Bush administration uses war to justify destruction of environment

The ClubHouse: Archives: Bush administration uses war to justify destruction of environment

Ocean_Islands

Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 02:56 pm Click here to edit this post
April 10, 2002

White House Urges Senate to Allow Drilling in Alaska

By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM and DAVID E. SANGER
ASHINGTON, April 10 — The Bush administration said today that Saddam Hussein's decision to cut off oil exports for at least a month, or until Israel pulls out of the West Bank, makes it urgent for the Senate to allow drilling for oil in the Alaska wildlife refuge. In spite of that warning there was no evidence that Iraq's move ended the deadlock in the Senate over the issue.

Even as the White House was declaring that Iraq's cut-off could further raise gasoline and heating oil prices here, oil futures declined after Saudi Arabia and other major producers indicated they would make up the difference.

"The president knows that A.N.W.R. represents 46 years' worth of imports of oil from Saddam Hussein's Iraq," Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said today, using an aggressive estimate of the reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. "And the president thinks that Saddam Hussein's threat, the promise to cut off oil, is another reason why our nation needs a comprehensive energy plan that is independent of such threats."

The White House announcement was the most aggressive effort yet to use the turmoil in the Middle East — and Mr. Bush's insistence that he remains focused on toppling Saddam Hussein — to press for what has become a symbolically vital part of its national energy plan. So far, though, Sen. Frank Murkowski, the Republican who is running for governor of Alaska, concedes that he lacks the 60 votes needed to overcome the opponents of drilling in the wildlife refuge, and force a vote on the issue.

At the same time that the White House has argued that Middle East turmoil makes more drilling vital, the White House has vigorously opposed an effort to raise the federal standards for the fuel efficiency of automobiles sold in the United States, a change that would have saved more oil than A.N.W.R. could produce, assuming the oil reserves are recoverable. The White House insists there is no contradiction in the policy, arguing that the improved mileage standards would lead auto companies to produce more small cars, and endanger American motorists.

Lawmakers from both parties agree that the United States should become less dependent on imported oil, but partisan and regional differences and ferocious lobbying have left Congress paralyzed.

Most Republicans believe the solution lies in more oil production, particularly exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve on Alaska's north coast.

Most Democrats hold that the solution is conservation, particularly stiffer fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and trucks.

Both sides are locked into their positions so tightly that compromise appears to be out of the question.


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information

Logan

Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 04:46 pm Click here to edit this post
Ocean, your post caught my eye, because I live in BC, and clearly remember the worst environmental disaster and still remaining, that of Valdez. It not only impacted the coastline of Alaska, but had considerable impact on wildlife along the BC coast. To even consider drilling for oil in a refuge, is ludicrous in itself. Having worked in negotiating a land use plan between corporations & environmentalists in the early 90s, one has no idea the impact to the eco-system, and biodiversity of land. Caribou to some living in a large metro center may be irrelevant and inconsequential. They fail to understand the severe impact it creates to the process of evolution if a species becomes extinct or severely impacted. There was a study released this week on the impact the drilling will have to the caribou habitat. Immediately the WH commissioned a study to counter the first. Their claim is caribou use oil pipelines to warm their bodies. They fail to acknowledge that caribou have not required oil pipelines to survive. Their position is, ANWR is a wilderness tundra. Unless a person clearly understands the micro-organisms which exist in the tundras, they fail to understand truly the grave impact. The rush to generate jobs for some workers, and to use Iraq stopping shipment of oil, are weak and arguable. However, There are two methods only available to transport the oil. One is by water which puts the whole western coastline of Canada, USA and even Mexico at grave risk to another "Valdez", the other is the Alaskan Pipeline, this in itself creates further possibility to pollution of land. One bullet hole in the pipeline can cause irreversible damage.

The question remains, to what length does one go to and what is the cost to the environment. IT is clear we as humans have abused the land and water we inherited. How far does it go before there is nothing left to go for.

A person living in Hollywood may think its a viable plan. They have no idea, that a tanker with oil could very well sink and leak off the shores of Los Angelos. The Bush Administration has not been honest by informing the citizens of the impacts of drilling in an objective manner.

They use the issue of Iraq, and dependency for oil from Arab countries as a mechanism to brainwash the citizens into thinking its a good thing. People thought Love Canal was a good thing at one time too.

Didn't mean to "rant", its just I have come across so many people this past year in the political world, who don't understand the significant impacts to environment, because they base their knowledge on 20 second sound bits off CNN or Fox. People seem to hold the apathy of "if it isn't in my back yard, it isn't my problem"...that doesn't make it right.

By the way, I am not an environmentalist, I equally deplore acts of tree spiking etc. However having worked for a number of years negotiating a balance in the realm of Land Use Planning, it opens ones eyes to the culminating long term damage something simplistic can cause.

The fact remains, if anyone does their research the worlds largest oil deposits are said to be contained in the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Texas. Problem is the depth of water makes it financially difficult to access the deposits.

Rissa

Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 05:29 pm Click here to edit this post
Problem is that we need to reduce our reliance on mid-east resources, bigger problem is that our leaders see the only alternative being finding other sources of the same pollutants closer to home. I am disapointed that Bush isn't using the same Saudi issue to give alternative energy source research a push in the right direction.

Faerygdds

Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 05:31 pm Click here to edit this post
As a cautious person who often looks at what the media reports and what the Pres says, but more at what they DON'T say..... (did that make sense?)

I have to ask the question... why in the world does he want to dig up Alaska SO desperatly??? He's been hammering at this since he was running for Pres... Why does it have to be there???

Lancecrossfire

Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 05:45 pm Click here to edit this post
Logan, you have an excellent point in that until you become affected first hand by an environmental disaster, you just can't imagine the impact it has.

There are long and short term inpacts to be sure.

It goes to the "not in my back yard" syndrome. People seem to want something for nothing these days--more so with every passing day. Energy use takes resources--yours or someone else's. And with each type of energy resource there are down sides and/or potential risks.

Coal and oil are resources that will dry up faster than most others--and each comes with its issues. Hydro power can be used for a long time, although its affects are extreme and forever lasting.

Oil spills affect the enviornment like no other. It's some much easier claeing up a rdaioactive spill (waste or fuel) as it doesn't leak all over (unless you have a coolant leak) Although the regualtions for radioactive materails are tougher than the regulations on the oil industry will ever be.

Solar, geothermal amd wind all are cleaner, although more expensive, more affected by area, and require huge areas of land for large scale application.

We will never get something for nothing. It's just an issue of what "price" we are willing to pay.

Oregonfire

Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 07:35 pm Click here to edit this post
Faerygdds, I think it's payback time to the oil companies that contributed to his campaign in 2000 re the Alaska drilling plan. It's frustrating to no end to have someone in office who so clearly represents big energy interests at any cost, and blatantly disregards the opinions of the American public. Apparently Bush is approving a plan for fuel-cell research, some kind of hydrogen energy source. At least this is being done.

Logan

Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 07:59 pm Click here to edit this post
The one problem with need for oil, is not only its use for energy, but it is used in every plastic product made be it plastic bags, toys, to some plastic wrappers on candy bars, etc. We've become a dependant society on plastic. Though at least that part of it is recycleable.

In terms of ANWR, they need road access, which damages and erodes the soil. Last night in one of my political discussions some said, "Whats the big deal, they aren't drilling in parkland"..I couldn't believe it, said, what part of Alaska National WILDLIFE REFUGE don't you understand.
(LOL I think that person thought ANWR meant Anwar Sadat.
Of course the Teamsters Union supports the drilling because it gives their members huge paychecks, and some of the hierarchy in larger unions have become as corrupt as the Enrons of the world.

Anyways it just makes no sense.

Twiggyish

Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 08:05 pm Click here to edit this post
Good posts on this issue.

OI's article.
"Most Democrats hold that the solution is conservation, particularly stiffer fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and trucks."
EXACTLY! That is the solution in my opinion.

Why can't the Republicans see the demand will only grow, unless people learn to conserve?

Unfortunately, Bush isn't known for supporting environmental causes!!

Misslibra

Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 08:39 pm Click here to edit this post
We need to go back to riding horses again, because I agree the need will only grow and from what I heard it will take around six years to get to the oil then the oil will only last for about 8. To me that is not worth destroying that land.

Ocean_Islands

Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 04:07 am Click here to edit this post
April 14, 2002

White House Ends Environmental Fellowship

By THE NEW YORK TIMES
WASHINGTON, April 13 — The Bush administration is eliminating a respected fellowship program for graduate research in the environmental sciences, administration officials said this week.

The fellowship provides $10 million a year to students pursuing graduate degrees in environmental science, policy and engineering, as part of an Environmental Protection Agency program called Science to Achieve Results, or STAR. .

Since 1995, the program has financed nearly 800 students, awarding $60 million for graduate-level environmental research. It now supports 311 fellows, with each receiving $30,000 to $34,000 for one to three years, said Chris Saint, assistant director at the agency's National Center for Environmental Research, which administers the program.

"This is the only federal program that is specifically designed to support the top students going into environmental science" and related fields, said David Blockstein, a senior scientist with the National Council for Science and the Environment, an environmental science advocacy group in Washington.

Under President Bush's 2003 budget proposal, most of the program's $100 million budget remains intact, but the fellowships would end, apparently falling victim to an effort by the administration to consolidate financing for environmental education under the National Science Foundation.

"There are no specific programs being transferred from the E.P.A. to the N.S.F," said Bill Noxon, a spokesman for the science agency.

A staff member for the House Committee on Science, which oversees parts of each agency, said the fellowship had been lost in the shuffle. "It doesn't show up in their budget, and no one knows anything about it," the staff member said. "It's not really explicit why this program is being cut."

Plans to end the fellowship were made after more than 1,350 applications had been submitted for the 2003 program, Mr. Saint said. In February, applicants were notified that the program had been canceled.

A number of interest groups and lawmakers have called for reinstatement of the fellowship, including the Ecological Society of America and the American Chemical Society, as well as Representative Lynn Rivers, Democrat of Michigan, and Representative Sherwood Boehlert, a New York Republican who is chairman of the House Science Committee.

Supporters of the fellowship say the Bush administration has sent mixed messages.

Last year, Christie Whitman, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, defended the fellowship in House appropriation hearings, saying it "continues to successfully engage the best environmental scientists and engineers from academia through a variety of competitive, peer reviewed grants."

President Bush has consistently emphasized the importance of scientific research in environmental decision making.

Dr. Daniel I. Rubenstein, chairman of the ecology and evolutionary biology department at Princeton, said, "If the goal is to formulate policy that is based on science so that it is made effective, then this program is a way to ensure that the next generation of scientists are in the pipeline."

For most students pursuing graduate degrees in environmental science, the end of financing for the program would be a roadblock but not insurmountable.

"I'm pretty industrious," said Richard Brody, 38, a senior at the University of California at Berkeley who had applied for a fellowship to study water resource management next year.

"If you keep your ear to the ground, there is stuff out there," he said. "But this was the big one."


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information

Faerygdds

Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 12:01 pm Click here to edit this post
Wow... can't get his way because of the scientist, so he is trying to take out the scientists themselves.... wow... what kind of world do we live in???

Jville

Monday, April 22, 2002 - 10:16 am Click here to edit this post
Anyone interested in the truth?

NINE OUT OF 10 CARIBOU SUPPORT DRILLING

Having wearied of opposing the war on terrorism, Democrats are now trying to sabotage the country's energy policy. A better idea, they think, is to continue sending large amounts of money to countries that nurture homicidal Muslims intent on destroying America.
George Bush has proposed drilling in a tiny, desolate portion of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or "ANWR." According a leading Democratic opponent of the plan, lying is the key to defeating ANWR.

ABC-NBC-CBS have been accompanying discussions of ANWR with picturesque footage of caribou frolicking in lush, fertile fields --- all of which happens to be nowhere near the site of the proposed drilling. ANWR is 19 million acres -- larger than Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, Connecticut and Delaware combined. If oil is found, less than 2,000 acres would be directly affected. The area targeted for drilling looks a little like the moon, but less inviting.

Consequently, Gale Norton, the secretary of the interior, responded to the campaign of lies by unveiling actual film footage of the area at issue. She sent a true and accurate film of the proposed drilling site to the networks and also posted the footage on the department's Web site (www.doi.gov).

Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts (D, needless to say) claims this underhanded dissemination of the truth is illegal. Telling the truth is not merely contrary to the principles of the Democratic Party, now it's a violation of law. As Markey explains, the law prohibits agencies from promoting any "film presentation designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the Congress."

It was bad enough when Democrats just lied a lot themselves, purported not to know what "is" means, and claimed that "everybody" lied, perjured themselves and suborned the perjury of others. Markey has staked out a more aggressive position by announcing that Republicans who tell the truth are breaking the law.

At least we have Markey on the record admitting that a truthful video of the proposed drilling site in ANWR would persuade Congress to support drilling.

ANWR exploration is overwhelmingly supported by Alaskans, Eskimos, Teamsters and caribou. It is opposed by Northeastern liberals who would never set foot anyplace near ANWR, and haven't the first idea what it looks like.

The word "wildlife" in ANWR's title, for example, is somewhat misleading. The coastal plain -- where the drilling would occur -- is in total darkness half the year and reaches temperatures of 50 below. Most of the year it is uninhabited and uninhabitable by wildlife. Indeed, the only living things in the vicinity of the coastal plain -- Eskimos and caribou -- enthusiastically support drilling.

When oil exploration began in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay 30 years ago, environmentalists claimed it would yield only a "few months' supply" of oil and would wreck the ecosystem. Prudhoe Bay turned out to be the largest deposit of oil ever found in North America. Caribou frolic and play by the pipeline. In 20 years, the caribou population has skyrocketed, from 3,000 to almost 27,100.

The Teamsters have been huge supporters of drilling in ANWR, but Democrats treat union members like they treat the blacks. They expect union money and endorsements, but when the prospect of half a million high-paying jobs comes along, the Democrats tell workers it's only "one issue."

Ed "The Truth Is Illegal" Markey responded to Teamster support for ANWR by dismissively sniffing, it was only "one issue." Luckily, the Democrats have all those other issues dear to the heart of the average blue collar worker: abortion on demand, gay marriage and taxpayer-funded crucifixes submerged in urine.

So much for "everyone" sacrificing for the war on terrorism. Little old ladies get strip-searched at airports, but the environmentalists won't budge on an uninhabitable wasteland at the continent's edge. The Democrats' idea of sacrifice is for Sen. Teddy Kennedy to stop getting drunk and groping stewardesses.

When not jetting around the country on his private plane, paid for by the deceased husband of his second wife, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has emerged as a leading opponent of ANWR. Developing new sources of energy, Kerry says, is "old thinking." The Democrats' innovative new idea is for the little people to wear sweaters and drive smaller cars.

That's a bold stroke: We'll delay starvation by eating a little less every day. The illogic of it confounds reason. Everyone is against waste -- except Northeastern liberals telling the rest of us to conserve. (How about they practice by conserving our money?) We need more energy. Postponing death is not an energy policy.

Markey has similarly "innovative" ideas. He proposes that we "bring OPEC to its knees" by "our technological superiority." What he means by "technological superiority" is this: "Let's make SUVs get 30 miles a gallon"! How about we make cars and airplanes that run on grass? Or hot air, and run a pipeline from the Capitol?

There is not a thinking man's Democrat in the country. If only caribou voted instead of Democrats, the country would finally have a serious energy policy.

Ann Coulter

Jville

Monday, April 22, 2002 - 11:05 am Click here to edit this post
Also, I find it ironic that Twiggyish posts Why can't the Republicans see the demand will only grow, unless people learn to conserve?.

That contradicts her "Getting to know you part 2" post that states she prefers an SUV over a car. SUV's are not a way of conserving energy.

Oregonfire

Monday, April 22, 2002 - 11:12 am Click here to edit this post
I haven't followed the entire thread, but I do know that the Senate failed to pass a law that would force car companies to make SUV's more fuel efficient, thus burning through less gas and perhaps lessening the need for drilling in the Arctic. I don't know who dropped the ball on that one, but it's a sad commentary on how our capitalistic society values mass production over protecting environment (I know I sound preachy--I drive a mini Blazer, so am probably part of the problem. If and when I can afford to get another car, I'll buy something more fuel efficient--I promise!).

Karuuna

Monday, April 22, 2002 - 12:50 pm Click here to edit this post
There are interesting arguments on both sides, aren't there? And that whole "truth" thing -- well, truth can be rather relative. The modern era has taught us (if little else) that truth is as much a matter of perspective, as it is based on fact.

I drive an SUV. I hate the gas consumption, and would willingly pay more for a more efficient SUV. However, in 1993, I saw the tragic difference between driving a more fuel-efficient minivan; and a less-so SUV. Yes, sometimes I put my personal safety (and more importantly, the safety of my child) above other considerations. Call me selfish, because I am. Yet again, I would pay more if I could get both safety and fuel efficiency. It's just not an option currently. I imagine most SUV owners would be thrilled to own a more fuel-efficient vehicle, if they were available.

But putting the blame on SUV's is a bit disingenuine. SUV's are only one small part of a energy-intensive culture gone out of control. There are lots of other energy hogs out there, enough fingers to point that would keep many, many hands busy.

The greatest strides in energy efficiency haven't been made by consumers; they've been made by manufacturers and oil companies. We were supposed to run out of oil by the year 2000. Well, we didn't. Over the past 25 years, oil companies have invested in new techonology that allows them to pull oil from smaller pockets at efficient levels; as well as developing methods to more completely utilize the oil deposits they find. Used to be that they could only get to about 50-60% of the oil in a particular field. Now utilization is up to about 85%, and still growing.

There are all kinds of "facts" and "perspectives" about this issue. And it's important to allow sane and respectful discourse from all those perspectives, in order for us to find efficient, and *safe* solutions. Obviously most of our politicians aren't capable of that. Hopefully, we can rise above that bad example.

Jville

Monday, April 22, 2002 - 01:14 pm Click here to edit this post
from http://poseur.4x4.org/

Accident Avoidance Maneuvers

Most SUVs are tall and heavy for their size. Their portly weight and a high center of gravity are not condusive to handling around obstacles or other accident avoidance manuevers. An SUV's roadholding and acceleration figures are always inferior compared to a similarly sized/engined car.

This means that the SUV is much less adept at avoiding accidents, which of course is the best means of preventing injury. Some SUV drivers have responded by claiming that it is not so much the vehicle you drive, but the abilities of the driver that truly matter for safety. This is partly true, but even the best driver can be unsafe if he doesn't have the right equipment.

For example, say Michael Jordan decided to wear dress loafers on the court instead of his usual basketball shoes. He could still play, but he would be severely handicapped in his movement. The loafers would probably cost him the game. Likewise, cars are designed solely for on-road use, while almost all SUVs are not. Cars are best designed to handle whatever problems come your way on today's crowded roads.


Roll Overs

I know everyone is tired of hearing about SUV rollovers from the mass media and consumer magazines, but the fact is that SUVs roll twice as often as cars do according to NHSTA (National Highway Safety and Traffic Association) statistics. How can a supposedly "safe" vehicle generate these numbers?


Braking Distance

Everyone knows that the most important part of a vehicle is its brakes, and almost all SUVs fall short. In panic stop situations, every foot counts. The stopping distances of these porkers are lengthened by their excessive weight and primitive brakes. The poor lemmings can't stop fast enough to avoid falling off cliffs!

Compare the braking distances from 60 mph to 0 in the following illustration. In a common accident scenario, imagine you've encountered a stopped semi truck while going around a blind curve. The semi is 142 feet in front of you. Which is the safest vehicle to be in?

Porsche Boxster: 120 feet.......................Yawn.
Oldsmobile Intrigue: 131 feet..................Arrgh.
Dodge Caravan SE: 135 feet..................Whew.
Pontiac Transport: 141 feet.....................WHEW!
Isuzu Rodeo: 148 feet.............................BANG!!
Ford Explorer: 150 feet...........................SMASH!!!
Chevrolet Blazer: 154 feet.......................SLAM!!!!
Chevrolet Suburban: 155 feet..................CRUNCH!!!!!
Kenworth Pilgrimage: ??? feet..................&*$@#%=>#:~@%*!!!!!!

Statistical Source: Edmunds Car and Truck Guide.


Accident Injuries

Taken as a whole, statistics show that cars are safer designs than SUVs. Most of the best selling SUVs still use ladder frames from pickup trucks, which are not designed to absorb collision impacts. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), "In single vehicle crashes, heavy vehicles with stiff frames (most SUVs) might actually do more to harm the vehicle's occupants because there is little give, or energy absorption engineering, to dissipate the force of running into an immovable object."

This is proven when you consider the injury ratings in these crash test charts provided by the IIHS. Notice how many cars rate in the yellow (little injury) and how many SUVs rate in the red (high injury).

According to IIHS statistics, the only time an SUV will come out ahead in an accident is if it collides with a smaller vehicle. Even then, the only advantages you get with an SUV are at the expense of those driving smaller cars, which are designed to absorb impacts. SUVs just plain don't make sense safety-wise!

Whowhere

Monday, April 22, 2002 - 01:52 pm Click here to edit this post
I had no idea that SUV's were still THAT unsafe. I knew there was a problem with roll-overs years ago, but I thought car manufacturers took care of that problem. Looking more into it, there are TONS of websites dedicated to research and statistics about how unsafe SUV's are.

I know your own personal safety is the most important factor, I'd just hate to think that your personal safety is at the expense of my fuel-efficient, impact-absorbing (child occupied) small car.

I guess I'd better watch out for those SUV's! You learn something everyday. Thanks Jville!

Oregonfire

Monday, April 22, 2002 - 02:45 pm Click here to edit this post
Jville, that "Nine out of Ten Caribou" article was hilarious. I'm a Democrat, but I get it. Funny stuff!

Karuuna

Monday, April 22, 2002 - 03:32 pm Click here to edit this post
Jville- from my research:

SUV rollovers occur almost exclusively in smaller SUV's. (per Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, and the Center for Auto Safety and the Safety First Coalition)

In examining deaths per million passengers, SUVs had nearly the same death rates in accidents as small cars (not exactly a good argument for fuel-efficiency!), but more fatalities than mid-sized or large cars (also per the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety).

However, the largest SUVs had fewer driver & passenger deaths than average (also per the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety).

Facts are interesting, aren't they? And they are often a matter of perspective.

Misslibra

Monday, April 22, 2002 - 08:26 pm Click here to edit this post
From what I understand even if they approved the drilling in ANWR, did you know it would take 6 to 7 years to produce the oil, then will only last 7 to 8 years. It would only be a temporary fix to our oil problem.