|
OPINION
| October 3, 2003
Editorial/Our View
More Human Than Humans
Environmentalists go too far in
trying to protect Mother Nature
 |
| The Shorthorn: Ryan Hartsell |
|
Liberals are out of touch on many issues,
but their stand on environmental issues takes the cake.
Environmental groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals firmly believe animals are more important than people —
they are willing to go to ridiculous lengths to protect animals
at our expense.
For example, PETA is currently on an anti-milk campaign because
members think cows suffer needlessly to provide a healthy substance
for humans. An activist even dressed up like a cow and protested
in front of an elementary school in Scotland with several other
supporters.
When did animals become more important than people?
Fortunately, there is major resistance to their radical ideas, as
evidenced by the group of anti-PETA protesters who sprayed the activists
away with milk. However, despite these hysterical protests, the
environmentalists still have the loyal support of the Democratic
leadership.
They also oppose drilling for the oil and natural gas we need to
fuel our country. Liberals go into hysterics when anybody suggests
expanding our use of nuclear energy or building more hydroelectric
plants. It seems that environmentalists would prefer to put our
energy and economic livelihood in jeopardy just to protect an endangered
animal species.
Despite consumers dealing with rolling blackouts and energy shortages,
environmentalists want to punch a hole in one or more of the federal
dams on the Snake River to let the salmon migrate. However, the
activists and most of the Democratic leadership reserve the majority
of their propaganda for opposition to drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. They claim drilling even in a small part of the
refuge would threaten the migration habits of the Porcupine Caribou.
Why should the national government shape its energy policy and threaten
the energy security of 280 million Americans because of a bunch
of Porcupine Caribou? Despite the rhetoric, the facts do not add
up.
First, the Bush administration only proposed to drill 2,000 acres.
Is that really going to affect the migration habits of the caribou?
No, it isn’t. We’re leaving more than 18 million acres
of their natural habitat.
Further, liberals claim drilling there will destroy the environment.
However, state-of-the-art technology now allows oil and gas companies
to drill with a minimum of surface equipment, allowing them to drill
sideways as well as down. All of this severely diminishes the damage
we do to the surface where the drilling occurs.
Next, the refuge isn’t exactly the most popular tourist spot
in Alaska. Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, said the refuge “is
a flat, treeless, almost featureless plain.” Temperatures
can drop to -40 degrees Fahrenheit, 56 days are in total darkness
annually and about nine months are harsh winter, he said.
Does this sound like one of the most pristine areas in America to
you? I guess it is to the environmentalists.
Perhaps most shocking of all is the evidence that drilling for oil
may actually help the caribou population grow. For example, in Alaska’s
Prudhoe Bay, the Central Arctic caribou herd has grown from 6,000
in 1978 to 19,700 today, according to Murkowski.
It’s obvious how out of touch the liberals are in regards
to the issue of drilling in the refuge. But what makes the situation
ridiculous is that Alaskan Democrats, including their governor,
actually support drilling in the refuge. They take offense to liberals
in Washington thinking they know better than Alaskans what to do
in their own backyards.
In light of all of these things, the liberals’ argument that
drilling in the refuge would destroy the Porcupine Caribou is simply
laughable. However, what isn’t humorous is that these people
are jeopardizing our energy and national security in the name of
Mother Nature.
— Jessica Smith is a journalism senior and a contributing
writer for The Shorthorn.
|
|
