of oil, even out beating the saudis...

there's plenty of leaks in alberta, canada that never gets media coverage and brushed under the rug, like how they tried when the gulf of mexico fiasco happened, but they couldn't keep that under control so it couldn't be hushed hushed like how in alberta...

just because people are against drilling in alaska, doesn't make them environmentalists or nutty, it's because they are smart and have common sense...

i still can't believe so many people are still for big oil and gas companies destroying the planet like it's nothing...


"if you're against the oil companies then might as well turn off your computers and get rid of your cars."

it's just like saying, if you're against isis and/or the terrorists, then you go over there and fight them, instead of sitting on your couch, eating big macs and complaining about terrorism when you just get fallacy spoon fed news from the zionists owned/ran media of bs and lies...

 

[Webster]

Can Obama shoot himself in the foot for once instead of our country. Not allowing us to use our own resources is suicide. And all who oppose it need to sell there cars, turn off the power to there homes and forfeit all there electronics.

I should also point out that the people who oppose it are often the same people who oppose nuclear power because of the risk that it's going to explode. And it's the same people who oppose wind turbines because they ruin views and beauty spots.

Of course, all of our energy sources have problems associated with them. But, ultimately, we need to get our energy from somewhere.

Kyngz's got a point their....unless there's some problem-free source of energy somewhere - *deadpans* Freezy, shut up a second and let me finish here - whatever source of energy you choose is going to have some problem associated with it.

*looks over towards Freezy* Apologies for tellin' ya' to shut up there, but I wanted to get my point in before you chimed back into the discussion...

 

[+paradox]

i have not heard of one person that's against wind turbines at all, let alone because it "messes up the beauty landscape"...

most wind turbines are located in rural flat-lands, that's people rarely see or go to...

oh, and wind power is clean energy and doesn't have an everlasting affect on the environment, landscape and the wildlife...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Can Obama shoot himself in the foot for once instead of our country. Not allowing us to use our own resources is suicide. And all who oppose it need to sell there cars, turn off the power to there homes and forfeit all there electronics.

I should also point out that the people who oppose it are often the same people who oppose nuclear power because of the risk that it's going to explode. And it's the same people who oppose wind turbines because they ruin views and beauty spots.

Of course, all of our energy sources have problems associated with them. But, ultimately, we need to get our energy from somewhere.

I for one am for all means of producing energy as long as the government does not subsidize any of it like crappy reliability of wind and solar power. Otherwise let private industry go hog wild.
------------------------------------------------------------------

america is getting plenty of our oil and gas from where we are currently getting it from, we don't need to go into alaska and start to destroy that place when we don't need/have to...

america is independent and the top exporter of oil, even out beating the saudis...

there's plenty of leaks in alberta, canada that never gets media coverage and brushed under the rug, like how they tried when the gulf of mexico fiasco happened, but they couldn't keep that under control so it couldn't be hushed hushed like how in alberta...

just because people are against drilling in alaska, doesn't make them environmentalists or nutty, it's because they are smart and have common sense...

i still can't believe so many people are still for big oil and gas companies destroying the planet like it's nothing...


"if you're against the oil companies then might as well turn off your computers and get rid of your cars."

it's just like saying, if you're against isis and/or the terrorists, then you go over there and fight them, instead of sitting on your couch, eating big macs and complaining about terrorism when you just get fallacy spoon fed news from the zionists owned/ran media of bs and lies...

We have plenty of energy now but to cut off any possibility ever to use such energy is ignorant. And that is what the dear leader is saying. And the fact that this fallacy is in place we can not get this energy in a minimal damaging way is also a fallacy.



Horrible analogy! Try again.
------------------------------------------------------------------

i have not heard of one person that's against wind turbines at all, let alone because it "messes up the beauty landscape"...

most wind turbines are located in rural flat-lands, that's people rarely see or go to...

oh, and wind power is clean energy and doesn't have an everlasting affect on the environment, landscape and the wildlife...

Let me help you............


Bad Vibes: Why Some People Are Against Wind Turbines
“It makes you sick—you have to leave your home,” says Doreen as we sit around the Reillys’ kitchen table after work one evening. A 49-year-old hospital registrar who usually works a swing shift, she tears up from time to time as she talks about the turbine.
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2014/01/28/wind-turbines/






Mothers Against Wind Turbines Inc. | Protecting our children ...
http://mothersagainstturbines.com/







Together Against Wind | Collective Strength Cohesive ..
The Mission – to ensure that wind farms and wind turbines cannot be imposed on communities that don’t want them.

The sole purpose of “Together Against Wind” is to provide an effective link between the Houses of Parliament and both individuals and Groups campaigning against the proliferation of wind turbines across large areas of our countryside.
http://www.togetheragainstwind.com/








Doctors blow the whistle on wind turbines

An impressive number of health practitioners, researchers, and acousticians around the world are voicing their concern about the effects of wind turbines on people’s health (1). The list was just published by the Waubra Foundation, the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW), and the North American Platform Against Windpower (NA-PAW), the latter two representing more than 600 associations of windfarm victims from 27 countries. These health professionals should be honored, assert the three NGOs: It takes courage to uphold the rights of victims against the powerful coalition of vested interests that supports the wind industry.
http://www.na-paw.org/pr-130304.php




There are pages and pages of people against turbines for there adverse health effects.

 

[+paradox]

regardless of that nonsense above @liberty, there's plenty of gas and oil that's coming out of america's ground, there's plenty of reserves out of the ground and there's plenty of gas and oil that's being sold and exported out of america... there's so much gas and oil in the ground where we are currently fracking and grilling that will last hundreds of years, there's no reason or point to go into alaska and ruin that state and wilderness...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

regardless of that nonsense above @liberty, there's plenty of gas and oil that's coming out of america's ground, there's plenty of reserves out of the ground and there's plenty of gas and oil that's being sold and exported out of america... there's so much gas and oil in the ground where we are currently fracking and grilling that will last hundreds of years, there's no reason or point to go into alaska and ruin that state and wilderness...

Whats nonsense about it?

And I do believe I said we do have enough energy for now. But to try and make a law you can never ever use a energy source ever it stupid.

 

[+paradox]

regardless of that nonsense above @liberty, there's plenty of gas and oil that's coming out of america's ground, there's plenty of reserves out of the ground and there's plenty of gas and oil that's being sold and exported out of america... there's so much gas and oil in the ground where we are currently fracking and grilling that will last hundreds of years, there's no reason or point to go into alaska and ruin that state and wilderness...

Whats nonsense about it?

And I do believe I said we do have enough energy for now. But to try and make a law you can never ever use a energy source ever it stupid.

then lets destroy the whole damn earth and kill all the animals for your precious black gold...

do you hear what you say sometimes? let me frack and drill for oil in your back yard, i'm sure you wont mind it...

while we're at it, lets not have any laws at all, so i can go all up in your house and take your stuff then leave as i please... i'm sure you wont be needing this and that...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

regardless of that nonsense above @liberty, there's plenty of gas and oil that's coming out of america's ground, there's plenty of reserves out of the ground and there's plenty of gas and oil that's being sold and exported out of america... there's so much gas and oil in the ground where we are currently fracking and grilling that will last hundreds of years, there's no reason or point to go into alaska and ruin that state and wilderness...

Whats nonsense about it?

And I do believe I said we do have enough energy for now. But to try and make a law you can never ever use a energy source ever it stupid.

then lets destroy the whole damn earth and kill all the animals for your precious black gold...

do you hear what you say sometimes? let me frack and drill for oil in your back yard, i'm sure you wont mind it...

while we're at it, lets not have any laws at all, so i can go all up in your house and take your stuff then leave as i please... i'm sure you wont be needing this and that...

Nobody with any sense wants to destroy the earth and all thats on it. This can be done with limited impact on the environment with sensible rules on how it can be done. It is being done with limited impact on the environment around them.

Yes common sense.

If I have something worth fracking in MY backyard lets get going today. And if it is my neighbor then let him do as he or she wishes on there property.

Who is talking no laws?

 

[+paradox]

regardless of that nonsense above @liberty, there's plenty of gas and oil that's coming out of america's ground, there's plenty of reserves out of the ground and there's plenty of gas and oil that's being sold and exported out of america... there's so much gas and oil in the ground where we are currently fracking and grilling that will last hundreds of years, there's no reason or point to go into alaska and ruin that state and wilderness...

Whats nonsense about it?

And I do believe I said we do have enough energy for now. But to try and make a law you can never ever use a energy source ever it stupid.

then lets destroy the whole damn earth and kill all the animals for your precious black gold...

do you hear what you say sometimes? let me frack and drill for oil in your back yard, i'm sure you wont mind it...

while we're at it, lets not have any laws at all, so i can go all up in your house and take your stuff then leave as i please... i'm sure you wont be needing this and that...

Nobody with any sense wants to destroy the earth and all thats on it. This can be done with limited impact on the environment with sensible rules on how it can be done. It is being done with limited impact on the environment around them.
that's what fracking and drilling does, it destroys the earth, slowly but surely, and it's been proven before that "accidents" kill large amounts of animals and lakes... even with rules and regulations...


Yes common sense.
more like no sense at all...


If I have something worth fracking in MY backyard lets get going today.
alright, lets just get your address and i'll be right over to do some tests and escalating for that black gold that you lust over... lets get started!

And if it is my neighbor then let him do as he or she wishes on there property.
that's the thing though, people are getting their land taken away by force, and a lot of natives aren't happy about these companies going into their back yards, but you can give two shits about them because of your lust over black gold...


Who is talking no laws?
you said making a law is stupid, so i then said lets not have any laws then...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

That is about as accurate as global warming which means it isn't.


We will disagree once again.


If Florida had it I would say go for it right now if there was evidence it was there.


That is a different story about personal land rights. Not people who own there land and the rights of the states to decide what's best for there own interests on public land.


You know what I meant.