One of the greatest difficulties in being an
environmentalist is trying to see both sides of an issue. Take energy
conservation. During the 1973 oil crisis, when a consortium of countries,mostly in the Middle East, tightened controls on the world’s oil supply,
Americans panicked, initiating more oil exploration in Alaska, Canada, the Gulf
of Mexico, and the North Sea. Environmentalists warned about the potential for
disasters such as what happened with the grounding of the Exxon-Valdez and the
BP oil spill, but those fears were pooh-poohed away by people legitimately
concerned about the critical ways our energy supplies figure into national
security, and by people only concerned about capitalizing on oil company
profits.
I took this photo of a badly oiled night heron at Barataria Bay after the BP oil spill. The spill was far, far worse on wildlife than was reported.
The national security issue goes both ways, of course. Depending on
any foreign powers for fundamental needs in the US is foolish, whether they be
energy resources or critical computer components and consumer goods, but the
very people who talk the loudest about us needing to be energy independent for
national security are among the ones who outsource more and more critical
manufacturing to China. And meanwhile, those environmentalists who have been
talking about energy conservation since the 60s and 70s, because of the
critical roles fossil fuels play in air and water pollution and climate change,
are ever shouted down.
We had the technology to make cars much more efficient,
and during the Nixon administration set fairly strict standards for mileage of
auto fleets which would have made a much bigger impact except that then
Congress exempted minivans and SUVs from being considered passenger vehicles to
dilute the effects of those standards.
It’s been heartbreakingly frustrating
watching scientists paid for by the Koch Brothers conduct studies to prove that
global warming is non-existent as more and more glaciers melted, average annual
temperatures over the planet climbed, and insurance costs for weather-related
claims mushroomed. Once it finally became impossible for climate-change deniers
with a Ph.D. after their name to keep any kind of credibility with the
scientific community, one by one they finally started conceding that yes,
climate change is indeed happening, but really, how could it possibly be caused
by one measly species? Now more and more of these paid deniers are finally
being forced to admit that their studies were flawed, or at least they’re
accepting that “new data” has made them reevaluate their findings and, yes,
climate change does indeed exist and is indeed caused by our activities.
If this has all been a frustrating nightmare for environmentalists,
it’s been heartbreaking to watch as one by one the national treasures we’ve
managed to protect or restore for ourselves and wildlife are sold off to the
highest bidders. Ever since the
1930s, companies have been drilling and operating oil wells on the Aransas
National Wildlife Refuge, which serves as the winter home for every single
member of the truly wild flock of Whooping Cranes that breed in Canada.
Only a
few of these oil wells are still producing, and most of the recent wells drilled there have not
been economical to operate, yet Hillcorp Energy Company is requesting a new
permit to drill there. The way the laws are written, National Wildlife Refuges
aren’t designated wilderness areas and multiple use mandates require that
companies be allowed to explore and extract minerals and fossil fuels, though
special use permits can limit where and how their work is done.
There is a very
limited period for public comment—letters will be accepted by the US Department
of the Interior through August 17. We can’t stop the drilling, but we can ask
that all exploration be limited to areas away from where the cranes are, and we
can also exert a bit of pressure on the publicly-held Hillcorp Energy Company
to make them aware that people are watching them.
Links: