Progress Report: No Refuge from Greed

[Guest guest]

A

Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:44:59 -0800 (PST)

Progress Report: No Refuge from Greed

 

 

 

No Refuge from Greed

by Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin

with Nico Pitney and Mipe Okunseinde

 

March 17, 2005

ENVIRONMENT No Refuge from Greed

GLOBAL LEADERSHIP Wolfowitz Takes It to the Bank

UNDER THE RADAR Go Beyond The Headlines

 

ThinkProgress.orgFor news and updates throughout the day, check out

our new blog at ThinkProgress.org.

 

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.

 

 

Under the Radar

 

HUMAN RIGHTS – EXTRAORDINARY NEGLIGENCE: The system the CIA has been

using to " ensure the suspected terrorists it transfers to other

countries will not be tortured has been ineffective and virtually

impossible to monitor, " according to a review by the Washington Post.

Yesterday, President Bush told the press that when the CIA sends

prisoners abroad – a process known as " extraordinary rendition " – the

White House seeks " assurances that nobody will be tortured, " but

officials said the process includes nothing more than " verbal

assurance from each nation that detainees will be treated

humanely….The effectiveness of the assurances and the legality of the

rendition practice are increasingly being questioned by rights groups

and others, as freed detainees have alleged that they were mistreated

by interrogators after the CIA secretly delivered them to countries

with well-documented records of abuse. "

 

HUMAN RIGHTS – ADMINISTRATION WON'T CRITICIZE CHINA: The

administration has abandoned plans to propose " a U.N. resolution

critical of China's human rights policy. " The decision means the body

will likely remain silent on a range of abuses in the world's largest

communist nation. A State Department report released last month

" accused China of using the global war on terrorism to crack down on

peaceful opponents and committing other persistent abuses. " A U.S.

spokesman said the decision was made because " there have been

improvements, " but refused to provide any details.

 

TAXES – COLORADO BUDGET DISASTER KNOWN AS TABOR BEING PROMOTED

NATIONWIDE: Right-wing radicals are continuing their campaign to make

states adopt an artificial limit on revenue and spending known as the

Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), even though in Colorado, the one

state where it has been adopted, the measure is crippling the economy.

As Stateline reports, TABOR has now put Colorado " in the strange

position of facing a $234 million budget shortfall over the next two

years – at the same time it must refund $345 million to state

taxpayers, " forcing Gov. Bill Owens ® to recommend softening some of

the measure's strict revenue-choking rules. Nevertheless, " that snag

hasn't stopped Owens from personally visiting Kansas and touting the

merits of TABOR amendments to control government growth. " The measure

– promoted by nationwide tax opponents like the Heritage Foundation

and Grover Norquist – is being introduced for consideration in 16

states, with the best chances for passage in Arizona, California,

Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon and Wisconsin.

 

MEDICAID – THE REPUBLICAN REVOLT: Moderate Republicans in the Senate

are revolting against President Bush's plan to cut $14 billion in

funding for health care for the elderly. The effort to restore funding

for Medicaid is being led by Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR). Smith said the

cuts would hurt " the most vulnerable Americans. " Smith added the cuts

" may well be a matter of life and death for thousands of Americans. "

 

ECONOMIC JUSTICE – PAY RAISE IN NEW JERSEY: About 241,000 workers in

New Jersey will get a raise over the next two years, thanks to an

increase in the state's minimum wage. New Jersey will increase its

minimum wage by $2 – from $5.15 to $7.15 – under legislation approved

Monday by the State Assembly. The measure was approved by the Senate a

month ago and now goes to Gov. Richard J. Codey, who has signaled

support for the legislation. Opponents of the measure say it will

drive up costs and force businesses to lay off workers or cut back on

hiring, but there is no evidence to support that claim. In fact, in

three states with recent minimum wage increases, data shows the

increase had no effect on job growth.