Our World and Everything in It

There was a reason Bush reluctantly put the polar bears on the endangered list but then curiously omitted protection for their habitat. Not so curious anymore. It seems in the latest round of attacks on the environment by the Bush administration and more than likely in support of oil, coal, and the natural gas industries, the president doesn’t find habitat protection necessary. To quote an article on NRDC’s website, the president will argue, “that studying and protecting the places that are essential to species survival is unnecessary. Specifically, the Department of Interior is planning to insert language into all future critical habitat designations that argues that these protections have no value in species protection.” Ah and Dirk Kempthorne, Secy. of Interior is at it again.

Protecting animals but allowing their habitat to go unprotected is so straight out of the dogma of big oil and other fossil fuel industries that we don’t even have to wonder why this underhanded push is happening. I say underhanded because the same article on Defender’s website stated that: “The first attack, contained in a rider on the House version of the Defense Department appropriations bill, would have arguably given the Secretary of the Interior sole discretion regarding where and when-and whether-to designate critical habitat for endangered species. Although the appropriations bill still contains a damaging ESA exemption for the Department of Defense, the more radical rider was defeated by the House on May 21.” Sneaky.

The Bush administration may not get their way the second time around either but there are other rotten ways of doing things.  The administration appears to be overly restricting funds for species protection by the USFWS. Bush only requested a measly $9 million dollars for it this year even though the agency knows it would take $153 million or more because there is a backlog. Congress even requested more money for the agency in the past to no avail. So no one is actually keeping track of or properly protecting our wildlife habitats because there is no money.

This is a “frightful” disregard for living things. If this administration can so ruthlessly overlook one natural resource for another, oil vs. animal habitat, than it’s not a stretch to think humanity is not being overlooked in the process either. We’re not suffering all that different a scenario from the animals on the endangered species list really. By continuing with the quest for oil and possibly more fossil fuels, our habitat won’t be around much longer either. What is it people don’t get? The earth is a closed system. If we put too much pollution into it, it will eventually break down. If we go on the way we are, we are no better than a cancer to our environment.  Yet this administration is destroying our habitat right under our noses while we go on believing someone is looking out for our best interests.

I hope that someone isn’t specifically Dick Cheney. Because when I watch what’s happening all I keep remembering is an article I read back in 2004 about Cheney. John Perry Barlow, a former Cheney supporter, said, “He has the least interest in human beings of anyone I have ever met.” That explains a lot.

http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/030528.asp.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6450422/the_curse_of_dick_cheney/.

I just did a blog about our becoming accumstomed to violence, killing, and guns. Then I read my e-mail that STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY PERSONNEL in Alaska illegally staked out a breeding den/area for wolves, and aerial shot and killed 14 of them. The wolves were parents to 14 little pups. They shot all the pups in the head at close range.

View this video of 4 week old wolf pups and imagine plugging the cute little things in the head. It takes a heartless person to do this.

http://www.everythingwolf.com/sitewide/videolib/p1020310.wmv  

On the same website as the video, I read about people adopting wolf cubs, and even potty training wolf cubs. This is counter to the image of wolves as blood thirsty, indiscriminate killers.  

http://www.everythingwolf.com/forum/threadview.aspx?thread=1340p1.   

The big execution in Alaska was to boost caribou populations. There are approximately 950,000 caribou in Alaska. How many caribou do we need? What’s the target, a million?

 http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/biggame/caribou.php.

Alaskans are outraged over this aerial killing movement and are moving to “end the Board of Game’s barbaric aerial hunting of wolves through a ballot measure,” according to Defenders of Wildlife. Defenders website has a drive that ends today to help this ballot initiative with new ads. It also said that: “On August 26th voters can pass this ballot measure and band this awful practice before another deadly season begins.”

Defenders of Wildlife is “helping Alaskans for Wildlife, a coalition of local grassroots activists, hunters, and citizens who secured the 55,000 signatures to put this measure on the ballot. Already, they have reached thousands of voters across the state with their hard-hitting mailings.”

Collecting 55,000 signatures is a daunting task in the heart of hunting territory like Alaska, but everyone involved is close to meeting their goal of collecting $80,000 and running ads that will get voters out to vote for this ballot measure. The ads essentially say, “Real hunters don’t shoot wildlife from airplanes.”

I think aerial hunting is gutless. I also think shooting helpless pups is heartless. And I’m starting to think humans need to be kept in check more than animal populations. We’re starting to show our animalistic tendencies far too much, forgetting about empathy and compassion for all living things in our world.

http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/press_releases_folder/2008/07_23_2008 _statement_regarding_illegal_killing_of_14_wolf_pups_in_alaska.php

We’re finding more and more that the environment may be impacted in unforeseen ways. An article on ABC news website found that virtual reality–television, the internet, and video games are breeding more than couch potatoes. This new generation of videophiles rarely goes outdoors, let alone to run and play. They have no connection to nature.

I recently listened to a comedian talk about when he was a kid. He said entertainment back then could be summed up in one word “outside.” Not so any longer. As a result, children are not only obese and unhealthy; they don’t have a real respect for nature, never having left the a/c of the great indoors. Like they say, “if you don’t use it, you’ll lose it.” If you don’t have experiences with something, you will not likely have empathy for that something either. So involvement in the great outdoors is taking a real hit these days.

Fishing, hiking, and visits to parks are down since the 80’s. The 80’s spawned tons of video games, so the link is not all that hard to see. Our younger generation is disconnected from nature in lieu of video. People in their 20’s don’t actually know there are good bugs and bad bugs. When I asked a clerk in a store for a natural sponge, he didn’t know what I meant. When I explained about sponges on the ocean floor, he looked at me like I was kidding. Many young people don’t know what half the fruits and vegetables at the market are either, what they taste like, or how they nourish the body. I know because young clerks ask me what the items are at the checkout.

I was outside from morning until dark as a kid, making pets out of caterpillars, fireflies, and baby rabbits rescued from farm fields. I learned about good bugs and bad bugs, and reptiles from my parents while in the garden, and about the rest of the furry critters and birds just from being outside.

The realization about these drastic differences between generations and our relationships with nature hit home when I was at a party. A 25-year old ran out of a garage screaming about a huge bug, and to kill it! When I walked into that garage an absolutely huge, beautiful dragonfly made the mistake of flying in. It was one of those with markings on the wings, a white body, and other bright colors. I lifted him off with my fingers and sent him flying from harm’s way. Of course only a few knew about dragonflies and appreciated it, the rest looked at me disgusted from having touched a bug.

This does not bode well for living things in the future. Nature is a very delicate balance that we are just now grasping in the era of global warming. I think science is amazed at how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together between earth, air, and water. Adding life to this mix increases the intricacy of the living machine, which is our planet.

We cannot allow a generation of people to mature that have no affinity for the living things around them. Those living things will have no one to champion their cause. Our young people don’t know what they are missing by remaining indoors on beautiful summer days, but parents do. Get your kids out and involved. Bringing home frogs, snakes, turtles, bugs, and abandoned baby animals to nurture is part of the process of learning life, a well-rounded life that is, one that will include a relationship with nature and all that it holds.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=4241416

First I read one of those quick moving news feeds that the EPA warned it’s enforcement officers not to speak to Congress. That little bit of info just peaked my curiosity–speak up about what?

Now four senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee are urging Steven Johnson, the third EPA administrator under Bush, to resign as it appears he lied to a Senate committee.

Johnson claims he acted alone when he decided California should not regulate CO2 emissions from motor vehicles, but he was originally going to issue a partial waiver to CA. Someone changed his mind. The preceding EPA administrators left just as questionably and quickly as Johnson.

Christine Todd Whitman, 2001-2003, resigned just before reports of the clean up of 9/11 came out and according to SourceWatch,  “Eric Shaeffer, the EPA’s head of regulatory enforcement under Whitman, resigned under protest. He told Flanders that Whitman is ‘a Republican first and an environmentalist way down the list.’”

Michael Leavitt was Bush’s second appointee as EPA Administrator. Twelve states and several NE cities sued the EPA to block the new Clean Air rules during his leadership. The states argued the rules would weaken both environmental and health protection for citizens. Nice real nice. Scientist’s discontent with censorship was surfacing along with altered reports about global warming too. Leavitt left the EPA to head up Health and Human Services. That’s when a memo from Leavitt’s new department suggested its employees should buy hybrid. It suggested the whole federal fleet should go hybrid. This suggestion was via e-mail to 67,000 employees! So was Leavitt environmentally minded or not, altering reports of global warming on the one hand, then telling employees to buy foreign hybrids on the other?

And now Stephen Johnson appears to have succumbed to political pressure from the White House too. Who will be the replacement this time, someone from oil, someone from the NRA and/or hunting industry, or lumber, or coal…? I mean we had Steven Griles as Deputy Secretary of the Interior that oversees the EPA, and USFWS among other things, that resigned and went to work for Conoco Phillips oil as a lobbyist. The Deputy Chief of Staff to the Dept. of Interior, Sue Ellen Wooldridge, denied living with Griles when she still worked for the EPA. And then there was Philip Cooney, former head of the White House Council for Environmental Quality. Cooney was caught editing important data from scientific reports for quite awhile as well as pressuring the EPA to go along, so much so, that in 2002 the EPA removed an entire section on global warming from its annual report about air pollution. Cooney came to his position at the council as a lawyer and former lobbyist  for the American Petroleum Institute.  He left to work for Exxon Mobil. Right now a former lobbyist for an Intl. Hunt Club heads the USFWS. Ethics abound in the Bush administration.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902020.html 

Alaska’s Ted Stevens, longest serving Republican in the senate, was indicted on seven charges for his connections with VECO, an oil services company, and the renovations done to his home.

Ted is pro-oil, and we see why. VECO CEO Bill Allen pleaded guilty to bribing Alaskan lawmakers. And Ted has been accused of influence peddling. So we have an admitted briber, and a guy who invites it. So now Ted’s been indicted for lying about his dealings with VECO.

Ted has consistently put ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) drilling language in defense bills. Remember the recent Senate hearings with oil execs about high gas prices in relation to excessively high profits? We can thank Ted, the Chairman of that committee, for preventing them from having to speak under oath.

Senator Stevens is best remembered for financing two Alaska bridges to nowhere to a tune of over $220 million. A fiasco that had Ted threatening to quit the senate if congress took money away from those bridges. The money  for them would have been redirected for repairs desperately needed in New Orleans afer Katrina. Stevens got his way, but the bridge money was given to Alaska’s transportation fund instead.

But Ted’s mid 80’s age and this haven’t stopped him. He’s put in his bid to run for senate again. This is not the way to top off a long career.

Democrats want Mark Begich, the mayor of Anchorage, in the race. Begich is the favorite. Alaska could use someone environmentally friendly for a change. If they could just get rid of Governor Palin, Alaska might stand a chance at remaining a pristine wilderness.

After this, maybe Senator Waxman, who is investigating everyone, and doing a fine job of doing his job by the way, should direct more attention to the goings-on in Alaska and why so many are protesting.  

Read more of Stevens bio at: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ted_Stevens

It wasn’t all that long ago I blogged about the bush meat trade. Since apes are our closest DNA relatives this seems not only barbaric, but I wanted to know if cannibalism was next.

While watching BBC news late last night, I heard something worse if there can be such a thing. People are hunting people, but not for food or because of starvation, but because of religious beliefs.

In this country we may denigrate voodoo, shaman, and tribal religions of other countries, but to many these occult beliefs are as legitimate as ours.  This is not about religion vs religion though. This is hunting for wealth and prosperity, like bringing in an exotic animal skin in exchange for prosperity, or so the albino hunter believes.

In Tanzania, Africa there happens to be a disproportionate number of albino citizens. Albino’s have no melanin or dark pigment in their skin so they are white; their hair is white, eyelashes, etc. Witchdoctor’s in Tanzania believe albino body parts will bring wealth to a person.

Twenty-five albino’s have been killed, children included, the latest was a seven month old baby.  One woman watched as three people approached her albino husband sitting outside and hacked at him with a machete.  By time she returned with help, he was dead.

Another albino women pleaded with anybody listening to get her out of the country or to a safer urban area. There is a big denial that this religious belief is being propagated but BBC news is still investigating. Many Tanzanian’s say occult like religious beliefs infiltrate the government also. So everyone is slow to help the albino population.

Protected mountain gorilla’s have been poached for their hands. Their bodies left lying without them. Now people are found lying without body parts, body parts that supposedly bring wealth to someone else.

I don’t even know how to tag this blog. I’ve got categories for blogs for saving animals, marine life, trees, even insects, and habitat, air, water, parks, and human health, but humans as actual prey by other humans is a new one on me.  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7518049.stm

Not long ago I wrote a blog about H.R. 5852 (The Great Ape Protection Act) to protect our closest DNA relative from both mental and physical pain of suffering. Well, an article in USA Today stated that in Europe, apes could receive some of the same rights as humans very soon.

The article stated, “A Spanish parliamentary committee adopted resolutions last month that would give great apes, such as chimpanzees and gorillas, the right to life, freedom from arbitrary captivity and protection from torture.” It’s expected to be approved next year.

A specific court case in Austria is poised to go further and declare a chimp a person so that it can have a legal guardian and funds for upkeep. The European Court of Human Rights is considering this appeal for Matthew Hiasl Pan, a 28-year old chimp.

The only major legal argument against this is that it may conflict with a human’s rights somewhere down the line.

Spain’s legislation, however, stresses that this is about the basic rights not to be arbitrarily mistreated and killed. It would also “outlaw using great apes in experiments, circuses, TV commercials or films. Apes could be kept in zoos, but conditions would be improved.”

The case in Austria hinges on Matthew, who has always been treated as a human. He has lived in a Vienna shelter for 25 years and it’s going bankrupt. If Matthew has no place to live, he could simply be killed even though donors have pledged money for him, not the bankruptcy. A British animal rights activist who has worked with Matthew for 10 years will be his guardian.

The case wants about 4 out of the 50 human rights enjoyed by Europeans bestowed upon the animal as follows: the right to life, limited freedom of movement, personal safety, the right to claim property, and to a legal guardian.

This issue is being blown out of proportion as if Matthew’s lawyers are trying to get all human rights for a non-human animal “so he can go to college. This is about basic rights not to be killed.”

“Not to be killed” was a consideration for all living things in Bonn, Germany this year where representatives of 191 nations discussed putting a cost on saving nature. They looked into trying to make a highly profitable business out of saving forests, whales and coral reefs and to stave off extinction of the many species that will follow.

German Environment Minister, Sigmar Gabriel stated: “This conference deals with economic interests. It is critical that we assign ‘a measurable cost to the loss (of environment),’ or else we run the risk ‘of deleting data from nature’s hard drive.’” According to an article on the Mathaba News website “the initial results of a study, initiated in collaboration with the European Union, on the global costs of species and habitat loss amounts to 6 percent loss of global gross domestic product. Poor countries are the hardest-hit. The annual cost of species and habitat loss amounts to as much as half of their already modest economic strength.” So preserving biodiversity pays much bigger than destroying it.

It’s sad we have to go through all of this, put a price tag on life to give it value, when a good dose of morality/ethics that insures we have reverence and a deep abiding respect for all life that was given to us should be the norm in civilized society.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2008-07-15-chimp_N.htm

http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=593303

I read an e-mail from Defenders of Wildlife that explained how wealthy speculators (oil) are driving up the price of oil to double or more per barrel than what it should be. It stated that, “Michael Masters of Masters Capital Management, who testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in June, ‘with greater regulation [of speculation], oil prices could drop to $65 or $70 a barrel within about 30 days.’”

Well, that’s a no-brainer. Even Bush’s Energy Information Agency estimates that oil from drilling in the Arctic wouldn’t hit the market for 4 years and would only reduce gas by a few cents. It’s more of our own oil, but it’s still going to be $4 per gallon or more? What’s wrong with this picture? This speculation business looks to be true in that case. The agency also said “offshore drilling would not significantly impact domestic production or prices before 2030.”

Just yesterday I blogged that even the most environmentally minded in congress were willing to back drilling if necessary. Necessary to lower gas prices and make them look good for re-election? Now it’s really starting to look like this speculation thing is real. Look at the facts:

• Drilling for oil both in the Arctic and offshore will not bring gas prices down quickly at all.
• Those in Washington opposed to new drilling will now consider it if necessary, even though it doesn’t change the fact that drilling will not bring prices down. 
• Necessary must mean whatever it takes to bring gas prices down for re-election.
• Speculators are the only ones that can bring gas prices down quickly and drastically.

 Conclusion:  Environmentally minded congressional leaders are willing to give in to speculators wishes to drill in the Arctic and offshore in exchange for immediate relief at the pump for consumers and ultimately their re-election. Isn’t this extortion? Isn’t this our congressional leaders complying with extortion?

Congress needs to regulate speculators and quick if we want to see a fast, drastic drop at the pump. It’s a much better solution than giving in to greed and extortion while sacrificing clean water, marine life, and wildlife habitat.

We had to know this was going to happen. The U.S. has continued to sell oil leases even though the Arctic is still protected. When these guys get a plan in their head, war and extortion are not out of their realm. This is the final push during Bush’s term and it’s going to be a very bumpy ride. It appears this speculation news is being kept to a minimum.

I caught a little bit of Anderson Cooper on CNN last night asking the same question, “Are speculators driving up the price of oil?” Of course the official reply from someone official pooh, poohed the whole idea. And I guess that is supposed to be the end of it. Much of our country’s leadership, certainly wealthy corporations no longer answer to anyone anyway. 

Most of the time, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it’s a duck. And this is a real game plan speculators have going here. They’re no better than thugs making us suffer until we give in to their demands. Contact your congress people and soon. Regulate speculators.

President Bush lifted the ban on offshore oil drilling Monday, but it means nothing if Congress renews the ban as part of the annual spending bill for the Department of the Interior. Congress has done so since 1981 but it appears that many in congress even the most ardent environmentalists might support drilling where it makes sense. Sense?

How political can you get? Everyone including those in Bush’s administration admitted that drilling for oil will not bring immediate relief at the pump, if at all. Oilmen in this country have stated there isn’t enough to sustain us anyway. It’s been stated over and over that 2012 would be the earliest we will see any relief as far as gas prices in the U.S. from any new drilling.

But people in this country want immediate satisfaction, and become oblivious to facts in the quest for instant gratification. So now even our most enthusiastic defenders of the environment are saying they would consider it, but for what possible reason? It’s not going to bring prices down for four years, one whole presidential term. Ah but it will make our reps look like they are doing something to help a very impatient public. And for that, they just might get re-elected. To hell with the environment in an election year. Now we see true colors come out. This is a pretty late hour to succumb to the Bush oil regime. I thought we had more sense than that. Oh that’s right. Bush/Cheney wouldn’t be in office at all so there wouldn’t be a war in Iraq, our economy wouldn’t be plummeting, and we wouldn’t be trillions in debt if we had any sense.

I wrote a blog, “Polar Bears vs. Big Oil; Guess Who’s Going to Die?” I’m starting to feel like Humans vs. Big Oil…

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/opinion/15tue3.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

I read in the Union of Concerned Scientists newsletter, Volume 10, Number 3, Summer 2008, that the U.S. Senate approved bipartisan legislation in March to improve the effectiveness of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Good idea after last summer’s tainted spinach, tainted lettuce, beef recalls, and toxic toys went unchecked.

It seems there has been political interference in the work of CPSC employees like statisticians, psychologists, chemists, and engineers. The legislation is meant to keep science independent of political tactics to ensure consumers remain safe. There are whistle blower protections built in to the legislation that extends to other employees of companies regulated by the CPSC. The agency must also accept anonymous complaints via the Internet.

The Union of Concerned Scientists worked with doctor’s and consumer groups to put this Senate Bill together and encouraged scientists to speak up if they have had political interference in the past.

There is a House Bill that addresses the same problems but lacks the whistle blower protections. The idea now is to combine the bills to become the strongest legislation possible.

I’m certainly glad this is happening, but does it occur to anyone that we are now in the habit of writing legislation to keep the Bush administration’s mitts out of most things scientific, that we’ve had to use the supreme court and federal court judges to get the EPA to act on our behalf relative to the environment, and to get the Dept. of the Interior to move on putting polar bears on the endangered list?

If the agencies that are in existence to keep the public, environment, wildlife and habitat, food, and imports safe are being kept from doing their respective jobs by interference from politicians, then instead of doing this round about and creating new legislation, on top of legislation that already exists, wouldn’t it just be easier to get rid of the politicians affecting the problems? Remember to vote for a heck of a lot more than president this November, like voting out of office those that interfere with our safety, the earth’s safety, and wildlife looking to survive in a safe haven.