The author.
Posted on 05/18/2015 1:27:33 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Imagine, for just a moment, the following scenario:
The year is 2019 — two years into the first term of President Scott Walker. The Royal Dutch Shell corporation proposes a massive expansion of its existing drilling operation in the Arctic Ocean. Shell officials note that there have been no major accidents since their first exploratory wells became operational, and that doing so will provide a big boost to an American economy sliding into recession.
President Walker, whose base is furious that he has only eliminated half of all federal food stamp and welfare programs, jumps into action. He orders Interior Department Secretary Donald Trump to immediately approve the project. Liberals are aghast. Environmentalists threaten blockades. Bill McKibben again promises the biggest climate march in history, this time with even more protest signs.
Conservatives defend their leader by pointing to a decision made by former President Barack Obama in May 2015. Even that great fighter of climate change, they accurately say, sanctioned Arctic drilling. Republicans accuse the few liberals in Congress who do speak out as being leftist demagogues. “How could Arctic drilling be a game-changer for so-called ‘climate change,’” George Will smugly snorts in a column, “if even a green socialist like Obama approved it?”
* * *
The above scenario, I think, reflects the greatest danger in the Obama administration’s decision last week to grant conditional authorization to Shell to drill in the Chukchi Sea off of northwest Alaska: The potential for a doubling down on natural gas production at the time we most need to be moving in new directions.
On its face, the White House’s decision changes relatively little in the global fight against climate change. Right now, Shell is only seeking to construct up to six exploratory wells. The approval is not yet final, and Shell could face other regulatory hurdles. The Wall Street Journal notes that it could take years between a commercial discovery of oil in the Arctic and its production. And then there’s the fact that the Obama administration has indeed made 9.8 million acres north of Alaska off-limits to future oil and gas leasing.
If you were only considering these factors, you could be forgiven for thinking environmentalists’ dire warnings are overstated. You might also, with a little bit of Googling, look askance at the greens’ predictions of an imminent oil spill: Greenpeace, The Nation and several others have claimed that the government admits there’s a 75 percent chance of a major spill. That projection, however, is flatly refuted by the government itself, and it’s clear that their research on the question has been widely misinterpreted.
But forget all that. What’s truly worrisome, and devastatingly so, is that Obama has set a precedent for opening up a massive new frontier in gas production — one that could make our already bewildering carbon emissions math into an arithmetic impossibility.
Here’s why: The Arctic region is believed to contain 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its natural gas, a report by the Center for American Progress reports. Meanwhile, if we have any chance of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (which itself would be disastrous), we have to leave more than two-thirds of the world’s fossil fuels in the ground, according to the International Energy Agency. What happens to the possibility of global cooperation on climate change if a Republican administration takes Obama’s approval of Arctic drilling to its logical conclusion?
In defense of his decision, President Obama said that Arctic drilling could play a role in the “transition process” to a world world without fossil fuels — and that it’s better to get it domestically than from abroad. Nonsense. Gas prices are falling amid a massive boom in domestic natural gas production; our dependence on foreign gas is dropping like a rock. This is the president’s proclivity toward even-handedness at its worst.
Earlier this month, the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management released a remarkable 8-page “Environmental Impact Statement” about Shell’s proposed project. Infuriatingly, the document refuses to say anything about the potential impacts of future or expanded Arctic drilling; the term “climate change” is not mentioned once. “The degree to which the Proposed Action may establish a precedent for future actions or represent a decision in principle about a future consideration, does not render the potential impact significant,” the report says in its inscrutable bureaucratic tone.
The document then ticks through the oh-so-many ways the company’s exploratory wells wouldn’t have any environmental impact at all: Sea otters, for instance, would probably be OK. And air traffic and whaling camps should be relatively undisturbed. So at least there’s that.
Scott Walker Is the Worst Candidate for the Environment
"Scott Walker is killing it with Republicans. The Wisconsin governor is one of his party's rising stars—thanks to his ongoing and largely successful war against his state's labor unions, a fight that culminated Monday with the signing of a controversial "right-to-work" bill.
Now (for the moment, anyway), he's a leading contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. At the Conservative Political Action Conference a couple weeks ago, he polled a close second to three-time winner Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), beating the likes of Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush by a significant margin.
It probably won't surprise you to learn that none of the prospective GOP presidential candidates are exactly champions of the environment. Probably the least bad is New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who at least acknowledges that climate change is real and caused by human activity. Walker just might be the worst. He hasn't said much about the science of global warming. (In the video above, you can watch him tell a little kid that his solution to the problem will center on keeping campsites clean, or something.) But his track record of actively undermining pro-environment programs and policies while supporting the fossil fuel industry is arguably lengthier and more substantive than that of his likely rivals.
"He really has gone after every single piece of environmental protection: Land, air, water—he's left no stone unturned," said Kerry Schumann, executive director of the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters. "It's hard to imagine anyone has done worse."
Here's a rundown of Walker's inglorious history of anti-environmentalism............."
The author.
If the hypocrite environazis hate Walker, I love him.
“Green” energy can only meet about 10 - 15% of the demand.
Using only that is like having a power outage every month that lasts over 3 weeks.
That’s the world these freaks want us to live in.
Geez, the “hole” erf may self immolate.
Seeing the photo of the author, lowers the impact of the words.
This is a Salon professional contributor?
Some of us need to blog more.
“The potential for a doubling down on natural gas production at the time we most need to be moving in new directions.”
We most needed a new direction in the late 1960’s and early 70’s. Pollution was pretty bad then. Today our air and water are FAR cleaner.
This imbecile is proof that Cornell, for all it’s reputation, still admits uninformed nitwits.
Salon doesn’t deserve space on this website. That pencil neck doesn’t deserve hits on his article.
I have to question if “Salon” is a real site or not?? It sounds more and more everyday like a bunch of 12 yr old punks fresh out of the Public School System with their Self Esteem Awareness Degree in hand,smokin crack and jacking off while wondering aloud why they can’t get a date.
LOL!
Let me guess... he doesn’t have a girlfriend.
Does that squat to pee???
2019 ???
Try February 2017 if Scott Walker is pres.
Isn’t Ithaca supposed to be “The City of Evil”? Saw it somewhere....
“lib Jew”
What would his religion have to do with anything?
If he writes for Salon he has boyfriends. $5 says he’s the catcher.
If he does, it’s likely an anime girlfriend that excites him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.