Cornyn: Get serious, will you, Democrats? And you too, judges!
posted at 11:11 am on July 12, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Our friends at Power Line host a guest essay from Senator John Cornyn this morning on energy policy. Cornyn warns that policymakers have put America in an “irrational box”, and that Democratic leadership wants to keep us there:
The U.S. is well on the way toward transitioning away from over-reliance on fossil fuels. I’m for pursuing every source of energy out there – solar, nuclear, clean coal, wind, biofuels, hydrogen, shale. We need it all. But we’ve built up an infrastructure over 100 years that must be relied upon as we make the change to renewable sources. Congress has to get out of the way and allow the U.S. to develop its resources for that infrastructure – or we’re headed towards economic catastrophe.
As John notes, a number of Democratic officeholders have heard from their constituents, and they want to vote to expand energy exploration. But their leadership is making sure they cannot. You can feel the Democratic solidarity on this fragmenting. One of two scenarios is likely. Either the leadership wakes up and allows expanded development – in Alaska, outer continental shelf, shale – or I suspect Republicans are going to do a great deal better in this fall’s elections than most pundits now assume.
Maybe both? If the Democrats wait much longer, action may not save them from backlash at the polling booth this year, although Republicans had better set their expectations low in any case. And the legislature may not be the only problem, as HA reader Roger B points out:
A federal judge has overturned a decision by the U.S. Forest Service to allow oil and gas drilling near a forest and a river in Michigan’s northern Lower Peninsula.
U.S. District Judge David Lawson of Detroit ruled Thursday the agency had acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in 2005 by giving Savoy Energy LP of Traverse City a permit to drill an exploratory well near the Au Sable River’s south branch. …
But the judge ruled the Forest Service didn’t consider how degrading the area could harm tourism, and said the agency did a “woefully inadequate” job of evaluating how the drilling might affect the Kirtland’s warbler, an endangered songbird that nests in the area.
This case had a couple of complications. First, the land had been granted to the state on the condition that it be maintained as a wilderness. However, the federal government owned the mineral rights to the area and had leased it to an oil company. Savoy wanted to clear 3.5 acres of a 1200-acre tract to test drill for oil, which doesn’t seem unreasonable, except for the terms of the grant. However, the grant wasn’t the basis for the judge’s action; instead, he worried about the nesting practices of a songbird in an area consisting of less than 3% of the entire parcel.
It’s an apt demonstration of irrational as described by Senator Cornyn in his essay.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Democrats- the No Energy Party.
In every sense.
profitsbeard on July 12, 2008 at 11:20 AM
is there some law in effect that requires big oil to sell oil found in the US to be only sold to customers in the US? If not, that means big oil just sells more oil on the world market. The answer is not to find more oil, but to find alternatives to oil. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Monkei on July 12, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Kirtland’s warbler versus 7 dollar gas? Probably not a good bet for the judge to make. Actually, this decision is a good thing. It educates the average joe who is probably becoming a lot more interested in the impact of over regulation of fossil fuel supply each time he fills up his tank. The steam is filling up in the boiler and there isn’t a good relief valve.
a capella on July 12, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Isn’t it amazing that liberals worry about destroying the environment yet do not care about all the destruction to the inner cities that the Great Society brought?
GogglesPisano on July 12, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Michigan is going through a one state recession and this activist judge rules in favor of a warbler? You can’t make stuff like this up.
Les in NC on July 12, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Save the warbler, save the jihad.
PattyJ on July 12, 2008 at 11:33 AM
The answer is not to find more oil, but to find alternatives to oil. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Perhaps because increased supply of anything means reduced prices, and until those alternatives become truly viable, we still need oil. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Bishop on July 12, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Like what? How long? Would we be here if we had drilled more in 1970, or 1980, or 1990?
Oil isn’t just to push your butt to work, oil is in your clothes, medicines, computer, HDTV, and a million other products. This isn’t just about MPG. This is about giving us the space and time to find those ‘alternate’ sources and ‘alternate’ manufacturing processes. Are we suppose to just wait for some Edison or Einstein to transform the planet into George Jetsonville?
Limerick on July 12, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Pundit assumptions, there’s a rich concept. They were calling for a Kerry win right up till the end. IIRC.
bbz123 on July 12, 2008 at 11:40 AM
The drilling area WAS NOT IN the fishing/warbler area. It was outside that protected zone and they were going to slant drill a test well, then pipe what they found a couple of miles away to lessing impact on the fish and birds.
Common sense seems to be waiting on the wind.
Limerick on July 12, 2008 at 11:41 AM
That judge cared more for a warbler than for people who are suffering and trying to buy gas AND groceries.? UGH
I shudder to think of the elderly next winter, struggling to pay heating costs plus have something to eat on their small Social Security check. I would hate to see them go without heat.
Nice that the Dems dont care!
becki51758 on July 12, 2008 at 11:41 AM
I love the smell of panic in a congressman’s office in the morning…they would drill their grandmother for oil to keep their cushy jobs…
right2bright on July 12, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Do you mean nuclear?
Johan Klaus on July 12, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Do you mean nuclear?
Johan Klaus on July 12, 2008 at 11:44 AM
No, he means anything other than nuclear, coal, nat gas, oil, wind or solar. You know, magical energy that just…appears.
Bishop on July 12, 2008 at 11:47 AM
When I was a kid growing up in Oklahoma people went after the oil wherever they could find it. Birds or no birds. If they had not done that we would never have been able to build this country. Besides, drilling for oil is not going to bother birds, the very idea is stupid and unserious.
Terrye on July 12, 2008 at 11:49 AM
The Demand that is driving up the prices is a worldwide demand. Increasing worldwide supply will lower prices.
This is basic economics 101, so I don’t expect a liberal to understand that.
Now, in addition to drilling, I support massive conservation and alternative energy research and development. BUT WE MUST HAVE DRILLING as part of the package.
1. Drill for more oil
2. Develop Nuclear Power Plants
3. Conserve Energy
4. Develop Wind, Solar, and other alternative energy sources.
5. Drill for oil some more.
I think Liberals fail understand that Oil does more than power Obama’s SUVs. Without oil, we can’t grow or transport enough food to feed America, much less the world.
American needs to do everything we can to promote energy independence. But drilling is a key part. My car won’t run off a windmill and I don’t care if some stupid hummingbird has to move. And the majority of America is with me on this one.
JayHaw Phrenzie on July 12, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Monkei on July 12, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Alternative fuel sources are a must; on that we agree. Problem is that we will need oil for the next generation minimum while the country converts to new energy sources & equipment. The conversion will obviously follow the technology, thus we are many ears away from making the conversion. No matter how you look at this situation, we will need oil for many years to come. Taking our oil off the world market is a subject for discussion; however, putting millions more barrels into the world market on a daily basis works also (supply and demand).
Keemo on July 12, 2008 at 11:50 AM
I just wanted to get that straight.
Johan Klaus on July 12, 2008 at 11:50 AM
In fairness the oil companies were not pushing harder for more drilling in the past because the price of oil was not all that high and there were no real fears of shortages. But that was then and things have changed, supplies are tighter and prices are higher and they need to drill.
Terrye on July 12, 2008 at 11:51 AM
I suspect this kind of thing is where the delays come from for getting oil from offshore drilling too. The Democrats say it will take over six years to get the oil, but why would it take a long time? Could it be for all the environmental, historic and other compliance stuff?
In my industry, which has some similarities to oil, it takes significant expense and a year or more to get all the zoning, and NEPA-SHPO-THPO requirements taken care of before construction can start. Once construction starts, it only takes about 4 weeks to complete the project and get to producing.
So here’s the trick: Put all kinds of onerous, time-consuming regulation on oil drilling, and then argue that it’s not worth doing at all because it will take too long (because of the onerous regulation). It’s sort of a self fulfilling prophecy.
forest on July 12, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Hey, I have an idea. Why don’t we just drive small cars and wait for the wind? It’s all so simple.
a capella on July 12, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Terrye on July 12, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Good point. We need to take the conservationists out back behind the barn. These critters once served a purpose; not the case today, as they have over stepped their purpose while becoming complete nutters.
Keemo on July 12, 2008 at 11:54 AM
“Catch 22″
Johan Klaus on July 12, 2008 at 11:55 AM
LOL…
Real problem? A bunch of fishermen did not want to have to LOOK at a drillhead.
And an idiot judge of course.
Romeo13 on July 12, 2008 at 11:55 AM
I hope you’re not referring to polar bears. Nothing political about that.
a capella on July 12, 2008 at 11:55 AM
It’s not about the birds, that’s merely an emotional excuse. It’s about reducing the nation to the lowest common denominator – the only condition that allows Socialism to thrive.
OldEnglish on July 12, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Judicial activism.
Johan Klaus on July 12, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Monkei on July 12, 2008 at 11:25 AM: The answer is not to find more oil, but to find alternatives to oil. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Such as what? Prey tell. Well, you go ahead and find it and then tell us what it is. Then tell us how to convert 300 million consumers over-night. Until someone actually develops a viable solution, or solutions, we simply can’t get by without oil. BTW, why is that so hard to comprehend?
Bacchus on July 12, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Make that less than .3%
the drill sgt on July 12, 2008 at 12:00 PM
At least the Kirtland’s warbler will be able to make a come back when 1/2 the population of Michigan is dead because they can’t afford food or to heat their homes in the winter.
Exactly. Let’s use all of available resources to get us that next step.
VikingGoneWild on July 12, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Pelosi et al have painted themselves into a corner by letting the enviormentalists dictate an agenda which slaps the American consumer in the face every week when he fills up. It isn’t a winning hand.
a capella on July 12, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Pelosi lied to voters before the last election. She said the Democrats had a plan for energy problems which they would present if elected. Next election rolls around and Democrats are still obstructing any solution to the energy crisis.
Why does anyone vote for Democrats?
katieanne on July 12, 2008 at 12:02 PM
It’s certainly less than 3%, but it is also less than 0.3%.
Dusty on July 12, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Thanks, that’s the term I was looking for.
It would be nice to see McCain or some of the conservative pundits calling them on this, but Obama people just keep getting away with claiming that it will take x number of years to get any oil. The highest I’ve heard is 14 years – with no further explanation demanded as to why it will take that long.
forest on July 12, 2008 at 12:10 PM
The one force that will cause the dem’s to support drilling – the voters. And the voters are not yet that enthusiastic about the whole prospect. But if the voters were to become energized at the prospect of tens of thousands of high paying domestic oil field & related jobs dumped out onto the job market then they might put pressure on their representitives – big time. These high paying oil field & related jobs could fill the void left from all the manufacturing jobs that have been lost over the past decade. There are many folks that are now working as fast-food assistant managers or in mall retail that would salivate over the prospect of a much higher paying job in the oil patch – especially in time for Christmas 2008.
I don’t see Sen. Cornyn or others using this tactic of the promise of high paying jobs. If they want to get the Middle American voter energized, thats the way to do it. The U.S. worker loves a fat job market.
Yet the Sen. & others continue to drone on in such a boring, ineffective manor. Such poor salesmen. All they’re saying is true, but they just put folks to sleep. DD
Darvin Dowdy on July 12, 2008 at 12:10 PM
And she hasn’t stopped since.
Les in NC on July 12, 2008 at 12:11 PM
If drilling for oil would help lower the price of Botox, Pelosi would switch her position in a millisecond.
JayHaw Phrenzie on July 12, 2008 at 12:17 PM
You are quite simply wrong. The fragmentation of a wilderness area makes a huge difference in its ecological properties. While I know nothing about the Kirkland warbler–as my interest is plants not animals–I do know one the most basic ecological facts about birds. The cuckoo bird which is a nest parasite of other birds does not bother birds deep in wilderness areas, but will kill the offspring of birds near areas that have been cut down. Admittedly, the cuckoo bird may have nothing to do with the Kirkland warbler situation, but my point isn’t the exact facts about it. I’m simply pointing out not even considering the cuckoo when you make the claim that clearing 3.5 acres doesn’t “seem unreasonable”, you don’t even have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
And if you don’t know anything about the environment, then you should not talk about the environment and misinform people about it. Misinforming other people though deliberate and willful ignorance is getting awfully close to lying.
thuja on July 12, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Well, after a little quick research, I’m going hedge my bets and support the judge as I’m sure Savoy Energy didn’t promise to burn out the work area and then burn adjacent areas every few years as the Kirtland’s, like the Kirkland’s, requires habitat destruction to survive and prosper:
“If there is an American totem of open-land wildfire, it is the Kirkland’s warbler. It cannot survive without Jack Pine saplings sprouting from flames. Within the elfin sapling forest, the warblers nest and raise their young. The coevolution of Jack Pine and fire is so complete that the cones will not open and drop their seeds without it. If the pines live too long (beyond five or six years, or taller than one foot to five feet tall), the canopy opens below the lowest branches, and the warbler’s nest (which is on the ground) becomes exposed, vulnerable to cowbird nest parasites and predatory blue jays. If the ground-fire cycle of wet/dry is broken by fire suppression or aseasonal burning, the community loses its patterning. The ecological crazy quilt of young, tightly clustered pines scattered among open grassland disappears. In short, fire suppression and forest clearing have pushed the music of nature’s improvisational quintet–climate/fire/ grove-structure/pine/bird–over the threshold to cacophony. There are now fewer than 300 singing males.”
Dusty on July 12, 2008 at 12:19 PM
U.S. District Judge David Lawson, a Klinton appointee.
Zorro on July 12, 2008 at 12:22 PM
That certainly is an adorable little bird. I say we shouldn’t drill it for oil. For one thing, I am pretty sure that birds are not made of oil. Maybe we could get the cute little guys to wave their wings at some wind turbines and then we could use that energy instead. The birds would have gainful employment, we wouldn’t have to outsource our energy to India or somewhere, and we wouldn’t have to drill holes in all those cute little birdies.
What? You say you want to drill in the ground next to the little birdies?
Oh well, never mind.
Lily on July 12, 2008 at 12:22 PM
This is EXACTLY what You will do according to the liberal
Congress that America hired 2 years ago.
Either get over it or get busy with your local GOP. Freedom is not free. Either way, you will pay. The choice of how you pay is yours.
DannoJyd on July 12, 2008 at 12:22 PM
every time i see a story like this i look up the judge to see who appointed them and 10 times out of ten it was clinton. This case is no exception. Judge appointed by clinton in 1999
jesterstear on July 12, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Silly people, parks are for the birds.
KW64 on July 12, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Given a choice between feeding America and saving some little bird from the ravages of evolution, the bird does not have a chance.
Environutcases are about to learn how much of a minority they really are and as American’s get squeeed more, they will fall for these fake sympathy ploys less.
But, the Polar bears are sweating!!! OMG Stop drilling.
JayHaw Phrenzie on July 12, 2008 at 12:25 PM
I keep hearing people say alternative energy sources rather than oil, coal, or natural gas. They say solar and wind which of course will not serve for transportation fuels until you have acceptable electric cars. Also they cost 11 cents per kwh and 14 cents per kwh respectively while nuclear and coal cost only 2 to 5 cents. They are not an economic alternative and energy intensive factories forced to use them will go out of business. We need lots of fossil fuels for the next 25 years until we have enough nukes and a different transportation fleet to allow a transition if it makes sense to.
In the meantime blue collar union workers better figure out that the enviro wing of the Democratic Party is throwing them under the bus.
KW64 on July 12, 2008 at 12:27 PM
That sounds uncomfortably similar to those who feel people who haven’t been in the military shouldn’t have an opinion on military matters. Matter of fact, I bet there are “enviormental experts” who may have opinions opposite to yours.
a capella on July 12, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Why pretend to provide “the answer”, when you don’t even understand the question?
Saltysam on July 12, 2008 at 12:29 PM
OK, why doesn’t Alaska just drill and say screw the Government? With say 10 billion barrels of oil, at $140 a barrel, that is 1.4 trillion dollars, do they need any help from the US Government?
WoosterOh on July 12, 2008 at 12:31 PM
What will hurt tourism more, $4.50 gas or 3.5 acres out of a 1200 tract?
forest on July 12, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Because the average voter will never hear stories like this.
Talk with your non-political friends and family, and they’ll pretty much universally blame George Bush for the price of gas. This is because that is who the MSM tells them to blame, and they haven’t the interest to actually look into the issue.
McVain and the Republicans need to hammer the energy issue from now to November in ways the MSM can’t ignore, but I’m not sure they have the guts. How about a commerical showing Obama/Pelosi/Reid and the rest speaking out against increasing energy supply, then show them getting into their monster SUVs/private planes? Final voice over something like “Obama and the Democrats say higher gas prices are good because it will take away *your* choices, but apparently, they are a different story.”
18-1 on July 12, 2008 at 12:42 PM
This is probably the strongest reason to vote for McVain. Keep in mind that Obama is significantly to the left of Clinton, and the idea of who he would put on the bench is terrifying.
Of course, McVain does seem to find such perverse joy in poking conservatives in the eye that it is an open question as to whether it is enough of a reason.
18-1 on July 12, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Do you mean the “environmental experts” who deny the existence of cuckoo birds or the “environmental experts” who claim that cuckoo birds lactate for their young?
thuja on July 12, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Conversely
The judge failed to consider how tourism degrades the area, even for his chosen flock of feathers.
maverick muse on July 12, 2008 at 12:58 PM
So you don’t know about the case or the bird involved yet you are admanant about saying he is wrong and reference a subject which you do not even know is an aspect of the case to argue it. Great job.
I’m all for being skeptical at times but this willful and intentional use of self-refuting logic in the pursuit of at-all-costs blocking of not just reasonable, or reasonable and temporary, but reasonable, temporary AND beneficial development, is tantamount to lying, too.
Personally, I see just a little bit of willful deception on the part of environmentalists who use the term wilderness to describe old growth forest they want to protect in order to protect a bird who searches for areas ravaged by forest fires to survive.
Dusty on July 12, 2008 at 1:00 PM
One more bird-brained judge.
DRILL HERE DRILL NOW PAY LE$$.
profitsbeard on July 12, 2008 at 1:03 PM
[forest on July 12, 2008 at 12:33 PM]
Ah, but they didn’t define what kind of tourism they don’t want to hurt, and I suspect it is Zero Tourism.
Dusty on July 12, 2008 at 1:03 PM
At least pre-Clinton, the US Forest Service used to exercise the most rational strategy to national ecology of our resources. Clinton’s green-pea-brain coup trumped sound ecological policy with foolishness that to date has yet to be undisturbed by reasonable authority. Clinton set our national resources at the beck and call of China’s advantage and our absolute DISADVANTAGE.
Hannity was reporting the GOP Congressional alliance to prevent August adjournment until legislation enabling DRILLING NOW and Cornyn’s premise is addressed and passed.
maverick muse on July 12, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Hannity has Obama on record endorsing $12.00/gallon gasoline that will stop America dead and hide his own Barack-tracks.
Obamarx & Judge Kill Two Birds With One Stone ‘08!
maverick muse on July 12, 2008 at 1:11 PM
You should learn to read better–as I was fairly clear. My argument was simply to point out a “well-known” ecological fact that explains why 3.5 acres out of 1200 acres may make a difference–nothing more, nothing less.
thuja on July 12, 2008 at 1:11 PM
My question then. With all the eco freindly laws already in place… with all the protections the government already gives…
Why do you think this judge can make a better decision on this than the people who are PAID TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS?
Romeo13 on July 12, 2008 at 1:15 PM
It’s official: the Democrats want to bring America into the 21st century… B.C.E.
newton on July 12, 2008 at 1:20 PM
It would be about time for the Republicans to make more of the fact that they are not in charge of either the House or the Senate.
It seems obvious to most who follow politics, but that fact often slips past those who do not pay attention or are otherwise uninformed (like the press for instance :) ) . All this talk about throwing Republicans out of office because they’ve been in control too long ignores the fact that it has been the Democrats in control for the past two years. This energy obstructionism by the Dims would be the perfect drum to beat in the cause of setting the record straight.
BryanS on July 12, 2008 at 1:22 PM
God forbid that we allow and human interference in
Mason Tract
Especially 3.5 acres of this wilderness
Limerick on July 12, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Good question. Most of us assume that legislators shirk their responsibilities “TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS”. Most of us don’t think through the implications of how they may shirk. One less way obvious politicians shirk their duties is to write laws to pass the buck of decision making to the judges. On the other hand–to give the politicians the benefit of the doubt–it’s much easier to pass laws when there is some ambiguity and hence a need for judges.
thuja on July 12, 2008 at 1:35 PM
[thuja on July 12, 2008 at 1:11 PM]
You should know the case better. As for my reading better, you were clear that you don’t know whether this case fits within the issue of fragmentation. You also don’t know whether, if it did, if the proposal satisfactorily, or even more than satisfacorily, addressed it through mitigation.
What you do know is that it wasn’t brought up in the story. You do know that the case concentrated on much different and more vital specific subjects pertaining to the this particular proposal, than the “well-known” ecological fact that it may make a difference.
And there was a little more than “may make a difference … “nothing more and nothing less.” You said he was wrong and not just wrong, but quite simply wrong. And then after saying people should not talk about things they know nothing about because it may mislead people, you conveniently segued to add the standard environmentalist mau-mau suggestion that not knowing abut a subject but still spouting your opinion on it is tantamount to lying.
Physician, heal thyself.
Dusty on July 12, 2008 at 1:35 PM
I mean experts aren’t always objective. They may even have an agenda when rendering an opinion. Look at courtroom trials and expert witnesses.
a capella on July 12, 2008 at 1:35 PM
I wonder what the carbon footprint of World War III will be? What is the environmental impact of multiple nuclear explosions around the world?
Environmentalist had better make this calculation because World War III is where we are heading if we don’t quickly develop more energy resources. Nations will not stand idly by and allow their existence to dwindle because they are denied energy, wars will erupt to capture those developed resources.
Ultimately this is the goal of the environmental movement whether the lower level tree huggers realize it or not. Environmentalism and global warming alarmism are anti-human at there core. If you want to avoid world strife you must plan to provide the needed resources so people can live, not to do so is to invite catastrophe.
Environmentalist need to ask themselves if the Kirtland warbler and tourism will be better off after a 25 megaton blast, because that is where the environmental movement is leading us.
Maxx on July 12, 2008 at 1:38 PM
thuja:
You changed the subject (from Warblers to Cuckoos) and now you’re stuck there. Everyone else is talking about Warblers. Berating them about Cuckoos makes you look like Mr. Gumby.
You admitted you have no freaking idea if Cuckoos have anything to do with this situation, yet you’re hanging your entire argument on Cuckoos.
Then again, I guess that means there’s at least one Cuckoo involved in this situation… well, arguing about it, anyway.
Merovign on July 12, 2008 at 1:39 PM
My point was simply to point out a possible reason that fragmentation may be bad for a bird. My point was never meant to be relevant to the specific facts of this particular bird in this particular area. If this idea exceeds your comprehension, I see no reason to continue this conversation.
thuja on July 12, 2008 at 1:56 PM
It’s Saturday — a good day to send an e-mail to the Democrat that represents you telling him or her to stop the non-sense, and start the drilling.
Wise Golden on July 12, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Invest in companies that make torches, pitchforks, baseball bats and rope.
I think there will be a great demand for them before the year is out.
Nahanni on July 12, 2008 at 2:22 PM
The biggest killer of North American migratory song birds is the domestic feline. That is a fact…
The judge would be better off banning cats as pets if he is really concerned about the long term health of song bird populations.
Babs on July 12, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Please. . . .
Please listen to yourself. The is no reason for you to continue.
Thank you so very much.
rockhauler on July 12, 2008 at 2:32 PM
“My point was simply to point out a possible reason that fragmentation …”
[thuja on July 12, 2008 at 1:56 PM]
Well, if you want me to comprehend your one simple point a comment, please highlight it so I don’t have to read all your bald assertions, accusations and imputations leading me to comprehend you have more than one. Thanks.
Dusty on July 12, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Yep. But, that doesn’t work out so well for the enviormentalist agenda, does it? Actually, many countries are also looking at cats as a potential reservoir for transmission and antigen drift for Avian Influenza virus in mammals. They consume infected waterfowl/poultry carcasses and are very susceptible to infection. They shed lots of virus before dying, both in stool and from the oralpharyngeal area so could also be a threat to other birds as well as mammals. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the endangered warbler died of avian flu spread by feral cats, while the judge frets about drilling a test hole.?
a capella on July 12, 2008 at 2:47 PM
There is almost no “old growth” forest in Michigan’s lower peninsula. The Hartwick Pines state park is just about the only remaining old growth (and some very impressive 200′ tall white pines they are) in the LP. Most of the LP was completely logged over by the 1920s, and when Henry Ford needed wood for his Model Ts (early automobiles used a lot of wood parts), he set up a logging camp outside of Marquette, in the upper peninsula. There is still some old growth in the UP, particularly up in the Huron and Porcupine mtns, but most of the lower peninsula is second or third growth at least.
In any case, the proposed drillhead is outside the boundaries of the wilderness area grant.
While the Au Sable River is a beautiful, often pristine, river popular with trout fishermen, canoeists and other tourists, it’s not clear if the drilling site would even be visible from the river, so the judge’s concerns over the impact on tourism may not be well placed. I will say, though, that many trout fisherman and wilderness lovers absolutely hate the canoeists and believe them to be ruining the river.
The judge is concerned about the impact of drilling on tourism but seems unconcerned about the environmental impact of those tourists.
rokemronnie on July 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM
God bless my Senator (acutally, both of them aren’t too bad).
second digit on July 12, 2008 at 3:30 PM
following on the heels of this gem -
Do you even read the crap you’re typing?
You, sir, are a bird brain, variety scatterbrainieous warbler. Unfortunately, NOT an endangered, but rather highly annoying and distracting species. Do us a favor and migrate someplace nice. Like Saturn.
Wind Rider on July 12, 2008 at 3:31 PM
But every good story needs a villain. Aren’t you lucky to have my services?
thuja on July 12, 2008 at 3:32 PM
The Luddite Movement is alive and well, and is now called the Democratic Party.
pilamaye on July 12, 2008 at 3:35 PM
“The cuckoo bird which is a nest parasite of other birds does not bother birds deep in wilderness areas, but will kill the offspring of birds near areas that have been cut down. Admittedly, the cuckoo bird may have nothing to do with the Kirkland warbler situation”
There are two species of cuckoo in the US the yellow billed and the black billed neither of which is a nest parasite. The common cuckoo does act as a nest parasite but resides only in Europe.
The cuckoo bird has nothing to do with the Kirkland warbler situation.
agmartin on July 12, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Big John.
Big, bad John.
jgapinoy on July 12, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Environmentalism is a luxury activity for wealthy countries with stable borders and stable economies. The US has been able to indulge our every environmental whim for decades but is once again faced with a dilemma where necessary choices have to be made. I think the decades of education on environmental issues have made us able to implement our future choices much more wisely than in the past but something has to give.
I’ve always voted for Cornyn and I’m glad to see he’s taking concrete steps toward a sane energy policy.
inmypajamas on July 12, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Ya know, my kids tease me religiously over ‘my’ birds. I spend several hundred bucks each year on seed, feeders, suet and bird baths. Watching them gives me enourmous pleasure, really it does. I even turned over half my yard to the ‘wild’ to give them habitat and shelter, so my neighbos are thinking I am nuts too. I will offer my love of wild birds as second to none, or not very many at least. But for the love of Pete! I should willingly pay $5+ for gas to drive to the Tractor Supply store to get said items for them because….
For heaven’s sake, I’ll invite them here to western Tennessee! I’ve got a wonderful habitat for birds and the receipts to prove it! This is just beyond silly at this point.
dustoffmom on July 12, 2008 at 4:02 PM
I understand that all of us read hastily here. Perhaps one disadvantage of the net over reading books is that books encourage a more nuanced and thoughtful reading.
Perhaps, I should use bold to get across the major point if I write something long. It’s not been my style. Honestly, I remember the first time I used a exclamation in writing, because I had to search keyboard to find it.
thuja on July 12, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Key is in the worldview…
I’m an environmentalist… but not an envirowhacko…
to a whacko, any use, is abuse… by definition.
Romeo13 on July 12, 2008 at 4:38 PM
While trying to refresh my memory of the Kirkland Warbler, and the defining characteristic, I stumbled into this description of an Environmental Studies textbook.
rockhauler on July 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM
You use an hypothetical sitution to argue about a real situation that affects the lives of the human inhabitants of this country, which by the way, are far more importment than of some bird that may or may not be affected!
Johan Klaus on July 12, 2008 at 4:54 PM
This case had a couple of complications. First, the land had been granted to the state on the condition that it be maintained as a wilderness.
I don’t give a crap about the Kirtland’s warbler (the endangered species)but they wanted to drill in the middle of the Mason Tract, a wilderness sanctuary that has the most beautiful and pristine plot of northern michigan trout stream in the state. It has been set aside for trout fishermen to be able to fish in a small section of the 300 miles of river that still has no houses, bears, coyotes, nighthawks and the peace and quiet that does not exist most other places. Having a drilling operation 100 yards away from the river and drilling under the river is what is the most worrisome for everyone in the area. I am anything but an environmentalist, but since I fish this portion of the river and people come from all over the world to fish this stretch of the river, the prospect of a drilling rig running 24 hours a day, with lights blazing and pumping brine into the soil that close to a blue ribbon trout stream, made if me cringe!
flytier on July 12, 2008 at 5:00 PM
I’m sorry, but I have to return my original post, because I made an error. Feel free to ignore if you are tired of this subject. My point was simply that there could exist a reason why 3.5 acres out of 1200 acres could make a difference environmentally. I tried to give an example of a parasitic North American bird that does not go into deeper woods. However, agmartin pointed out that the North American cuckoo does not parasitize–which is slightly wrong. North Americans cuckoos are sometimes a brood parasite, but it is rare. I was actually thinking of the cowbird and not the cuckoo. Cowbirds are frequent brood parasites that avoid the deeper woods. As I said, animals just aren’t my thing.
And again this is not to claim that cowbirds have anything at all to do with the Kirtland’s warbler situation. It’s just to point out that there are possible reasons why the 3.5 acres may make a difference.
Here’s my fun fact of the day: cowbirds do parasitize warblers.
thuja on July 12, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Whew. You are beginning to sound like Obama.
Johan Klaus on July 12, 2008 at 5:05 PM
The silve lining to all this is it won’t matter soon.
If the price of crude stays at $145, or goes higher, and people get their first winter heating oil bill they will be burning judges and politicians for heat.
Tht tree some of you are hugging will be fire wood in the Franklins.
patrick neid on July 12, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Most people will gladly place the welfare of their family above any bird.
Johan Klaus on July 12, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Yahoo had a video available with the tag line “Florida oil usage at a 35 year low”. I couldn’t watch when I saw it and now I can’t find it. I will keep looking but really? A thirty five year low? So I guess if drilling won’t help obviously conservation isn’t making a huge dent either. Does congress not understand that every gallon we “save” India or China are glad to buy? But don’t the parks look nice?
Cindy Munford on July 12, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Yes. Treehuggers heart Terrorists.
Connie on July 12, 2008 at 5:49 PM
That’s a bunch of bunk and you knew it the minute you typed it. There is no way the judge or the plaintiffs knew any such thing. Its a disingenuous use of the grand unified theory of the universe applied to the environment in Michigan and everywhere else it suits. It goes without saying that clear cutting 3.5 acres in a stand of trees(over 5,300 acres) is going to create temporary havoc on the local species. If not a bird, then a lizard, blind snake, snail or whatever suits the claim. What we do know, your tree hugging aside, is they will get over it. If not, they will perish as the millions of species before us have perished. The minute you walk through the woods you start killing things.
But more often than not, said species leave the minute you show up making noise, ask a hunter, returning in some cases like the caribou to soak up the heat near the pipeline. It’s akin to the bitter lesson, in some sense, we are now learning about our idiotic fire suppression these last 70 years in our National Parks. When Yellowstone burned out of control, to much horror, we are now finding it is a much healthier forest with teeming wildlife. So much for the people that claimed to know about the environment.
I am not for a moment suggesting the willful destruction of the environment but I know nuisance when I see it. The Kyoto protocol comes to mind.
Thankfully as energy prices continue higher, cases and judges like this will be far and few. And the biggest surprise, there will be very little environmental damage of any lasting sort. Ethics and the environment will finally swing back into balance.
That said I wish the judge in this case had ruled for the Sierra club on the merits not some silly idea about 3.5 acres pulled out of his butt.
http://www.sierraclub.org/planet/200603/ausable.asp
patrick neid on July 12, 2008 at 5:58 PM
jgapinoy on July 12, 2008 at 3:44 PM
fun ad, huh.
maverick muse on July 12, 2008 at 6:26 PM
I’m a treehugger who would like to stop muslim immigration into the United States and toss the muslims here into internment camps until they are ready to emigrate. I would urge Europe to do the same.
thuja on July 12, 2008 at 6:29 PM
No, edge effects are as well documented as any environmental fact. I’m sorry you hate the environment, but it’s where we have to live. Have you considered migrating to the moon?
thuja on July 12, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »