Green's great news: 'I voted to rape Alaska'

Mark Green voted -- again -- Thursday to open the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to drilling for oil.

And he had the gall to try to present his vote for a bill with an Orwellian name as good news:

WASHINGTON -- With the help of U.S. Rep. Mark Green (R-Green Bay), legislation passed the House of Representatives Thursday that would increase America's energy independence by boosting domestic oil production. Green said the measure, known as "The American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act," would open a small portion of Alaska's coastal plain for oil exploration and production...

Green said the House-passed bill would open a small section of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) -- approximately 2,000 of ANWR's 19 million total acres -- for oil and gas exploration...

"...This region could increase our nation's total proven oil reserves by 50 percent, and, at its peak daily production, nearly equal our daily imports from Saudi Arabia," Green said.

Green said "The American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act" passed the House by a bipartisan vote of 225-201.

If the Senate agrees, which is unlikely, the damage to the preserve will be widespread, and oil production, in the distant future -- not tomorrow -- will be much less than promised.

Wisconsin Rep. Ron Kind countered Green's claim:

The major argument for opening this national wildlife refuge to drilling has centered around America's need for energy independence. As I have stated before, attempting to drill our way out of our current energy crisis is irresponsible. The average estimate for the amount of recoverable oil present in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge hovers around 10 billion barrels.

The U.S. currently consumes approximately 7 billion barrels EACH year. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that oil recovered from the Arctic Refuge would amount to less than a six month supply for American consumers. At no time would oil from the refuge be expected to amount to more than about 2 percent of U.S. demand. Also, the oil from the area will take from ten to twenty years to reach the American market and, therefore, is not going to improve our energy independence any time soon.

The Center for American Progress says:

The House leadership and some opposition members view the industrialization of the refuge as the cost of decreasing U.S. dependence on foreign oil and quelling public concern over rising gas prices. These incentives hide the fact that pipelines and infrastructure would slash over 1.5 million acres of wildlife. What's more, the oil would take 10 years to extract and provide only about what the U.S. uses in a single year, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

The U.S. Department of Energy's own Energy Information Administration estimates that even 20 years down the road, when Arctic Refuge oil is at or near peak production, gas prices would be affected by about a penny per gallon.

The bipartisan vote Green describes included 27 House Dems who voted for the bill and 30 Repubs who voted against it, including two Wisconsin Republicans, F. Jim Sensenbrenner and Tom Petri. Besides Green, the only Wisconsin vote for the measure was Paul Ryan's.