Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Saturday
Opponents To Drilling In Alaska Say Effects Would Be Devestating
Aired September 27, 2003 - 14:33 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JUDY FORTIN, CNN ANCHOR: Now on to the debate over drilling for oil in ANWR. Republican congressional leaders this week unveiled a plan to develop part of the Arctic national Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. They've attached the issue to an energy bill, but opponents say drilling on the coastal plain of the refuge would be devastating.
Both sides now, from Charli Coon of the Heritage Foundation, and Daniel Lashof, with the National Resources Defense Council. Thank you both for joining us today.
DANIEL LASHOF, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: Good afternoon.
FORTIN: Charlie, let me start with you by asking you, what is so special about ANWR when it comes to oil exploration?
CHARLI COON, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Well, first of all, the mean amount of oil that we can get from ANWR has been estimated at 10.3 billion barrels, number one. And, number two, it's ours. It would be reliable oil that we could use, reduce our dependence on unstable governments. Plus, the whole issue of ANWR, the opponents have used deception and misinformation and alarmism to advance their anti-growth agenda.
FORTIN: Daniel, are you alarming the public when it comes to ANWR and potential drilling?
LASHOF: No, we're not. Judy, there's no question that our dangerous dependence on imported oil is a serious threat. The question is weather drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge would materially change that. And the answer is clearly no.
Look, the United States only has three percent of the world's oil reserves. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge would add merely three-tenths of one percent to that amount. Meanwhile, the Persian Gulf has 65 percent of the world's oil reserves. So there's simply no way we can drill our way to energy security.
And the broader question...
(CROSSTALK)
FORTIN: Charli, why Alaska? Let me ask you, how do you know that there's enough oil there in the first place?
COON: Well, the U.S. Geological Survey, as well as the Energy Information Administration, has conducted studies and evaluations, and it could be as high as 16 billion barrels of oil. On the other hand, they say the mean would be about 10 billion, which is twice the amount that we get from Texas right now.
LASHOF: But Charli knows that only a fraction of that would be economically recoverable. The best estimate is about three billion barrels.
COON: That is not -- no, that is not true. No. 10.3 billion would be economically recoverable.
And, again, we're talking about reliable sources. We own this domestic resource. And we should be using that so that we're not as dependent upon unstable regimes.
FORTIN: Charli, let me get -- let me ask a question to Daniel here. Some have suggested over the years that, if you don't support ANWR, then you're basically supporting terrorists. What is your rebuttal for that?
LASHOF: Well, if we're serious about reducing our dependence on imported oil, then what we need to do is apply technology to improve our cars and trucks. Let's build better cars and trucks that use less oil. Let's use better fuels.
And, unfortunately, the energy bill that Senator Domenici and Mr. Tauzin are writing behind closed doors with their friends in the energy industry won't do that. You know most experts would say we need to do three things on energy.
Reduce our dependence on foreign oil by using technology to become more efficient. Second, increase the reliability of our electricity supply. And third, reduce the dangerous emissions that cause global warming.
The energy bill that they're writing behind closed doors will do none of those three things. We should put that aside, address the electricity reliability problem with a stand-alone bill that has broad bipartisan support, and then let's try to develop a real energy plan for the 21st century rather than this energy bill that would move us backwards.
FORTIN: Charli, Daniel specifically talks about that bill. There are things on both sides of the aisle for people on this bill. But why not deal with ANWR on its own? Why not pass the uncontroversial parts now? Why not go ahead with that?
COON: Because we're talking about a national energy plan. We are talking about a whole picture. You can't just dissect electricity out of this.
In order to have electricity, we also have to have the resources to transport that electricity. We need the natural gas. We need the nuclear power. We need the coal, we need the renewable energies.
You have to look at this as a total package. You can't just take a segment out of it that you're interested in, or that you're biased on, and address it alone. It has to be a national plan.
And the president had said that two years ago, and we still don't have a national plan. And we've seen what happened this last August, when people do not have their electricity. The key is diversity, diversity, diversity, which is the foundation of the president's energy plan.
LASHOF: I'm for having a national energy policy, but it has to be one that moves us forwards, not backwards, like the bill that is currently being written in Congress. Let's clear up one thing right now. Oil from the Arctic Refuge has absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of our electricity supply. We get less than three percent of our electricity from oil in this country today. So that is a complete (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
FORTIN: Daniel, is there any part of the oil explanation that you would support?
COON: Well, that is part of an entire -- that isn't the part of the entire program, a whole plan. You cannot just take this as different segments. If we're going to be talking about an energy plan, a national plan for the next 20 years, 25, 30 years, then we have to look at all of the different segments.
We have to look at natural gas. We are have to look at what our supply and demand is going to be. We have to make sure that we have the resources to meet those demands, and that includes oil, that includes gas, that includes coal. It includes nuclear, and it includes renewable energy.
FORTIN: Daniel -- do you see compromise here somewhere, Daniel, quickly?
LASHOF: Well, we clearly need to continue to produce oil and gas. And most public lands are already open for oil and gas development. The question here is, are there any places on Earth that should be off limits to the oil companies? If there are, the Actic Wildlife Refuge is one of those places. And I think it's going to get removed from the bill.
FORTIN: Daniel Lashof, you get the final word. Daniel Lashof, Charli Coon, thank you for your time. I appreciate both of your comments. And thank you so much.
LASHOF: Thank you.
COON: Thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Devestating>
Aired September 27, 2003 - 14:33 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JUDY FORTIN, CNN ANCHOR: Now on to the debate over drilling for oil in ANWR. Republican congressional leaders this week unveiled a plan to develop part of the Arctic national Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. They've attached the issue to an energy bill, but opponents say drilling on the coastal plain of the refuge would be devastating.
Both sides now, from Charli Coon of the Heritage Foundation, and Daniel Lashof, with the National Resources Defense Council. Thank you both for joining us today.
DANIEL LASHOF, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: Good afternoon.
FORTIN: Charlie, let me start with you by asking you, what is so special about ANWR when it comes to oil exploration?
CHARLI COON, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Well, first of all, the mean amount of oil that we can get from ANWR has been estimated at 10.3 billion barrels, number one. And, number two, it's ours. It would be reliable oil that we could use, reduce our dependence on unstable governments. Plus, the whole issue of ANWR, the opponents have used deception and misinformation and alarmism to advance their anti-growth agenda.
FORTIN: Daniel, are you alarming the public when it comes to ANWR and potential drilling?
LASHOF: No, we're not. Judy, there's no question that our dangerous dependence on imported oil is a serious threat. The question is weather drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge would materially change that. And the answer is clearly no.
Look, the United States only has three percent of the world's oil reserves. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge would add merely three-tenths of one percent to that amount. Meanwhile, the Persian Gulf has 65 percent of the world's oil reserves. So there's simply no way we can drill our way to energy security.
And the broader question...
(CROSSTALK)
FORTIN: Charli, why Alaska? Let me ask you, how do you know that there's enough oil there in the first place?
COON: Well, the U.S. Geological Survey, as well as the Energy Information Administration, has conducted studies and evaluations, and it could be as high as 16 billion barrels of oil. On the other hand, they say the mean would be about 10 billion, which is twice the amount that we get from Texas right now.
LASHOF: But Charli knows that only a fraction of that would be economically recoverable. The best estimate is about three billion barrels.
COON: That is not -- no, that is not true. No. 10.3 billion would be economically recoverable.
And, again, we're talking about reliable sources. We own this domestic resource. And we should be using that so that we're not as dependent upon unstable regimes.
FORTIN: Charli, let me get -- let me ask a question to Daniel here. Some have suggested over the years that, if you don't support ANWR, then you're basically supporting terrorists. What is your rebuttal for that?
LASHOF: Well, if we're serious about reducing our dependence on imported oil, then what we need to do is apply technology to improve our cars and trucks. Let's build better cars and trucks that use less oil. Let's use better fuels.
And, unfortunately, the energy bill that Senator Domenici and Mr. Tauzin are writing behind closed doors with their friends in the energy industry won't do that. You know most experts would say we need to do three things on energy.
Reduce our dependence on foreign oil by using technology to become more efficient. Second, increase the reliability of our electricity supply. And third, reduce the dangerous emissions that cause global warming.
The energy bill that they're writing behind closed doors will do none of those three things. We should put that aside, address the electricity reliability problem with a stand-alone bill that has broad bipartisan support, and then let's try to develop a real energy plan for the 21st century rather than this energy bill that would move us backwards.
FORTIN: Charli, Daniel specifically talks about that bill. There are things on both sides of the aisle for people on this bill. But why not deal with ANWR on its own? Why not pass the uncontroversial parts now? Why not go ahead with that?
COON: Because we're talking about a national energy plan. We are talking about a whole picture. You can't just dissect electricity out of this.
In order to have electricity, we also have to have the resources to transport that electricity. We need the natural gas. We need the nuclear power. We need the coal, we need the renewable energies.
You have to look at this as a total package. You can't just take a segment out of it that you're interested in, or that you're biased on, and address it alone. It has to be a national plan.
And the president had said that two years ago, and we still don't have a national plan. And we've seen what happened this last August, when people do not have their electricity. The key is diversity, diversity, diversity, which is the foundation of the president's energy plan.
LASHOF: I'm for having a national energy policy, but it has to be one that moves us forwards, not backwards, like the bill that is currently being written in Congress. Let's clear up one thing right now. Oil from the Arctic Refuge has absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of our electricity supply. We get less than three percent of our electricity from oil in this country today. So that is a complete (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
FORTIN: Daniel, is there any part of the oil explanation that you would support?
COON: Well, that is part of an entire -- that isn't the part of the entire program, a whole plan. You cannot just take this as different segments. If we're going to be talking about an energy plan, a national plan for the next 20 years, 25, 30 years, then we have to look at all of the different segments.
We have to look at natural gas. We are have to look at what our supply and demand is going to be. We have to make sure that we have the resources to meet those demands, and that includes oil, that includes gas, that includes coal. It includes nuclear, and it includes renewable energy.
FORTIN: Daniel -- do you see compromise here somewhere, Daniel, quickly?
LASHOF: Well, we clearly need to continue to produce oil and gas. And most public lands are already open for oil and gas development. The question here is, are there any places on Earth that should be off limits to the oil companies? If there are, the Actic Wildlife Refuge is one of those places. And I think it's going to get removed from the bill.
FORTIN: Daniel Lashof, you get the final word. Daniel Lashof, Charli Coon, thank you for your time. I appreciate both of your comments. And thank you so much.
LASHOF: Thank you.
COON: Thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Devestating>
