See? You liberals aren't ever happyFollow

Bush to create the world's largest marine preserve

That nasty pro-oil using, anti-enviroment president went and did something sneaky! He has gone and pulled a Gore and done something Sierra Clubbish-- what is the world coming to if you can't even count on the tried-and-true bad guys to do dastardly things?

Notably not a word of these glad tidings from all you knee jerk ABBers. Hmmmpt. Typical.

Totem

Bush creates National Monument
Posted: Jun 15th 2006 at 5:05pm EDT


Winner Joph, by a nose.

if a nose is two minutes.

Joph with his pre-emptive strikes in the nick of time!








Edited, Jun 15th 2006 at 5:14pm EDT by Jawbox

No. No, you can't.

In case you ever wondered what a butt-hurt T0t3m looked like

While Bush's environmental policy is by no means stellar if I recall correctly the US has done more to curb greenhouse gas emissions than Canada so far, still doesnt mean there isnt room for improvement.

Edited, Jun 15th 2006 at 5:49pm EDT by bodhisattva

STFU NuB

He ran on (more) fully funding national parks in 2000. I imagine he has increased funding to national parks and that is a good thing. It is not trivial.

And he's made a new preserve. That's great.

However, it can't counteract the phenominal damage he has done to the method by which science is used to consider policy. The Bush test is if you can get one guy to say it, you can totally ignore the volumes of scientific opinion on the other side.

Yes, Clinton did something like this - not often, not to this degree (yep, life is complex) and science was virtually always on his side anyhow, so who is to say he was actually better?

But nonetheless, it is a national embarasement and our science policy could more credibly cite unicorns and faries from here on out and have a sounder basis.

Ok, let me get this straight, Mol. You are objecting to setting up infrastructure in the nation's strategic oil preserve. Is that right? May I assume you'd prefer to react to some future oil crunch-- at a time when when we need it at that very moment --by just beginning to build the means to extract energy from below the Earth's surface?

Isn't that like realizing you need money for this month's rent, but knowing for the past three months that you are unemployed, thus had no way of producing the cash necessary to pay the bill? Wouldn't it have been smarter to have procured gainful employment long before the time when your rent came due and your projected cash savings would be depleted?

In the same way, preserving nature for nature's sake and ignoring the realities of energy extraction requirements until the time when you desperately need oil is much like saying to yourself on the day rent is due, "Hmmm, I need to get a J-O-B."

A little too late then, buddy.

Totem

I see it more as someone who has been living off their savings and sees their cash pool drying up. Instead of going out and finding new ways to make money, they content themselves by saying "Hey, I still have grandma's silver in the china cabinet." Eventually, they need to pay the rent and so they pawn the silverware for $100 and that's the last they see of it. A week later, the hundred bucks is long spent and the heirloom silverware is gone forever. And they're still out of cash.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy's own models of oil consumption:Tapping ANWR isn't "procuring gainful employment", it's the very model of "living out of the attic" where you desperately try to pawn off what few valuables you have left to stave off the inevitable rather than actually finding a sustainable way to make money. Too bad you still wind up dirt poor -- only now you don't have your antiques either.

Edited, Jun 22nd 2006 at 1:04am EDT by Jophiel