Good for Bush:President Bush plans to designate an island chain spanning nearly 1,400 miles of the Pacific northwest of Hawaii as a national monument today, creating the largest protected marine reserve in the world, according to sources familiar with the plan.
Establishing the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands as a strictly protected marine reserve, which Bush is slated to announce this afternoon, could prove to be the administration's most enduring environmental legacy. The roughly 100-mile-wide area encompasses a string of uninhabited islands that support more than 7,000 marine species, at least a fourth of which are found nowhere else on Earth.
Comments
View as Flat
amazingdrx Posted 11:24 pm
14 Jun 2006
These PNACers are a tricky bunch.
He is a biker after all. And has solar power and a geothermal heat pump at the ranch in Crawford. Wouldn't it be something if he turned on the GOP corporate wing like Teddy Roosevelt did and endorsed renewable energy to replace fossil and nuclear.
Shift those subsidies GW! Too much to hope for?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
melissabarton Posted 3:37 pm
15 Jun 2006
I'm happy about it anyway, though. It's a truly stunning and valuable place that will be fully protected one year earlier--and more permanently--now.
http://rosettastone.wordpress.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:02 pm
15 Jun 2006
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/kansas/preserves/art15403.html
This one is far too small. We need one on the scale of an African wildlife park. Like this one.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/2/9/1752958.html
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
maverita Posted 5:19 am
18 Jun 2006
Another difference between a national monument and national park is the amount of diversity in what is being protected; national monuments aim to preserve at least one unique resource but do not have the amount of diversity of a national park (which are supposed to protect a host of unique features). However areas within and extending beyond, national parks, monuments or even national forests can be part of wilderness areas, which have an even greater degree of protection than a national park would alone, although wilderness areas managed by the USDA Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management oftentimes allow hunting.
This national monument status has been challenged in the past when oil reserves, mineral or other natural resources have caught the eye of the greedy. Or even worse, when budgets get cut, such areas are often exploited to generate cash from forestry or other resource usage....
No, like every other move he has made*, this one has long been calculated to do just what you are allowing it to do, put a patina of environmentalism on a man who does not deserve it. It would have been far more "evironmental" to get behind a proper marine sanctuary program and designation which would have truly provided ecological protection....
*remember how he used his first nomination of Harriet Myers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor in a manner that insured that she would not be seriously considered, so that another woman would not be placed on the supreme court, but in a manner that effectively neutralized feminist criticism.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 6:02 am
18 Jun 2006
He DID make Congaree Swamp into a National Park, despite the fact that there's a wonderfully rare piece of old growth forest that has plenty of timber value. This amazing place has 16 national champion trees in it. Where else can you find a 160 foot tall hickory tree and awesome baldcypress? If you're ever in the vicinity of Columbia, SC, you're going to want to spend a day there.
He also enacted the "Healthy Forests" law, although it was heavily editted to make it more palatable to Democrats. The disaster that some pundits had promised just hasn't materialized, and we ARE seeing forest health projects coming to fruition. There's still quite a long way to go, and we'll still be seeing massive wildfires in the near future but, ya gotta start somewhere.
I tend to think that the Bush Administration has taken a page from the James Watt playbook. Propose something so hideous and despicable that people rail against it in hordes. Meanwhile, slide some other projects and policies in underneath the radar. Add to that the stealthy stuff like riders and rules, which both sides do pretty regularly. The new Roadless Rule is designed to placate certain red states, so that they won't sue the Federal government over the old Clinton Rule. It's a win-win situation for the Bushies. He allows the states to offer their recommendations but keep control over the final decisions. Luckily, today's Forest Service sees the value in keeping Roadless Areas road-free (except for the roads ALREADY within the Roadless Areas...lol). BTW, it still amazes me how many people think that logging is banned in these Roadless Areas, even under the Clinton Rule.
While Bush himself may not be the evil person some make him out to be, he certainly has some VERY slimey "friends". BEWARE!
Permalink
jahody Posted 10:34 pm
19 Jun 2006
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060605-hawaii.html
A summary: All those rare species and unique habitat that Bush is being praised for preserving? A recent study projects 65% of that would disappear by 2100 due to - what else - global climate change!
Anybody out there seen a major media source mention this yet?
Permalink