'ANNOYING' THE POLAR BEARS

Environmentalists have their thongs in a wad because the Bush administration has given oil companies permission to "annoy" and "potentially harm" polar bears. This past week, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued regulations that give legal protection to seven oil companies that are planning to search for oil and gas in the Chukchi Sea off the northwest coast of Alaska. Out of the estimated 25,000 polar bears in the Arctic, about 2,000 supposedly live in or around the Chukchi Sea.

Of course, the environmentalists are throwing a fit because they believe that this gives oil companies a blank check to harass polar bears. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service says that the exploration will have little to no effect on the bears' population. Just to give you a little history, there is absolutely no evidence that a polar bear has ever been killed by oil and gas activities in Alaska since 1993. And since 1960, only two polar bear fatalities have been linked to oil and gas exploration in Alaska. Only two polar bears in almost half a century ... and these environmentalists are up in arms.

These seven companies will have many requirements in order to comply with government regulations. For example, they must map out the locations of polar bear dens, train their employees about polar bear habitats and take many other measures to make sure they don't disrupt the polar bears. And polar bear deaths will be investigated and could result in government penalties.

You would think that over time the people of this country would finally get somewhat of a handle on just what is going on with these so-called "environmentalists. Sure, some of them are truly concerned about the environment. Those would be the ones that appear to be reasonable when you hear them speak or read their pronouncements. The bulk of the environmental movement is based more on anti-capitalism and a desire to weaken America than it is to protect the Earth's environment.

Patrick Moore was the founder of Greenpeace. He called himself a "radical environmentalist." Several years after founding Greenpeace Patrick Moore walked away. Moore said that the fall of communism brought a lot of anti-corporate extremism to the environmental movement. Here's his explanation:

" ..... suddenly, the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.

A lot of those in the peace movement were anti-American and, to an extent, pro-Soviet. By virtue of their anti-Americanism, they tended to sometimes favor the communist approach. A lot of those people, a lot of those social activists, moved into the environmental movement once the peace movement was no longer relevant."

Moore went on to say that these environmental activists " are now using the rhetoric of environmentalism to promote other collectivist agendas, such as class struggle..."

Now bear in mind that Moore isn't actually a conservative. He wrote that he believed the class struggle cause was a legitimate one; he just didn't want it missed into the cause of environmentalism.

So, what is the deal with these "environmentalists" worried about oil companies annoying polar bears? It isn't about the bears at all. It's about preventing these evil oil companies ... these evil corporations ... from discovering and then recovering oil. It's also about weakening America.

What perfect cover these tired old communists and socialists have found. Suddenly they're the champions of the environment ... and who wants dirty air, dirty water and annoyed polar bears? You oppose their anti-capitalist agenda and suddenly you're against the environment. It was much easier to fight these people when cause was Karl Marx and not Winnie the Pooh.

Before we go .. I just found this article before loading these notes on the Internet. We all know that Brazil has found some new massive oil deposits off shore. In this case the "environmentalists" aren't fighting the recovery of the oil. And why would that be? Could it possibly be because the bulk of the money goes to the government and not private enterprise? Here's a telling sentence from the story:

"Where government has the property right, restrictions on development tend to be low. But when the private sector is the owner, environmental concerns blossom."

Now why would environmentalists even care? If their true concern was the environment, they wouldn't. If their true concern was crippling free enterprise, they would.

With the alleged collapse of “communism” (it didn’t. they just traded their uniforms for blue suits and tucked their guns into their waistbands — for now!), the left needed some new “boogeyman” with which to herd humanity into the corral. The environment was the best bet and they are working it like a rented mule.

Read “Liberal Fascism” - Johan Goldberg.

Fascists (Progressives) need a warlike atmosphere in order to convince the individual to give up his individualism in order to support “the cause”. Wilson and FDR used the wars of their times to promote fascism/socialism.

I’ve also conjectured that the main reason the left opposes the “war on terror” is that it isn’t being used to advance their socialist domestic policies like they would if they were in charge.

Here's a telling sentence from the story: "Where government has the property right, restrictions on development tend to be low. But when the private sector is the owner, environmental concerns blossom."

This extends beyond energy development. In New Mexico Democrat governor Richardson want a legacy for his administration and shortly after becoming Governor in 2002 convinced the Democratic legislature to build a half-billion dollar (current cost is $450 million, round that up) new commuter railroad between Santa Fe and Albuquerque. Never mind that a 75 mph interstate connects the cities, or that crowding was in the two-lane (each way) section near ABQ that had not been improved since original construction in the late 60's-early 70's. So he's been building his railroad and the past year you have the biggest scar on the landscape with a monstrous cut and full RR grade up the side of a 700-ft. escarpment. They did a so-called environmental assessment but that was it.

On the other hand, nearby, an oil and gas company wants to drill a single exploratory well and everyone from the governor on down has put roadblock after roadblock in their path, with extensive new rules and a drilling moratorium to top it off.

While Red China hasn’t drilled YET, they have a 100-year lease to drill 50 miles offshore Florida. I heard they will use a horizontal drill.

I also heard that other countries are leasing what could be OUR oil, as well, including the Gulf of Mexico. So while we’re waiting around begging the EnvironMENTALists to allow us to drill, let’s at least grab some land and lease it for our future energy. If we don’t, other countries will grab more and lease it for themselves.

I believe Glenn Beck is going to have a show about this tonight on tv.

Anyway, diggin’ in ANWR FIRST makes the most sense, because the pipeline is already very near ANWR.

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.