The silliness of the 2008 presidential campaign has finally made it to the national park system, and in a very bizarre way. During a recent stop in Florida, Republican Fred Thompson allowed that he'd support drilling for oil in Everglades National Park if major reserves were found there.
"I don't think anybody really prefers to drill at all anywhere," the former U.S. senator from Tennessee told the Palm Beach Post. "Nobody wants to see $100 oil, either."
A bit later during his appearance Mr. Thompson added, "No one has told me that there is any major reserves in the Everglades. ... But maybe that's one of the things I have to learn while I'm down here."
Fellow Republican Mitt Romney, when told of Mr. Thompson's comments, was astounded. "In the Everglades? You're kidding. ... We're not going to drill in the Everglades," he told the newspaper. "There are certain places in America that are national treasures and the Everglades is one of those. It's environmentally extraordinarily sensitive. The people of Florida would never support such a thing."
While it is very early in the presidential campaign -- too early for my liking, frankly -- it's not too early to hold the candidates accountable on environmental issues, including their positions on the National Park Service and the national park system.
Can anyone forget George W. Bush promising during the 2000 campaign that he would wipe out the Park Service's maintenance backlog, which then was estimated to be around $5 billion? Well, today it's upwards of $8 billion and the Bush administration has yet to come up with a viable solution for paring it down.
Where do the candidates -- Republican and Democratic -- stand on the environment and the national parks? It's a question worth asking.
Comments
Mr. Thompson, I think your better off making "B" television serials then running for public office. Your right, you have much to learn about the environment as Geo. Bush. Read a couple of books on "land ethics" by Aldo Leopold, that should help get you started...but I doubt it!
Why not try drilling in and around the DC area? Sure is plenty of natural gas in the air, and the place is already loaded with greasy palms. If we dig far enough, we might find SOMETHING worthwhile.
I think this link might explain alot about our elected officials. There's something in the water in Washington...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_he_me/killer_amoeba_3
Please don't reduce our city to the politicians (jokingly or not). We're at they're mercy more than any of you are. (P.S., I hope I can respond to your other post later today).
Oh, and FYI, there's lead in our water (seriously - it's one of the million issues we who are residents here deal with while everyone else just thinks it's the place where there are politicians).
From occupied DC,
Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World
I don't want drilling in national parks either but...
The other politicians who are SHOCKED, SHOCKED at this statement are flying around in private jets then getting into motorcades of SUVs to go to their 40,000 square foot homes then telling American they have an energy crisis and should conserve. (Ala Leona Helmsley, "only the little people conserve").
And on one side of the aisle in Congress those same politicians want millions more to enter this country illegally to use more water, oil, electricity and open space, more than offsetting whatever American conservationists try to do.
No politician has clean hands on this issue.
Back in the early 1970's (oil embargo) they had a bumper sticker that read: EAT BEANS AMERICA NEEDS THE GAS! Right now, I think our politicans fart more then most...usually from the mouth...it's called lying with bad breath!
Jim-
Nothing personal I assure you. Unfortunately for the locals, the general connotation associated with DC is political, not the tens of thousands of residents who make the area their home.
Frank-
If you haven't noticed by now, Big Oil interests control the political situation in this country. Not, as many people think, by control of imports, but instead, and much more subtly, by what is known in the business field as creating your own aftermarket, thereby locking your clientele into your products and the associated (and VERY lucrative) parts and service portion of the business. There is absolutely NO real interest in increasing fuel efficiency in automobiles; such could easily have been accomplished decades ago. Yes, I know overall MPG has increased nominally in recent years, mostly due the lighter materials being used in production, not so much directly related to any marvel of modern engineering directly pertaining to the internal combusion engine. And we are all footing the tab for this "efficiency" and supposed reduced overall fuel consumption with the increased costs in gasoline, diesel, heating oil, asphalt, urethanes, lubricating oils, automobile prices, and all other petroleum drived products, including your precious plastics. Food costs are raised due to the increase in fuel and transportation associated fees incurred with bringing goods to market. It becomes the classic give with one hand and take with the other, but the general public isn't supposed to be able to figure that out.
I disagree with your jaded view toward alternative fuel sources however. But in one aspect I feel you're quite correct......E85 and biodiesel are not the salvation of the world. But, having said that, for a truly environmentally friendly (or at least tolerable) automotive fuel source, and automotive fuels seem to be all the rage since they get the majority of the blame for the global warning issue, I suggest that you do a bit of reading on the hydrogen-based fuels. There are a good many pros.....high energy output, virtaully NO emissions of ANY kind, light weight, easily adapted to current engine designs and requirements, excellent mileage per unit wieght volume, particularly compared with fossil fuels, an abundance of easily obtainable raw materials, no more environmental issues with drilling, fouled waterways, refinery fires, interruptions in production due to hurricanes, and best of all, no FOREIGN INTERESTS controlling our ability to obtain the stuff! The problem is, switching to this fuel puts Big Oil and the Texas Good Ol' Boys network out of power, so what are the odds that it'll happen? Very good for somebody, but it won't happen in this country, not in our lifetime.
From 1995 to 2001 I was able to walk to work or work at home, which was nice... and for a year there I didn't even have a car. Since 2001 I've worked a four-day work schedule (10 hours each day) which has cut back my potential commuting by 20%. I also moved 5 miles closer to work two years ago (15 mile commute now 10) so that's another 33%. Also recently bought a Toyota Yaris to replace the Ford Exploder so I've doubled my gas mileage. That has been a great feeling to get rid of the SUV. We also moved from a 2500-sqft house in McMansiontown (which had very few sidewalks) to a 1600 sqft house, replaced all the single pane windows in our house with new energy efficient dbl panes, got rid of the old furnace, and switched to an electric mower which not only doesn't need gas or oil, but is much quieter than the old toe-chopper I used to push around. So after all that, I feel I have a right to blame the politicians for not doing enough.