Archives

"We are poorly equipped to address those risks and challenges" - USGA on monitoring polar bears (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j88_z01zuIozvdmw4MgwScVp9GZAD919UQNO0)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/knut.jpgDina Cappiello - AP - June 14, 2008

Is this any way to treat a species just declared endangered? -- Ed.

Less than a month after declaring polar bears a threatened species because of global warming, the Bush administration is giving oil companies permission to annoy and potentially harm them in the pursuit of oil and natural gas.

The Fish and Wildlife Service issued regulations this week providing legal protection to seven oil companies planning to search for oil and gas in the Chukchi Sea off the northwestern coast of Alaska if "small numbers" of polar bears or Pacific walruses are incidentally harmed by their activities over the next five years… http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j88_z01zuIozvdmw4MgwScVp9GZAD919UQNO0

The one positive thing I can say about the Bush Administration is that they are absolutely tenacious when it comes to accessing Alaskan resources. I only wish they would show this level of dedication in some positive areas.

Remember how some news reporters cover hypermiling in a negative light? Here's the first line of the article from the Associated Press,...Less than a month after declaring polar bears a threatened species because of global warming, the Bush administration is giving oil companies permission to annoy and potentially harm them in the pursuit of oil and natural gas.

The first sentence says all you need to know about this reporter's feelings on the subject even before you get to the meat of the story. Later on in the story, if you bother to read the entire article, you get this line which seems to be glossed over,...Any bear deaths would still warrant an investigation and could result in penalty under the law.

What I've learned about reporters is they like to put at the front of the article that which they most want you to read and put near the end that which they hope you won't read or notice. Below is the last two paragraphs of the article.

Administration and industry officials said oil companies enjoyed similar status in the Chukchi Sea from 1991 to 1996 and in the Beaufort Sea since 1993 and there was no effect on polar bear populations.

There is no evidence of a polar bear being killed by oil and gas activities in Alaska since 1993, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Since 1960, when the hunt for oil and gas began in Alaska, only two fatalities of polar bears have been linked to oil and gas activities in the state, the service said.


I have relatives who work in the oil industry. They've work on oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, along the Gulf Coast states, Alaska, South America, and Africa. They've said even though they get paid extra money to go outside the United States they usually refuse to do so unless money is tight. The reason they don't like to do this is because of worker safety and the lack of enviromental regulations they see in these other rigs.

"Now, three weeks later, Interior issues a rule under the act that we view as a blank check to harass the polar bear in the Chukchi Sea," said Brendan Cummings, oceans program director at the Center for Biological Diversity

As though oil exploration is about harassing bears, and now Bush just gave them permission to harass.:rolleyes:

"Now, three weeks later, Interior issues a rule under the act that we view as a blank check to harass the polar bear in the Chukchi Sea," said Brendan Cummings, oceans program director at the Center for Biological Diversity

As though oil exploration is about harassing bears, and now Bush just gave them permission to harass.:rolleyes:

I've always thought those polar bears needed to be taken down a notch, anyhow. Always so smug, drinking their cokes with Santa...

The one positive thing I can say about the Bush Administration is that they are absolutely tenacious when it comes to accessing Alaskan resources. I only wish they would show this level of dedication in some positive areas.

The only positive thing I have to sya about the Bush administration is he will be gone, but it can't be soon enough IMO...:mad:

I wrote off this article as soon as I read the first paragraph.

Seriously. This is ridiculous.

I hope this was a joke article?

My Boulder Daily Camera reprinted this article in yesterdays sunday.

I showed the headline to my wife and asked for comment.

Her reply, "How do they know what annoys bears, or even that polar bears become annoyed, I'm annoyed by that headline".:D

My Boulder Daily Camera reprinted this article in yesterdays sunday.

I showed the headline to my wife and asked for comment.

Her reply, "How do they know what annoys bears, or even that polar bears become annoyed, I'm annoyed by that headline".:D

Your wife sounds like a smart person!

Canada allows people to annoy Polar Bears, and a whole lot more.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/lifestyle/stories.nsf/lifestyle/pets/story/b0f4987e389697d68625747200156154?OpenDocument

I've always thought those polar bears needed to be taken down a notch, anyhow. Always so smug, drinking their cokes with Santa...

:D That seriously cracked me up.:D

So what do you guys think about drilling in Alaska?

I think it's better off in the ground now because we stand a good chance of needing it later. To me, the ~18 month supply is not worth squandering for the sake of 10 cents per gallon.

:D That seriously cracked me up.:D

So what do you guys think about drilling in Alaska?

Thanks, glider, I try my best.

I think we should hold on to our reserves for a bit longer. I realize it will take a while to exploit them, but they should almost be viewed as a strategic reserve of sorts. I doubt they will make any big dent in the price anyways.