More Administration Thoughts on Public Land Use

[chelle]

The New York Times

September 28, 2005

Interior Secretary Says U.S. Will Push Search for Energy

By FELICITY BARRINGER

 

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 - Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton said Tuesday that after the two destructive gulf hurricanes that battered the nation's energy heartland, the Bush administration would intensify its push to expand energy development on public lands including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in the nation's coastal waters.

 

"The vulnerability of having all the energy supplies and refining and processing capacity in one geographic area reinforces the idea that we need diversity of supply," Ms. Norton said in an interview.

 

Citing government reports on the increasing demand for petroleum and natural gas and the sustained high prices that tend to result, she said, "The hurricanes have brought more attention to the fundamental issue."

 

While Ms. Norton took no position on a Congressional proposal to end a 25-year moratorium on oil leases on the outer continental shelf and to eliminate internal departmental appeals of administration decisions to lease public lands, she did not reject its approach.

 

She said she had read only a two-page summary of the measure, which is before the House Resources Committee, but she was open to the idea of alternative energy development on public lands.

 

In a wide-ranging interview in her spacious, wood-paneled office, the secretary - one of the few Cabinet members to serve since the opening days of the Bush presidency - spoke of what she deemed the flaws in the Endangered Species Act and of her worries about restrictions on some activities in national parks. But she carefully sidestepped any endorsement of final solutions.

 

Ms. Norton's remarks came at a time of intense debate over efforts by Congress or the administration to reshape longstanding laws and policies on matters within her department's purview, among them oil leasing practices, protection of endangered species and management of the national parks.

 

But while cautious about endorsing legislation or making new policy pronouncements, Ms. Norton left little doubt that she would continue her efforts to reshape the policies and practices that have restrained private interests - be they energy exploration companies or the makers of recreational vehicles like motorized water scooters and all-terrain vehicles - that seek greater access to public lands.

 

Craig Manson, an assistant interior secretary, who joined Ms. Norton for the interview, defended the review of national park management policies.

 

Permissible "impacts" on park lands, Mr. Manson said, are confused with impermissible "impairments."

 

"Footprints are going to be made if people are in the parks," he said. "But that's not necessarily an impairment."

 

The 1916 law creating the park service, known as the Organic Act, says its purpose is "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife" of parkland and "to provide for the enjoyment" of these in a way that "will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

 

Citing this law, Mr. Manson said, "It's important that there be a balance between the two aspects of the mandate."

 

He added, "From time to time those two aspects sometimes get out of balance."

 

The "bulk of the work" of the current rewrite of department policies set in 2001 - a rare occurrence, as rewrites are not usually done so frequently - will be handled by "park service management," Mr. Manson said.

 

A draft revision of the management policies that govern more than 390 units of the park system produced sharp denunciations by the National Parks Conservation Association and a group of retired park employees, who said it was catering to commercial interests, like the manufacturers of often noisy recreational vehicles, at the expense of conserving park resources.

 

While saying that the revisions were a work in progress, Ms. Norton did say that she found it hard to see how noise, like the noise of recreational vehicles, impaired park resources.

 

"Sound is an instantaneous issue," she said, adding: "There are things that need to be dealt with in terms of the enjoyment of current visitors. Clearly, current visitors are the ones impacted. But we tend to lump all of that under impairment."

 

Construction of cellphone towers, Ms. Norton said, is not necessarily deleterious to park landscapes.

 

"Cellphone towers are an issue," she said, "but the scale of land use of a cellphone tower is a very tiny impact. We have some cellphone towers that are disguised within buildings, or fake tree cellphone towers. There are ways you can do it without impact."

 

The two officials took no stand on the rewrite of the Endangered Species Act that the House is scheduled to consider Thursday. But they made clear their openness to the act's two major proposed changes.

 

The first would replace the current process of designating areas of "critical habitat" deemed essential by biologists for the recovery of an endangered species with a slower and less binding process of identifying "specific areas that are of special value to the conservation of the species."

 

It also proposes the use of financial inducements to win landowner cooperation and the reimbursement of landowners who, because of the law, must forgo economic benefit their property would have provided.

[JoshK]

You had to see this coming...It is the perfect opportunity for them to slam this bullshit through with less public opposition. I'd be willing to bet ANWR would have made no difference in the impact of the hurricanes owing to the fact that refining is still concentrated in a few specific areas.

 

You gotta love the Bush administration: use a natural disaster to ignore the bigger problem (energy dependency, and lack of any sort of plan at all) to hook your buddies in the oil industry up at the expense of the rest of us.

 

What a pathetic piece of garbage this administration is.

[Jim]

 

Citing government reports on the increasing demand for petroleum and natural gas and the sustained high prices that tend to result, she said, "The hurricanes have brought more attention to the fundamental issue."

 

And I guess that issue is how we continue to move forward as the land of mass consumption.

 

If you missed it a few Sundays back there was a very informative article in the NY Times magazine entitled "The Beginning of the End of Oil". Very well researched a article that discussed the over estimates of the mid-east oil field capacity in anticipation of OPEC shares for the producing countries, the dwindling production of the main Saudi fields (garnered from years of geotechnical publications as the Saudi, or other, will never release these figures), and the extrapolation of consumption mainly fueld by the US and China. While the engineers are eternally optomistic about new technology and new finds, this has not been the case, especially in recent history. The short story is we're not going to drill our way out of this one and the winners will be the ones who are investing heavily now in fuel efficient technologies and alternative fuels, not the ones driving around in yellow Bummers.

[selkirk]

I don't know about pathetic. They may be slimy, but they're damn good at it.

[chelle]

No surprise. I found this part interesting. Especially the use of the word alternative referring to sources for oil, not "energy" as stated. If they (and the three previous administrations) poured half their efforts into investing in real means of alternative energy we might not be in this predicament today.

 

Citing government reports on the increasing demand for petroleum and natural gas and the sustained high prices that tend to result, she said, "The hurricanes have brought more attention to the fundamental issue."

 

While Ms. Norton took no position on a Congressional proposal to end a 25-year moratorium on oil leases on the outer continental shelf and to eliminate internal departmental appeals of administration decisions to lease public lands, she did not reject its approach.

 

She said she had read only a two-page summary of the measure, which is before the House Resources Committee, but she was open to the idea of alternative energy development on public lands.

[foraker]

Write your representive NOW and ask them to support the Endangered Species Act. Any easy way to do this is to go some place like www.nrdc.org and use their automatic means of doing so.

[JoshK]

I don't know about pathetic. They may be slimy, but they're damn good at it.

 

Very good point. That is the most frustrating aspect of today's administration and their goons in Congress; they have a machine going and it is damn good. The first and foremost task for Democrats winning back the country and us seeing progressive change is figuring out how to get a real message out there and show the public that their best interests do not lie with the right's bankrupt ideology layered on top of unsound policies. I'd like to think there is a way to accomplish this without resorting to the right's playbook of scare tactics, "moral" BS and outright lies.

[foraker]

If you want pathetic, just witness the hand-wringing non-response from the Democrats.

Edited September 28, 2005 by foraker

[JoshK]

If you want pathetic, just witness the hand-wringing non-response from the Democrats.

 

Ding ding ding ding...we have a winner. It completely saddens me that the people who most represent my beliefs just can't seem to play the political game nescessary to implement an agenda to improve this country - for all of us. Instead we get outmanuevered by people willing to do what it takes to pull the wool over the eyes of the public and implement an agenda which is costing us not only financially but in plenty of other ways.

 

The best part? The Republican party claims to be the one of fiscal soundness.

[selkirk]

Democrats like to understand, talk, explain, and influence thorugh productive discussion. This works great if your a reasoning, forward thinking individual.

 

Republicans seem to just want to tell people what to think, and that they should be afraid. Which is perfect for people who don't like to think for themselves. and fits well with the whole, people are sheep idea.

 

[foraker]

i think maybe that's a gross oversimplification. there are plenty of sheep to go around. unless you're a lonely polish alpinist.

[cj001f]

Nevermind America

[selkirk]

i think maybe that's a gross oversimplification. there are plenty of sheep to go around. unless you're a lonely polish alpinist. [/quote

 

It certainly is, but look at how the majority of current democrats and republicans approach problems. Seems most democrats want discussion, thought and consesus before they act, while the Republicans seem to want immediate action more often than not. There are certainly cross overs though. (i'm a big fan of McCain. Seems like a good thoughtful guy)