It's been nearly four years since Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson said he would support drilling for oil beneath Everglades National Park if there were substantial reserves there.
Well, Mr. Thompson soon left that race, but another GOP presidential hopeful says she'd do the same thing if it could be done "responsibly."
U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann was quoted the other day in an Associated Press story that she wouldn't automatically rule the park off-limits if oil were found beneath it.
"The United States needs to be less dependent on foreign sources of energy and more dependent upon American resourcefulness. Whether that is in the Everglades, or whether that is in the eastern Gulf region, or whether that's in North Dakota, we need to go where the energy is," she said. "Of course it needs to be done responsibly. If we can't responsibly access energy in the Everglades then we shouldn't do it."
Those comments immediately drew a reply from the Everglades Foundation.
"NRA card-carrying hunters, fishermen, waterfowlers, and other outdoors enthusiasts do not want to see oil drilling in their Everglades wildlife paradise. In addition, the Everglades is the source of fresh, clean drinking water for more than 7 million Floridians," the organization said. "Congresswoman Bachmann needs to understand that oil and drinking water do not mix.”
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Many years ago there was a bumper sticker that said “lost your job, eat your foreign car”. Now the Great Recession and high unemployment and I can’t help but remember that bumper sticker and the jobs that have left our country. We can’t just run off and start drilling tomorrow, but don’t be to quick to rule out anything that lessens our independence on foreign oil, somewhere down the road it may be very fool-hearty.
Personally I can't stand her - I think she is a mouthbreathing theocratic malignancy.
However - I'd really rather see Traveler be a forum for parks and discussions about parks and the impact of these outside issues on parks, and NOT a hurray for our side for and against various politicians. There is ample space in this interweb thing for that elsewhere. I prefer to think of Traveler the way I think of parks in general.
I'm certainly no expert at horizontal drilling, but don't we have the ability to put the oil rigs 40 - 60 miles away, and then drill horizontally under the park? Don't we already do this out west? I don't imaging she is advocating placing the actual oil rigs in the park.
I love the term "environmentalist". What does it mean? Some people use it like its a dirty word. Oh, you're an environmentalist.
Oh, you care about clean air and water for you and your children - Da!!! The people who do not care are the ones to worry about. Its well documented that terrorists would love to find a way to harm america by destroying their way of life.
So, I have to ask, are you an environmentalist or a terrorist?
Anon or ec, it's not at all hard to find examples of MB's misstatements.
And Rick B, the political side of protecting parks is at least as important as the practical side. If you want an excellent read about politics and park history, go find the book I reviewed a few months ago -- Horace M. Albright's remembrances of the founding years of the NPS. (You'll find the review elsewhere on Traveler -- but my memory is short-circuiting right now and I can't recall the exact title. I'm too lazy to go look it up and then have to re-type all this.)
This is exactly the kind of place where there should be vigorous discussion.
Lee - you say its not hard finding examples yet you haven't provided an example nor refuted one. And as to what "environmentalist" means - in my mind and usage - it is one that focuses on environmental issues without any other considerations. One doesn't need to be either an enivronmentalist or a terrorist though often the former are also the latter. Examples - Sierra Club members putting metal spikes in trees to be logged or arsonists buring down Two Elks Lodge in Vail to "save the Lynx".
Pretty broad strokes there, Mr. Ecbuck, and all through the prism of your personal opinions.
On the MB misstatements thing, The University of Google returns 146,000 returns to the search argument "Bachmann misstatements". Also, curiously enough, it returns over 3.6 million responses to the search argument "terrorism by big oil".
I'm an 'environmentalist'. I sort my recycle. I carry other people's trash out of wildernesses. I prefer trees to pavement. I compost and garden only organically. I am not, however, a terrorist, despite what your generalities of slur opine.
Rick,
I would not label someone that does the things you claim (of which I do all the same) an environmentalist. Just because you care about the environment doesn't make you an environmentalists as I have used the phrase. Nor did i make any generalities about environmentalist being terrorist - unlike Lee that claimed anyone that wasn't an environmentalist was a terrorist. All I did what indicate that "often the former (environmentalist as I use the term) are the latter (terrorist) and provided specific examples.
Still waiting for you to identify specific instances where she has "has gone off on something of this sort." and been wrong.