The PROGRESS REPORT
by Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskinwith Nico Pitney and Mipe Okunseinde
.March 17, 2005
ENVIRONMENT
For news and updates throughout the day, check out our new blog at ThinkProgress.org.
Sign up Contact us Permalinks/Archive Mobile RSS Print
ENVIRONMENT
No Refuge from Greed
"As one of his last acts in office" Republican President Dwight Eisenhower set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, "the only place in the nation where the full spectrum of arctic and sub-arctic ecosystems is protected in an unbroken continuum." The 19 million-acre refuge is a land so pristine that it has been described as "a domain for any restless soul who yearns to discover the startling beauties of creation … where life exists without molestation by man." The name given to the area by the Gwich'in tribe, the indigenous people of the region, "translates to The Sacred Place Where Life Begins." But big oil has been greedily devouring the lands surrounding this virgin wilderness area, turning them into an industrial site riddled with scores of contaminated waste sites and daily pollution spills. And now, after using backdoor tactics disapproved of by the overwhelming majority of Americans, right wingers in the Senate and White House have set the stage for big oil to drill through the very "biological heart of this untamed wilderness," with the hope of drilling in other environmentally sensitive areas.
FUZZY NUMBERS…: The United States Treasury will likely never see the drilling revenues presupposed by President Bush's 2006 budget. The budgetary estimates drastically exaggerate the price per leased acre, in some cases expecting "between 66 and 120 times the historic average." Waning industry interest in the area is also a serious factor and one of President Bush's own advisors stated, "If the government gave [the oil companies] the leases for free, they wouldn't take them."
…GET EVEN FUZZIER: The administration also is relying on a 50-50 split of the revenues between Alaska and the federal government, but "current law calls for 90 percent to go to Alaska." And it is likely that Alaskans would be ready to go to court with the federal government to protect the 90-10 split. Remarkably, it is not just the revenue but the refuge's oil itself that may never reach American consumers; Alaska's congressional delegates are loudly clamoring to restart oil exportation to foreign countries.
'A DISTRACTION, NOT A SOLUTION': Drilling in the Arctic refuge "serves neither short-term demand … nor long-term national policy." After the decade or longer it will take to begin oil production on the land, the United States Geological Service estimates the amount technically recoverable and economically profitable to recover "represents less than a year's U.S. supply." At the height of production, "the refuge would produce a paltry 1 or 2 percent of Americans' daily consumption." Tire changes and updated fuel efficiency standards could individually save more oil than is likely to be found in the refuge.
COMING SOON TO A COASTLINE NEAR YOU: If neither big oil nor the majority of Americans wants drilling in the Arctic refuge, the environmental consequences will be permanently scarring, the activities will endanger the future of an entire people as well as scores of wildlife species, and there is no way to restrict it to just one sliver of the land, why is the right wing pushing so hard for something that will do little to nothing to cure our nation's energy dependence? Precedent. In a closed door meeting with fellow conservatives, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) spoke about the "symbolism involved in opening up the refuge to drilling" as well as the precedent the move will set. DeLay's comments reveal that drilling in ANWR is "a domino game that will lead to drilling in the Rocky Mountains, off the California coast and in the Gulf of Mexico." Watch out when the moratorium on eastern Gulf drilling expires in 2007.
GLOBAL LEADERSHIP
Wolfowitz Takes It to the Bank
President Bush yesterday surprised the world with his announcement that he was nominating Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to be the next president of the World Bank. The World Bank is a 184-country institution that "has always operated by consensus." The president of the World Bank must be adept at forging international cooperation and building global compromise. Wolfowitz is a strange choice; at the Department of Defense, he was known for his go-it-alone attitude. His single-minded drive to invade Iraq and blatant disregard for building an international coalition before the war enraged and alienated much of Europe.
PLAYING WELL WITH OTHERS: This is President Bush's second aggressive nomination of a neocon hawk to an international body in the past week; last week, remember, he nominated the unilateralist, anti-U.N. John Bolton to be the U.S. ambassador to that very institution. It's in the best interests of the U.S. to work well with the World Bank, which, like the U.N., serves American interests by bringing stability to weak states, relieving the U.S. taxpayer of single-handedly taking on enormous burdens, and creating markets for our goods. Unfortunately, as the New York Times points out, "Like the nomination of John Bolton as United Nations ambassador, the choice of Mr. Wolfowitz is a slap at the international community, which widely deplored the invasion and the snubbing of the United Nations that accompanied it."
WHO NEEDS CONSENSUS?: The White House floated Wolfowitz's name to the international community a couple of weeks ago. The Bank's board made it clear to U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow that their response "was unfavorable." According to the New York Times, after the U.S. suggested Wolfowitz, the Europeans also asked "that more than one name be presented." So what did President Bush do? He ignored their request completely and instead publicly announced Wolfowitz as his choice. One source "close to the Bank" charged the appointment shows that the U.S. government "couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks."
BIG TROUBLE IN OLD EUROPE?: The United States is the largest shareholder in the World Bank; thus, the institution traditionally defers to the U.S. when it comes to the presidency. Wolfowitz, however, is such an unpopular choice that his nomination is already meeting rare resistance. The Times of London reports the surprising nomination "sparked howls of outrage from foes and a distinct lack of enthusiasm from friends" abroad, predicting a "potentially bruising fight with Washington over the post." The Washington Post agrees, reporting "speculation that a Wolfowitz candidacy could be torpedoed by the board of the bank." As German Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul said, "The storm of enthusiasm in old Europe is muted."
HIS QUALIFICATIONS: The World Bank president needs to be an effective manager. The Wall Street Journal reports, however, that's not one of Wolfowitz's strengths. He "is widely viewed as an ineffective day-to-day manager who has had trouble getting the department to run smoothly." Middle East expert Anthony Cordesman agrees with that assessment, telling USA Today, "Far too often when he thinks he has the right policy solution, he doesn't get involved in the details."
THE NUMBERS: Paul Wolfowitz stubbornly refused to listen to others going into Iraq and his myopic views led to egregious mistakes. Remember, he's the one who infamously told Congress the war would basically pay for itself, saying, "we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." Since then, the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars has reached nearly $300 billion. He attacked Gen. Eric Shinseki for suggesting the reconstruction of Iraq would take a couple hundred thousand troops, saying he was "wildly off the mark." L. Paul Bremer, the former head of the administration's Coalition Provisional Authority, however, admitted in October that "We paid a big price for not stopping it [the insurgency] because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness. We never had enough troops on the ground." Wolfowitz also has been criticized for pressuring intelligence agencies to produce false links between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and reportedly approved unethical interrogation methods that led to torture in U.S. prisons.
.March 17, 2005
ENVIRONMENT
For news and updates throughout the day, check out our new blog at ThinkProgress.org.
Sign up Contact us Permalinks/Archive Mobile RSS Print
ENVIRONMENT
No Refuge from Greed
"As one of his last acts in office" Republican President Dwight Eisenhower set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, "the only place in the nation where the full spectrum of arctic and sub-arctic ecosystems is protected in an unbroken continuum." The 19 million-acre refuge is a land so pristine that it has been described as "a domain for any restless soul who yearns to discover the startling beauties of creation … where life exists without molestation by man." The name given to the area by the Gwich'in tribe, the indigenous people of the region, "translates to The Sacred Place Where Life Begins." But big oil has been greedily devouring the lands surrounding this virgin wilderness area, turning them into an industrial site riddled with scores of contaminated waste sites and daily pollution spills. And now, after using backdoor tactics disapproved of by the overwhelming majority of Americans, right wingers in the Senate and White House have set the stage for big oil to drill through the very "biological heart of this untamed wilderness," with the hope of drilling in other environmentally sensitive areas.
FUZZY NUMBERS…: The United States Treasury will likely never see the drilling revenues presupposed by President Bush's 2006 budget. The budgetary estimates drastically exaggerate the price per leased acre, in some cases expecting "between 66 and 120 times the historic average." Waning industry interest in the area is also a serious factor and one of President Bush's own advisors stated, "If the government gave [the oil companies] the leases for free, they wouldn't take them."
…GET EVEN FUZZIER: The administration also is relying on a 50-50 split of the revenues between Alaska and the federal government, but "current law calls for 90 percent to go to Alaska." And it is likely that Alaskans would be ready to go to court with the federal government to protect the 90-10 split. Remarkably, it is not just the revenue but the refuge's oil itself that may never reach American consumers; Alaska's congressional delegates are loudly clamoring to restart oil exportation to foreign countries.
'A DISTRACTION, NOT A SOLUTION': Drilling in the Arctic refuge "serves neither short-term demand … nor long-term national policy." After the decade or longer it will take to begin oil production on the land, the United States Geological Service estimates the amount technically recoverable and economically profitable to recover "represents less than a year's U.S. supply." At the height of production, "the refuge would produce a paltry 1 or 2 percent of Americans' daily consumption." Tire changes and updated fuel efficiency standards could individually save more oil than is likely to be found in the refuge.
COMING SOON TO A COASTLINE NEAR YOU: If neither big oil nor the majority of Americans wants drilling in the Arctic refuge, the environmental consequences will be permanently scarring, the activities will endanger the future of an entire people as well as scores of wildlife species, and there is no way to restrict it to just one sliver of the land, why is the right wing pushing so hard for something that will do little to nothing to cure our nation's energy dependence? Precedent. In a closed door meeting with fellow conservatives, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) spoke about the "symbolism involved in opening up the refuge to drilling" as well as the precedent the move will set. DeLay's comments reveal that drilling in ANWR is "a domino game that will lead to drilling in the Rocky Mountains, off the California coast and in the Gulf of Mexico." Watch out when the moratorium on eastern Gulf drilling expires in 2007.
GLOBAL LEADERSHIP
Wolfowitz Takes It to the Bank
President Bush yesterday surprised the world with his announcement that he was nominating Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to be the next president of the World Bank. The World Bank is a 184-country institution that "has always operated by consensus." The president of the World Bank must be adept at forging international cooperation and building global compromise. Wolfowitz is a strange choice; at the Department of Defense, he was known for his go-it-alone attitude. His single-minded drive to invade Iraq and blatant disregard for building an international coalition before the war enraged and alienated much of Europe.
PLAYING WELL WITH OTHERS: This is President Bush's second aggressive nomination of a neocon hawk to an international body in the past week; last week, remember, he nominated the unilateralist, anti-U.N. John Bolton to be the U.S. ambassador to that very institution. It's in the best interests of the U.S. to work well with the World Bank, which, like the U.N., serves American interests by bringing stability to weak states, relieving the U.S. taxpayer of single-handedly taking on enormous burdens, and creating markets for our goods. Unfortunately, as the New York Times points out, "Like the nomination of John Bolton as United Nations ambassador, the choice of Mr. Wolfowitz is a slap at the international community, which widely deplored the invasion and the snubbing of the United Nations that accompanied it."
WHO NEEDS CONSENSUS?: The White House floated Wolfowitz's name to the international community a couple of weeks ago. The Bank's board made it clear to U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow that their response "was unfavorable." According to the New York Times, after the U.S. suggested Wolfowitz, the Europeans also asked "that more than one name be presented." So what did President Bush do? He ignored their request completely and instead publicly announced Wolfowitz as his choice. One source "close to the Bank" charged the appointment shows that the U.S. government "couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks."
BIG TROUBLE IN OLD EUROPE?: The United States is the largest shareholder in the World Bank; thus, the institution traditionally defers to the U.S. when it comes to the presidency. Wolfowitz, however, is such an unpopular choice that his nomination is already meeting rare resistance. The Times of London reports the surprising nomination "sparked howls of outrage from foes and a distinct lack of enthusiasm from friends" abroad, predicting a "potentially bruising fight with Washington over the post." The Washington Post agrees, reporting "speculation that a Wolfowitz candidacy could be torpedoed by the board of the bank." As German Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul said, "The storm of enthusiasm in old Europe is muted."
HIS QUALIFICATIONS: The World Bank president needs to be an effective manager. The Wall Street Journal reports, however, that's not one of Wolfowitz's strengths. He "is widely viewed as an ineffective day-to-day manager who has had trouble getting the department to run smoothly." Middle East expert Anthony Cordesman agrees with that assessment, telling USA Today, "Far too often when he thinks he has the right policy solution, he doesn't get involved in the details."
THE NUMBERS: Paul Wolfowitz stubbornly refused to listen to others going into Iraq and his myopic views led to egregious mistakes. Remember, he's the one who infamously told Congress the war would basically pay for itself, saying, "we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." Since then, the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars has reached nearly $300 billion. He attacked Gen. Eric Shinseki for suggesting the reconstruction of Iraq would take a couple hundred thousand troops, saying he was "wildly off the mark." L. Paul Bremer, the former head of the administration's Coalition Provisional Authority, however, admitted in October that "We paid a big price for not stopping it [the insurgency] because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness. We never had enough troops on the ground." Wolfowitz also has been criticized for pressuring intelligence agencies to produce false links between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and reportedly approved unethical interrogation methods that led to torture in U.S. prisons.
posted by T. Scott Brineman at 7:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home