I was checking out the results of the recent Senate vote on drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.
This is an issue that doesn’t directly affect anyone outside of Alaska. As such, it’s an opportunity for Senators to either 1) demonstrate loyalty to their party leadership, or 2) demonstrate their independence to an important constituency back home.
The voting generally reflects this: Democrats, except those in conservative southern states, voted against drilling (“Yes” in this particular vote). Republicans, except those in somewhat liberal northern states, voted for drilling (“No”).
The additional exceptions are Independent Jeffords voting with most Democrats, Republican John McCain, a class unto himself, voting with most Democrats, and Democratic Senators Inouye and Akaka, voting with most Republicans.
The vote of the Hawaiian delegation really puzzles me. Hawaii has always been solidly Democratic, although less so in recent years.
Does the vote reflect [ul]
[li]Solidarity of smaller population or non-contiguous states?[/li][li]A parallel interest in developing natural resources in protected areas of Hawaii?[/li][li]Democratic Senators running to the right in fear of rising Republicanism in the state?[/li][li]A Democratic ideology of these Senators that emphasizes government investment but not necessarily environmentalism?[/li][/ul]
This should probably be in the General Questions because the answer is not very debatable. Hawaii is one of the most isolated land masses on earth and as a result the state has to import most of its crude oil from Alaska and SE Asia. The middle east is a bit too far and Alaska is much cheaper and more accessable.
I thought about posting it in GQ, but I thought someone might want to rant about Akaka or Inouye.
The oil supply to an isolated island chain had briefly crossed my mind, but I forgot it when I typed out the other options.
I realize oil is a strategic issue for Hawaii moreso than other states, but is it a real political issue for Hawaiian voters? Or are the Senators just voting for the state’s best interests on this one, ignoring what their Democratic supporters may feel?
Hawaii pays one of the highest prices for oil in the nation–they are usually competing with California for the highest price. They are very dependent on their cars to get around Oahu and with all of the terrible traffic congestion on the H1 highway there is a lot of fuel wasted. So cheap gas is a major issue and politicians are smart to keep the price low. The only other state that would benefit from Alaskan oil is California but the environmentalists there have a huge influence on politicians and they say NO WAY to any oil…in fact they want less oil! (one reason why CA’s gas prices are articially high even though they have huge untapped oil reserves off their coast).
Despite what you may have read/heard in the press or from environmentalists, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge would be almost untouched by any oil drilling. The technology has gotten much better and it leaves a very small footprint. Democrats have no reason to vote against drilling other than to look “environmentally friendly” – even if it has no basis in reality.
No, there are lots of good reasons to oppose drilling in ANWR…the most important being that it doesn’t solve our basic problems which are not too little supply of oil but rather too much demand. There are lots of reasons why our current inefficient use of fossil fuels is unsustainable (global warming being one of them). Besides which, simple measures like modest increases in CAFE standards would save more oil than we could get from ANWR.
No, there are lots of good reasons to oppose drilling in ANWR…the most important being that it doesn’t solve our basic problems which are not too little supply of oil but rather too much demand. There are lots of reasons why our current inefficient use of fossil fuels is unsustainable (global warming being one of them). Besides which, simple measures like modest increases in CAFE standards would save more oil than we could get from ANWR.
Environmentalists really oppose ANWR for a simple reason: Opening ANWR increases the supply of oil. This in turn lowers its cost. Lowering the cost of oil will stimulate demand for it, and this works counter to the goals of the environmental movement.
Both sides of the ANWR debate are arguing a ‘proxy’ argument. The environmentalists are using the direct damage to the environment. Conservatives are using the strategic supply argument because lower oil costs will stimulate economic growth.
The more expensive oil is, the less of it will be used, and alternative power generation sources become more economically feasible.
Ah, the key word in the ANWR title is “National.” The land was set aside by Congress for the benefit of the entire nation, if not for the ecosystem itself. It just so happens to exist in one state.
With all due respect, this line of thinking is akin to creating a nuclear waste dump in New York City. After all, the issue only affects them.
The reason maybe is they are tired of being left out in the cold in Hawaii. They are learning from the Alaska Natives.
And how the federal gov’t owns much of their state.
Let’s not run from economic development please. Times are rough enough on the earth as it is. Drive smaller enviromentaly vehicles, wear sheep wool if your cold and grow your own food.
Good debate. The adn.com newspaper shut down their public forum. Too many state (unknown) paid enviro-mean-listers pissing the green machine off. Good source of information, too. I miss it. I like to know what my enemies are up to.
Also, in congress there is a lot of logrolling. A congressman from Texas will take a sudden interest in the West Virginia highway system if he knows that West Virginia’s congressional delegation will take a similar interest in Texas’ cotton production. And as one of the two ‘separated’ states of the Union, I am sure Hawaii and Alaska have managed to take a keen interest in each other’s “needs” for this very reason.
I am sure that soon, a Hawaiian matter of little importance to the average Alaskan will be of keen interest to Alaska’s members of congress.
This is something I’ve heard on the news from some years ago from Inoye. Essentially both Hawaii and Alaska came into the union at the same time and as such there has been a senes of commonality between them. And with both having small populations (2 Reps each) they have taking to supporting each other to help things pass bills that would help each other. It’s a way to essentially double our Congressional delegation. And that’s why we helped the Alaskan delegation who asked this of Hawaii.
I’ll see about finding a cite for it.
I can’t find any direct evidence of this quote which I’m fairly certain I heard from Inouye during an interview on local TV news during last years election. Although I didn’t expect to be able to find one. This probably isn’t something that the people involved want to go around shouting about.
I suppose it has also been helped along since Inouye has been in the Senate since 1963 and Alaska’s Stevens since 1968. They appear to have formed quite the friendship between them. Taking trips to foreign countries together and they both have held the Chairmanship of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee depending on who controls the Senate. Together they have formed this “partnership” which has led to them being labeled two of the biggest “pork-barrel” politicians in Congress.
So summing up, the Alaskan delegation came to the Hawaii delegation said ‘We’ve helped each other over the years and we’d like you’re support on this bill.’ Neither Inouye or Akaka felt strongly enough on the matter to jepordize the friendship and so they agreed.
Ah, well here’s a cite I just found from Human Events Online. “The National Conservative Weekly since 1944” I can’t comment on who they are since I’ve never heard of them before but them I’m not a conservative.
syncrolecyne is dead on–it’s logrolling at its classic best. The following is only one small facet of the overall picture, but it may serve as an example.
Senators Inoye and Akaka and Rep. Abercrombie of Hawaii appear to have chosen this year to push a unique bill which accords a degree of autonomy to Native Hawaiians. Two relevant bills are S 344 and HR 665, which you can look up at www.congress.gov . Another bill passed by the House this week allows for Native Hawaiian businesses to apply for federal outreach and assistance grants.
Ted Stevens of Alaska is president pro tempore of the Senate and, more importantly, the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He’s going to be the guy who makes money available for furthering Native Hawaiian sovereignty and, if Congress conducts itself with the same baffling incompetence that they did last session–and so far there are no indications otherwise–the NH autonomy language may have to be rolled into an appropriations bill (probably the Interior Appropriations bill) as a rider, but that will only happen if Ted Stevens okays it.
There are dozens of other issues out there, but this one happens to be one I’ve been following. This is exactly the sort of legislation that conservative lawmakers dismiss out of hand on grounds of… well, let’s not go there. It is of high sentimental importance to the Hawaiian delegation, but they need the endorsement of Republican leadership if they want it to go anywhere. I’m sure they hope to find a friend in Ted Stevens.
Sorry to post for a 5th time but in my previous post where I say “here’s a cite” I should have said “here’s another person who corroborates what I’ve said.”
Sorry, I never feel comfortable with my posts in this forum.
Personally, I’m interested in finding out why Mike DeWine opposed drilling. He’s a conservative politician, and Ohio is a conservative state, making it therefore difficult to find out his motivation.
Those Senators from Hawaii probably figure that with the added tax revenue from the Alaskan oil fields, that there will be a lot more welfare money available for the people of Hawaii.Personally, I’m interested in finding out why Mike DeWine opposed drilling. He’s a conservative politician, and Ohio is a conservative state, making it therefore difficult to find out his motivation.
What the…? DeWine is no conservative. He’s just a little less liberal than the hard core liberals in the Senate. Ohio is also not a conservative State. It’s just a little less liberal than other States.
FTR, if it’s not too far to send tankers to California, it’s not too far to send them to Hawaii. There is no real location on Earth where it’s “too far” to send oil, coal, or natural gas shipments too, as the cost of ocean transport nowadays is incredibly low.
Hawaii is a very interesting State energy-wise. They have no real resources to speak of, but two friends of mine who work in a renewables area say that in their opinoin, Hawaii could get 100% of it’s electricity from geothermal/volcano-related power, biomass, wind, and solar, and only pay about 4-5 times their current electricity costs. The reason they don’t is that those higher electric costs would greatly impact tourism and the costs to tourists.
Ironically, according to their study, if they don’t have to supply energy to the tourism-related industries, they would only need to use energy sources such that their power costs would be about 2-3 times as much.