I agree. A Wash Post editorial http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501680.html from a few days ago summed it pretty well: If there were some way to force the oil co's to spend the income on alternative energy, it would be worth it. But then, as soon as that reg would be passed, it would only mean that all other money would not be going to alternative energy. Which, I guess, just gets me back to not wanting to drill.
Barring some miraculous scientific discovery, drilling in ANWR is inevitable. Anyone who thinks this can be prevented is totally delusional. I just want to make sure we don't waste it. Saving it for later makes a great deal of sense. It's not trivial, but it's also not much of a solution to our energy problems. It's like inheriting $20,000. It will make your life better, but not enough to affect your long term plans.
This is an interesting discussion of ANWAR, but not nearly as interesting as the fact that Ted Stevens is pushing the amendment while wearing an Incredible Hulk tie on the floor of the Senate. http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank
the estimates for the amount of oil are wide ranging. but the median number seems to be 6.5 bn barrels. hardly anything to shake a stick at...
Defeated... Looks like it will be reworked to get the funding through without the ANWR drilling provisions. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Ted, you unscrupulous bastard. ANWR is an issue that should stand or fall on it's own, not within a bill that has nothing to do with energy concerns and is important to aid Katrina victims and military families. If it can't get through on it's own merits, then it isn't worth passing.