By Paddy Notar
I recently had a dream that I had a conversation with Girdwood's own resident Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski while having lunch with her at the Senate's personal restaurant in Washington D.C. I would like to share it with you:
Paddy: “Senator Lisa Murkowski, thanks for meeting with me today.”
Murkowski: “You're welcome, Paddy. Glad to be here. There's been a major oil spill, in the Gulf of Mexico, that is at least 10 times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill. Many animals, such as the brown pelican, may go into extinction due to the spill. What should the government do?”
Paddy: “That's a great question.”
Murkowski: “I don't think we should rush in to any judgment regarding the oil companies. I'm sure the residents of the Gulf understand the ‘wait and see' approach before getting too upset. I think we should create a commission to look into the alleged mistake by BP. Once that commission makes recommendations we should have meeting with all parties involved. At that meeting we can discuss the possibility of implementing a long-term plan that addresses our Coast Guard and their response to such a situation. In the mean time, we should move forward with drilling in the Arctic as my office has received assurances, From Shell, that everything that can be done, regarding the possibility of another Gulf disaster, has been addressed and will be looked at time and again as the drilling continues in our sensitive waters. Also, remember Paddy, that we don't have the same wildlife species in our Arctic waters as they have in the Gulf. Ours are much more resilient to a spill.”
Paddy: “Senator, what about big oil being so close to the Management and Minerals Services and the agency allowing them to dictate the implementation of regulations?”
Murkowski: “As for the agency allowing oil companies to write their own regulations, I think that the Senate should convene an investigatory, bi-partisan committee to find out what went wrong. For instance, were any agency members directly influenced by big oil? Did they receive large donations to make laws that were favorable to big oil companies? If so, then the agency needs to be overhauled and possibly taken over by the Senate to make the proper decisions for them. After all, Paddy, we don't bow to the same pressures as the agency.”
Paddy: “Senator, you received $1.2 million from oil and other natural resources companies. Even some of their employees donated to your campaign. Doesn't that affect the way you vote on regulating them?”
Murkowski: “Absolutely not. Listen, Paddy, just because lobbyists are giving me hundreds of thousands of dollars towards my re-election that I'm hardly being contested in doesn't mean my neutrality towards these issues will be adversely affected. My whole approach is to take our time, gather the facts, look into what went wrong, address that within the full body of the Senate, and then take it from there. But, in the meantime, we need to trust the oil companies and let them drill in the Arctic. After all, Shell won't stay around forever and wait to drill. They may take their business elsewhere and that would be a death-nail for all Alaskans.”
Paddy: “Senator, people in the Gulf need help now. What are you and the rest of the Government planning on doing besides having meetings telling people that BP will compensate them?”
Murkowski: “Once again, a valid question, Paddy. As you know the President has been to the Gulf region several times and you saw him on TV walking the beaches and looking at the situation as it unfolds.”
Paddy: “Okay, but Senator, I asked what you planned on doing to help people in the Gulf.”
Murkowski: “Yes, I know. I think that the President being there is a sign that we're not running away from this problem. I read the newspapers everyday, from that region, and am up to speed on what is going on. We will get through this.”
Paddy: “Okay, let's move on to another question. Sen. Murkowski, you are in favor of the Senate taking over having the final say on greenhouse gas emissions rather than the EPA. Why do you think the Senate's job is to decide the amount of emissions that are allowable verses the Environmental Protection Agency?”
Murkowski: “First of all, Paddy, all decisions on what's best for our country should go through the Senate, and specifically my committees. Electric Utilities, who are the only larger donor to my campaigns than oil companies, have expressed to me that they don't like the idea of curbing the carbon emissions in order to slow global warming. To cut back on greenhouse gases is an expensive process for the utilities. It would mean retrofitting and replacing old, inefficient, equipment as well as utilizing more renewable energy such as solar and wind. Doing this would put a strangle hold on the industry as a whole.”
Paddy: “Senator, why do you think U.S. Senators know more than scientists and environmentalists at the EPA, regarding emissions? And secondly, why shouldn't you force utilities to make proper investments that will curb pollution and global warming?”
Murkowski: “Great questions, Paddy, and very valid ones once again. A U.S. Senator is a tough job. We do a lot more than people see on television. Having said that, being a Senator means that sometimes we need to take over other people jobs that we think aren't doing them properly. This is the case with the EPA. They want to cut greenhouse gas emissions. So do us in the Senate but not at the rapid pace as the EPA. Their timeline is a ‘must do now' approach while I think that we need to discuss the issue in an open forum and give utilities the opportunity to express their methodology. I want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as the other person, Paddy. I just think we need to look more into the facts before coming up with a timeline, that includes government funding of these utility upgrades, as well as tax breaks for any electrical company that decides being more green makes sense for them.”
Paddy: “One final question, Senator. How did someone with only eight years in the Senate get to be ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee? Even John McCain, who sits on that committee, doesn't have the power that you have.
Murkwoski: “Another excellent question, Paddy, and one I'm happy to address. After my father appointed me to fill his Senate seat, I decided that this was the committee to be on. Hence, the reason I started gathering up money from natural resources corporations. What I mean to say is if I'm going to address their concerns, such as off shore drilling and the greenhouse concern we just discussed, it only seems logical to have their money funding my campaign. This way I'm streamlining the whole legislative process to help better deal with their issues in an impartial and just manner. You look confused, Paddy. Does any of this make sense?”
