Darryl Shannon wrote:
> When we get down to it, the point of the article is that *Clinton*
> didn't have any sort of environmental record that can be contrasted
> with Bush's.
When we get down to it, I'm willing to bet that Bush will try to find a way to
carve up the magnificently sculpted canyons in southern Utah that Clinton set
aside, and that is quite a contrast.
> Not because he believed in the proposals (if he believed in them he'd
> have supported them), but because he knew Bush would have to repeal
> them. And that would cost Bush. See, anything one president can do
> through executive orders, another president can undo. The only way to
> create lasting change is through legislation, which Clinton steadfastly
> refused to do.
>
> Now, about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Exactly what is the
> differnce between ANWR and any other section of the North Slope of
> Alaska? The only difference is that this section was designated a
> wildlife refuge, and the other parts weren't. Drilling for oil in
> Prudhoe Bay has had environmental consequences, right? Where those
> consequences catastrophic? They may have been unneccesary, they may
> have been undesirable, but I don't know anyone who thought they were
> catastrophic.
>
> But Prudhoe Bay wasn't designated a wildlife refuge, so exploration
> there didn't require an act of congress. That's the only difference.
>
> And where has the "ANWR would only provide one (or two or three or
> whatever) month's oil supply" factoid come from? There hasn't been any
> oil exploration in ANWR, so how can anyone estimate the reserves?
I thought that those were interior department figures. Dan?
>
> And ANWR is roughly the size of the state of Pennsylvania. Imagine an
> oil rig in Pennsylvania. Does that ruin the state of Pennsylvania? In
> fact, the main ecological problem from drilling in ANWR would not be in
> ANWR, but in Prince William Sound, where the oil tankers ship.
That would make the reserve about one half of one percent of the total land
mass of the U.S. One tenth of one percent of North America. Three hundredths
of a percent of the worlds total land mass. In one of the most remote
locations on the globe. Is it really asking so much that we preserve such a
small fraction of the globe so that our children and theirs can witness
pristine wilderness? Even if there is 10 years worth of oil there, what is
its significance in the long run?
>
> And of course, oil exploration the environmental consequences of oil
> exploration happen every day in the rest of the United States. The
> only difference is that ANWR was arbitrarily designated a wildlife
> refuge and these other places weren't. The designation of the
> boundaries of the refuge was a political decision, not an ecological
> decision.
>
I thought you were from Alaska! But you don't know that massive herds of
Caribou gather on the coastal plain in the summer to bear and nurture their
young? According to the Interior Department "The 1002 area [coastal plain] is
the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge for wildlife and
is the center of wildlife activity." The coast is the most important denning
area for polar bears in the U.S. Musk Oxen, wiped out in the 19th century
have been reintroduced there and are thriving. The area has been dubbed "the
American Serengeti" because of the profusion of wildlife there. Arbitrary my
ass.
> Now, on to the Kyoto treaty. The Kyoto treaty was dead, it had no
> chance of passing. According to the US constitution, the Senate must
> ratify all treaties. In 1997 the Senate passed a resolution 95-0
> stating that it would not ratify the treaty, even before it was
> submitted by the Clinton administration. Not one senator said they
> would support the treaty. Which means that Clinton's supposed support
> for the treaty was meaningless, and was in fact counterproductive.
>
> The Kyoto treaty is as dead as the Kellog-Briand pact that was supposed
> to outlaw war. Recognizing that fact doesn't harm the environment one
> bit.
Bush's error is one of style rather than substance. Proposing/sponsoring an
alternative rather than dismissing Kyoto out of hand would have been far more
constructive.
>
> If we really wanted to lower greenhouse emissions, we'd concentrate on
> compounds other than CO2. The only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to
> cut down on energy production. But we can cut down on other greenhouse
> gasses through more efficient processes. Focussing on CO2 is foolish
> because there just aren't going to be any CO2 reductions. We can pass
> all the laws we want, sign all the treaties we want, but it's not going
> to happen, it doesn't matter what the ecological consequences are.
You're such a nabob of negativity! 8^) In fact I'd like to believe that one
of the (unlooked for) consequences of Bush's designer energy crisis just might
be technologies that help us move away from total dependence on fossil fuels
for energy production. But I _am_ an optimist.
That being said, I pretty much agree with you here. check out
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/impacts/altscenario/
>
> Realizing this can be helpful, because then we can concentrate on doing
> things that have a chance of actually being done.
Doug
