President Bush isn’t known for his farsighted environmental decisions, but his creation Thursday of the world’s largest marine sanctuary in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands is a truly historic conservation achievement. The new marine park will protect 140,000 square miles of pristine coral reefs and remote, uninhabited atolls teeming with more than 7,000 species, one-quarter of them found nowhere else on Earth. The area is known as an important breeding ground for green sea turtles and also is home to the Hawaiian monk seal, an endangered species.
“It’s the ocean equivalent of Yellowstone, Yosemite and the Grand Canyon all rolled into one,” said Joshua Reichert, environmental program director of the Pew Charitable Trusts.
Rep. Ed Case, D-Hawaii, called the move “the most revolutionary act by any president, any administration, in terms of marine resources.”
The park is a recognition of what the administration has tended to discount in places such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska: the idea that biodiversity and critical habitat have their own intrinsic value, apart from any direct commercial benefit to humans.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- ProudMan on Too many exemptions
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
20 Comments
While I like the idea of protecting the habitat of endangered species, I don’t think I’m ready to hear shrubs bullshit of how he is a president concerned with the enviroment. Just wait, it will come.
I think its great the President has something that does not fall under the “norm” of the Republican party, hopefully this will only be the beginning.
Let’s examine this. There is no oil or gas reserve found there, no shipping lanes cut across it, no Republican voters live there and there are no business interests in the area, other than (maybe) tourism. That is why the area has remained so pristine.What is the downside for Bush? He declares it a preserve, done deal! He is now an “environmental president”?????Doing the right thing in the face of opposition and conflicting priorities is brave and decisive. Doing the right thing when everybody agrees is met with the feelings of “why did it take so long for this to happen”.
RF is totally right. If oil started bubbling up, Bush’s backers would push for a legislative exemption. It’s also not REALLY like Yellowstone, Yosemite and the Grand Canyon all rolled into one, because first, you have to be a scuba diver to enjoy it, and second, you have to pay over $2000 just to get there.
PS. In Yellowstone they got rid of campground bears a long time ago, and do so now in Yosemite. What are they going to do about the tiger sharks if people actually go to the new National Park?
Hawaiian National Marine Sanctuary prom slogan:”You like animals? They’ll love you!”
Wow, you all are so anti-Bush, that if he ended starvation, brought our troops home and ensured everyone in the USA had medical insurence, you would still find something to bitch about. Of course, the above aint going to happen, but the points made.
Just as long as oil isn’t discovered there, it may be kept a sanctuary.
Not true JM. If shrub did/does anything I approved of as much as I may hate it I would give him kudos. The problem is that there is little to nothing that he does that warrants a congratulation. Most everything is for the corporations at the expense of everyone else. So if there is scarcasm in all of the posts you read it is with good reason.
I think this is a fantastic move. Hawaii has such an amazing population of indigineous species and fragile reefs that need this kind of protection–who knows–maybe the scales of one of those exotic fish or a type of coral holds the cure to cancer or something…kudos to him.
I agree with k. If there was time, we could weigh the pros and cons of this administration and see which way the scales tip. Or sink, as the case may be.
After all the news of the Great Reef dying, I doubt Bush’s announcement will have any substance if the same happens around Hawaii. And it very well could.
Ironic, isn’t it? They see no problem drilling in Alaska’s National Park for oil to sell to China, but they want to make a new park in Hawaii.
RD! ANWR isn’t a park. It’s not preserve, it’s a reserve.That means it is a place of conservation on the wise use of resources.
It is not a nature preserve for animals and it isn’t a park because you can’t go there to visit.
It’s actually set up for resources and it is already set up for tapping it for oil. All Congress needs to do is the ok for it.
Big difference, but nice spin RD.
But I do have to mention that I forgot that part of ANWR is a wildlife refuge for those areas designated as wilderness.
Excuse my booboo. Reserve it is, then.
Sorry to set you straight, but ANWR stands for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The two key words being WILDLIFE REFUGE. The entire thing is a wildlife refuge. It is not a reserve for anything but WILDLIFE, hence the controversy.
And it is not set up for oil drilling. It is currently a pristine wilderness, although the coastal plain to it’s east has more holes than swiss cheese.
Here’s also the deal. IF the roughnecks drill in the WILDLIFE REFUGE, AND IF they find the maxium amount of oil the USGS has estaimated COULD be there, it would reduce gas prices by ONE penney per gallon TWENTY years from now, when it would be at peak prodcution.
That’s a bad deal for the wildlife and for the Nation.
Which brings me to my last point. IT is NATIONAL, meaning if you pay your dues to the US GOV., you own the refuge. You can go there any damn time you feel like it, and so can your kids.
Joe Williams did you know this?**********************************************************************America’s Top Unions Support ANWRToday seven of the most important national unions have submitted a letter to Congress in support of opening the 10-02 Area of ANWR. Today the House will decide HR 5429 which is a stand alone ANWR bill. The House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo submitted the bill Monday to the floor. The letter was submitted by: The Teamsters, United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters, International Union of Operating Engineers, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Seafarers International Union, and the Laborer’s International Union of North America.**********************************************************************Does that change your mind, Mr. Williams?
see this shameless site shilling the opening of ANWR:http://www.anwr.org/
Anybody care to guess if there are enough “uniteds”, “brotherhoods” and such similar leftist/socialist words in the above cut & paste to make Joe Williams see red for a week?
:-)
For clarification, I don’t think the above words are “leftist/socialist” – I was merely borrowing Joe’s rhetorical catch-phrases.
Hee hee hee DD, Joe “sees” red all the time. There is STILL a communist, er, leftist, (heheheh), er unionist under every teacup for williams.
I bet he wasnt even BORN when joe the red hunter upended america LOOKING for reds under ever teacup.
Like CF said, it is kinds cute in a coldwarish sort of way. Too bad it is so sad and funny at the same time.
If unions are your thing, try this one from United SteelWorkers, opposing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.—-
United States House of RepresentativesWashington, D.C. 20515
Dear Representative:
On behalf of the 850,000 members of the United Steelworkers (USW) I write toexpress our strong opposition to H.R. 5429, the “American-Made Energy andGood Jobs Act”, which would allow oil and gas drilling in the coastal plain of theArctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
There is no doubt that fuel prices are at a record high, and that working men andwomen across the U.S. are spending more money each week to fuel their vehicles andheat their homes, however H.R. 5429 represents a short-term solution to a long-termproblem.
Our nation’s energy policy should maximize both job creation and environmentalprotection, so that working families are not forced to choose between making a livingand having a world worth living in. We believe that drilling in the Arctic Refuge fails thistest. Several examples of the potential environmental affects can be taken from thePrudhoe Bay oil fields on Alaska’s North Slope, which have caused an average of 400spills annually since 1995. Studies have shown that there spills have had a great effecton the soil and vegetation in these areas, which in turn poses a great threat to futureand existing wildlife around these oil fields.
Opening up exploration in ANWR would also not guarantee immediate consumerrelief or relief over the long term. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) foundthat if oil were discovered in commercial quantities, it would take 10 years before a dropof Arctic Refuge oil could first be produced. In 2015, it would only make up 0.06 percentof world oil production, and at its peak (projected to be 2025) oil from the Artic refugewould make up only 3 percent of U.S. oil consumption. It is clear that ultimately drillingin ANWR will have very little effect on consumer energy prices.
Proponents of H.R. 5429 claim that opening up the coastal plain in ANWR forexploration could create up to 250,000 to 1,000,000 new jobs. These numbers,however, are based on a report conducted by the American Petroleum Institute (API) 15 years ago (1990). A more recent report by the Tellus Institute shows that investment inrenewable energy and increased efficiency would create 700,000 jobs by 2010, and 1.3million by 2020.
While we agree it is essential Congress explore real energy solutions to addressthe growing consumer demand for energy, drilling in one of our nations last wildreserves should not be one of them.
Again, on behalf of the working men and women of the United Steelworkers, Iurge you to oppose H.R. 5429, and any other effort to allow oil and gas drilling in thecoastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Sincerely,
Leo W. GerardInternational President