The chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, spoke against the planned sale of oil drilling rights in Alaska, stating that the drilling would greatly effect the polar bear population.
The sale is supposed to take place on February 6, 2008, and the chairman, Ed Markey, is trying to postpone the sale until they find out how they are going to protect the polar bears. He wants to make it so a legislation would require the Bush administration to protect the bears before they destroy their habitat by drilling. They are also trying to prevent oil spills from occuring, which could also have a huge impact on the polar bears.
I hope that Markey is able to go through with his legislation. I believe the polar bears should be protected since they are an endangered species. I think the drilling plan is totally unacceptable, although oil is desperately needed in the US. I believe we should try to find other places to drill for oil, therefore fulfilling our needs as well as protecting the environment and natural wildlife.
2 comments:
I agree that the Bush administration should have to protect the polar bears. They are an endangered species who need to be protected. But I think there is a way to protect the polar bears and drill in Alaska. I hope that Markey can devise a plan that can do both things.
Bush has had this on his agenda from the beginning. What about alternative fuels? Why do we just accept this supposed "dependence" on oil, when it threatens to eliminate an entire species from the planet, what to speak of the debate over our true motives for getting into wars in the Middle East. Why are people so resistant to change that is so obviously beneficial? Why should we continue to do the same thing over and over, drill for oil, deplete the earth of resources, fail to think outside the box, and expect different results?
Post a Comment