If the gentleman will yield just one more time, you are absolutely right. There is nothing that we do that doesn't have an environmental impact. The only thing we can do to stop having an environmental impact is stop living. We can face up to that, what can be done, and we have done that, is to do it as safe as possible, and that can be done. But the trade-offs, if we don't drill, and take those dollars and put them in renewable sources of energy, the trade-off is a disaster environmentally. I have said this, if you want to see a disaster where they haven't been able to develop, as they should, their fossil fuels, et cetera, go to the countries that cut every tree down, because it's the only source of power they have. You go to Ethiopia, you go to other countries of Africa. There is no living thing that can be burning because there is no other forms of energy. That's what I don't want to see this Nation--let's look for, as you mention, let's recognize it as an invite. Material oil will run out, let's use the revenues now and plan for the future and have availability of energy. If we do it now, then we are going to be in good shape in the future. Not you and I, but you and your grandkids.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the environmental impact of energy production and the need for a balanced approach to energy sources.
Share
More from Don Young
Although I have long supported the goal of fighting IUU fishing in foreign fisheries and leveling the playing field for U.S. seafood producers, SIMP is not up to the task. This program should be reformed, not expanded.
There is such hypocrisy here. There is no justice in this, and I do believe you have used the money correctly.
Congress authorized the leasing and development program within the 1002 Area of ANWR not on a whim, but after decades of robust debate.
Although I commend my colleague, Rep. Huffman, for understanding the crucial role MSA plays in the management of our nation's fisheries, I do have concerns with his bill.





