Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D_I_R_T who wrote (1929)	10/10/2000 10:50:21 AM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Recent article I read, scientists puzzled by dramatically diminishing sea otter population not just in Alaska but everywhere including Russia and Japan. May be global arming or overfishing of sardines and other food sources but they have not yet discovered the answer. Alarming indeed though as otters were not thought to be endangered. Why is this important? For the same reason that the devastation of salamanders and frog populations in the lower 48 is alarming. These species are the canary in the coal mine, the early warning signs of overall massive damage to our entire eco-system. Should come as no surprise to anyone but should also make it clear why environmental protection laws are so important, and why the gradual clean-up of polluting industries (including cars) is well worth the money. Here in California we pay a little extra for cleaner burning gas. The large majority of Californians have no problem paying this small extra amount especially as we have to breathe the air here too. LA is therefore now no longer the smog capitol of the US. That title beloings to Houston now, and its smog is all the more foul in that is contains higher percentages of benzene and sulphur derivative chemicals which are a real toxic stew. This goes to GWB who has never proclaimed any intent to make the environment an issue of his. Yes he has mentioned the words but it is pure rhetoric. Cheney has one of the worst environmental voting records in congress though he is avid fly-fisherman. He may not realize that even the trout he fly fishes for may soon go the way of the salamander if the air, water and land we all live on is not kept clean for future generations to enjoy (humans and animals). As for more drilling in Alaska, two things. First no one can predict the extent of damage to the Arctic Wildlife Refuge but it will be major. There will be accidents. And all of that oil goes to Japan anyway, a fact which was never mentioned during the presidential debates. Those on the right also want to start drilling off the coasts of Florida and North Carolina. If you've ever driven from Houston to New Orleans you can see what off-shore drilling can do to a coastline. The Santa Barbara coast is heavily regulated but the drilling there is tolerated, despite a calaitmous oil spill in the 60's which despoiled the beaches and aquatic wildlife for many years. There is a balance to strike, but the priorities are clear. If you sacrifice this country's natural beauty and cleanliness for a few percentage points more in oil supply you are paying a high price. Much easier to devise new ways to conserve and get the most bang out of every drop. Since oil prices went down nine years ago no one has made conservation a priority. Now we have to make it one again. Drive a little lower, get more MPG and so forth and we will save enough to keep our national treasures pristine. Also, if anyone think GWB and his oil business cronies have an interest in keeping oil prices low, that flies against common sense. The oil boom in the late 70's made Texas a big boom town, and they loved it. The higher the better down there. Conservation in fact is a dirty word in those circles.