Baraza

Category: Alaska, Climate change, National Parks and protected areas, Oil Exploration, Polar Bears, wildlife | Date: Jul 23 2008 | By: baraza

I was under the impression that there was already too much pressure on the poles and surrounding due to Climate Change so who and where the idea to drill holes and extract oil came from I do not understand. The driving force must be capital off-course and keeping a super economy ahead of the world economic game or is it just one mans inability to comprehend the importance of the environment and wildlife. George.W.Bush favoured the exploration in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), despite studies that showed that oil development would only reduce Americas dependence on imports slightly and lower oil prices by less that 50 cents a barrel.

As many of you may be aware seven oil companies had been granted permission to establish oil refineries in a remote part of Alaska called Chukchi and Beaufort Seas after rights of drilling in the region were auctioned for $2.6 billion by the government. This just happens to be critical habitat for Polar Bears, Whales and other artic species that are already so vulnerable to the effects of global warming.

Despite the negative impacts that endangered polar bears already face from the presence of the oil companies, the US Fish and Wildlife Services issued regulations that in cases of accidental harassment or disturbance by the oil companies towards the polar bears will be allowed, so long as there are no injuries or incidents do not lead to death of the animals.

Where did such immunity for the oil companies come from? Did an incident of such characteristics take place that they had to come up with a regulation to mitigate for ‘problems’ to the oil companies or is this something that is going to happen as a result of an activity they will carry out? I can’t quite get my head around this. So if i have got this straight then, if at any point the oil companies activities cause the disturbance of mating or breeding rituals or cause indirect alterations to polar bear behaviour which do not inflict any physical injury or cause direct death to the bears then it’s ok??? So for instance if the noise of drilling prevents females from mating and the population declines as a result of no births within the 5 year span of this ridiculous regulation then the companies will not be held responsible?

Does anybody have any answers for me?

Personally I don’t think this has been thought out very carefully and it seems to me that the oil companies have been given a green light to do as they please. A deliberate incident can be made to appear accidental if you catch my drift.

Blog by Masumi Gudka.
Technorati : Alaska, Climate Change, Global Warming, Oil, Polar Bears, Wildlife
Del.icio.us : Alaska, Climate Change, Global Warming, Oil, Polar Bears, Wildlife
Ice Rocket : Alaska, Climate Change, Global Warming, Oil, Polar Bears, Wildlife
Flickr : Alaska, Climate Change, Global Warming, Oil, Polar Bears, Wildlife
Zooomr : Alaska, Climate Change, Global Warming, Oil, Polar Bears, Wildlife
Buzznet : Alaska, Climate Change, Global Warming, Oil, Polar Bears, Wildlife
Riya : Alaska, Climate Change, Global Warming, Oil, Polar Bears, Wildlife
43 Things : Alaska, Climate Change, Global Warming, Oil, Polar Bears, Wildlife

Share This

One response so far