It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Sarah Palin's Admin. Sues To Keep Polar Bear of Endangered Species List

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 02:03 AM
This Puts her in the Far Right Wing in line with the Bush Administration. I can see why Mccain Picked her. B.S. She is tough on Oil, She is in Bed with them all.

Sarah Palin: Tough on polar bears

Alaska's governor, thrust Friday into national politics as John McCain's surprise pick for vice president, has a varied and complicated stance on green issues.

She has been supportive of some of Barack Obama's energy policies and opposed oil companies in the past.

She also wants to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and has sued to stop the federal government from making the polar bear an endangered species.

On Aug. 4, Sarah Palin was particularly enthusiastic about Obama's intentions to complete a natural gas pipeline in Alaska and to give families a $1,000 energy rebate. On the rebate, she said:

"This is a tool that must be on the table to buy us time until our long-term energy plans can be put into place. We have already enjoyed the support of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, and it is gratifying to see Senator Obama get on board."

Palin's husband is a seasonal worker for British Petroleum, but the Alaska governor frustrated an effort by BP and the two other oil companies in the state to build the new natural gas pipeline from the North Slope.

In May, Palin said she would sue the federal government after it declared polar bears an endangered species. Here's what the Anchorage Daily News reported:

She and other Alaska elected officials fear a listing will cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts...

Climate models that predict continued loss of sea ice, the main habitat of polar bears, during summers are unreliable, Palin said.

The announcement drew a strong response...

"She's either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. ...
"Even the Bush administration can't deny the reality of global warming," she said. "The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this."

A plank of her first annual State of the Union address: getting the 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge open for drilling and other development. The refuge has been a federal protected area since the Eisenhower administration. Both Obama and Palin's new running mate have opposed the measure, although McCain has wavered (and did reverse his longtime opposition to offshore drilling this summer).

"Having a clean record on environmental regulation,'' Palin said, "is critical to getting ANWR open.''

In Bristol Bay, home of the largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world, Palin has supported miners on a project the fishermen say threatens their livelihood, as well as populations of bears and caribou. In 2007, Palin welcomed President Bush's lifting of a ban on oil and gas development in federal waters off the bay and the Aleutians Islands.

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 03:48 AM
After reading the OP, I located Palin's op ed that I'd read a few months ago. To quote her article, "there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future."

The scientific community overwhelmingly disagrees with her assertion. Mrs. Palin must know something that the scientists do not. She has not fallen prey to the liberal delusion: she knows better than those silly scientists with their fancy degrees. We can now comfortably drill in arctic habitat: the polar bears are not in danger (in fact, they're numbers are increasing!), nor is the sky blue. I don't know how we've functioned without the light of her knowledge for so long!

The ability of the "Drill, baby, drill!" crowd to delude themselves is just astounding. I must say, I am impressed by their resilience. While many of their sympathizers have now gone the opposite way, joining the ranks of those damn hippies, so many are remaining steadfast in their alternate universe. There, scientific reports are false, unless their findings please the oil companies. Then, by god, they must be true--all reason tells us so! They've even got their own scientists to back up the claims. Yes, these scientists are sometimes difficult to locate, but you can always count on them to appear just when they're needed.

Polar bears are on the increase and their habitat is not in danger; published climate models are unreliable; global warming is not caused by human activity. Did I miss anything? Yes, everything is going swmmingly for the polar bears. I don't think they'll mind our setting up a few projects on their turf, do you?

I believe that most of these individuals know, in their heart of hearts, that the climate change issue is genuine and that it is genuinely affected by humans. Knowing this, the only two options for these drilling advocates are to a) enter a state of denial wherein one deludes oneself and reinforces the delusion of comrades or b) agree that drilling will exacerbate stress on the environment but admit that "I just don't care." Option B calls your character into question, and no one wants that. Option A is therefore the default. We know we're &*^%ing the planet over, but let's pretend we aren't. I know that many people truly do believe global warming to be a hoax, but I imagine a good number of people fit the description I've just provided.

Even if you do not believe that global warming is an effect of human activity, it is now undeniable that the sea ice is melting at an astonishing rate. Just for fun, let's agree that this level of global warming is a natural part of earth's climatic cycle. Even so, wouldn't it be reasonable to suggest that, because the sea ice is melting, we ought not further damage the habitat of an animal that depends upon it? If nature is swiftly eradicating a primary habitat of the polar bear, shouldn't we take pains to preserve the remaining habitat rather than turn them into oil fields? I realize that to answer "yes" would require that one actually care about the survival of the polar bear. Many of us do not. For these individuals, it is not a matter of whether or not the polar bear is in danger or will be negatively affected by drilling; it simply doesn't matter. If drilling will help the human cause, wildlife can be viewed as collateral damage.

Personally, I am having a hard time imagining what the ecological impact will be of a McCain/Palin administration. While I would hope that they would be stopped from inflicting too much damage, I do fear that they would not. The majority of the American public seems to support the drilling urged by McCain and Palin, so I doubt the administration will find much of a challenge there. I imagine the U.S. political bodies will go along with what is desired by the public and the administration. None of this bodes well for the environment.

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 03:54 AM

Originally posted by ArioK
This Puts her in the Far Right Wing in line with the Bush Administration.

Actually, Palin is taking a more extreme position than the Bush administration. If you read the speech given by Bush in April of this year regarding climate change, you'll find a number of things Palin would ostensibly find disagreeable. She is standing on the outskirts at this point. It would really be laughable if it weren't so tragic.


log in