A plea for help from the Alaska Wilderness League

The Deepwater Horizon offshore oil drilling rig is engulfed in flames before eventually sinking. US  Coast Guard photo taken on Wed. April 21. Public domain.

 

The biggest threat to the global environment has to be the proliferation of nuclear power plants, think Fukushima, and the continued expansion of offshore drilling – remember the Gulf oil spill? In the meantime corporate greed delays development of readily available solar and wind power.

The Obama Administration is waffling again on offshore drilling. Read this letter I just received from the Alaska Wilderness League and take a minute to join me in voicing your protest:

Dear Virginia,

After last year’s BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, President Obama stood before the American people and promised safer, cleaner offshore drilling. But just a couple weeks ago, a draft plan for offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters over the next five years was released by the Obama administration that includes potential drilling in America’s pristine and fragile Arctic Ocean - despite the fact that there’s no proven way to clean up a spill in the Arctic’s extreme, remote conditions. This rush to drill in America’s Arctic Ocean fails to meet President Obama’s promises. Instead, it looks a lot like the fast and loose decision making of the past.

Now, President Obama has asked for your input on his first offshore drilling program before it becomes final. When it comes to the Arctic, the president’s proposed draft plan can be only be characterized as business as usual – but there’s still time to make our voices heard. Speak out now and tell President Obama to keep Arctic drilling out of the final version.

Will you sign our letter asking President Obama to leave the Arctic out of the final offshore drilling program?

Drilling in the Arctic is extremely risky because of pervasive sea ice, 20-foot swells, hurricane-force winds, months-long darkness and more. The truth is that no technology exists to clean up a spill in these “Mission Impossible” conditions – and Coast Guard officials have described their response capability in the Arctic as “starting from zero.” A spill would devastate the many species that rely on the Arctic Ocean to survive - including polar bears, birds and whales, as well as the Inupiat people of Alaska’s Arctic coast

If President Obama rubber stamps this risky offshore Arctic drilling scheme, he could have the next major oil spill disaster, and the devastation of a marine ecosystem that is vital to health of our planet, on his hands. But if we all speak out together, we can make sure he hears our call for offshore drilling plan that meets his promises of safer, cleaner offshore drilling and doesn’t include risky Arctic drilling. The American people expect real change – not business as usual.

Will you speak out for polar bears and ask President Obama to leave the Arctic out of the final offshore drilling program?

Thanks for all you do.

Cindy Shogan
Executive Director
Alaska Wilderness League

The Critical Importance of Secretary Clinton’s Trip to India

Considering the recent reports of Secretary Clinton’s marginalization by the Obama Administration, kudos to the NY Times today for its thoughtful editorial spotlighting the secretary’s trip to India. The editorial board focuses on India’s relationship with neighboring Pakistan and that nation’s continuing battle with extremists.

India’s expanding nuclear arsenal is also a topic of discussion:

One of our many concerns about the nuclear deal was that it would make it easier for India to expand its arsenal — and drive Pakistan to produce more of its own weapons. With access to global fuel markets, India can use its limited domestic uranium stocks for weapons. President Obama and Secretary Clinton both endorsed the deal. Now they have a responsibility to do what President George W. Bush never did: push India to stop producing more weapons fuel rather than waiting for a multinational treaty to be negotiated. That would make it easier to press Pakistan to do the same. Both India and Pakistan claim that they want only a “minimal credible” nuclear deterrent — but who knows what that means?

President Obama’s efforts to revive arms control talks with Russia and his commitment to seek ratification of the test ban treaty mean that Mrs. Clinton arrives with bolstered credibility. She should urge India to consider opening regional arms talks with Pakistan and China and drop its opposition to the test ban treaty.

The editorial mentions India’s responsibility in helping other nations block Iran from becoming a nuclear power:

The world’s wealthy nations have given Iran until late September to accept restraints on its nuclear program or face consequences. We hope this time India’s arm will not have to be twisted and — if needed — it will use its trade clout to curb Iran’s ambitions.

India wants to be seen as a major world power. For that to happen, it will have to drop its pretensions to nonalignment and stake out strong and constructive positions. President Obama and Mrs. Clinton say they consider India a vital partner in building a stable world. Now they have to encourage India to behave like one.

Secretary Clinton is the most knowledgeable and widely respected foreign affairs specialist in the Obama Administration, and it’s good to see her back on the road again.

Now That We've Armed Pakistan

Dan Froomkin’s White House Watch zeroes in today on the tendency of the Bush anti-terror policies to backfire. Froomkin writes:

The ultimate anti-terror backfire, of course, is the war in Iraq, which U.S. intelligence shows has helped al Qaeda much more than it's hurt it.But now, with Musharraf declaring emergency rule over the weekend, the country that Bush considers a bulwark against terror may gain infamy as a crucible for terror
instead.

Froomkin cites Karen DeYoung’s piece in today’s Washington Post:

"The Bush administration seemed to still be reeling from Musharraf's announcement Saturday and waiting for the rapidly shifting events to settle before making any move beyond expressing strong disapproval.

"U.S. aid to Pakistan over the past six years has totaled nearly $11 billion, most of it in military hardware and budget support. Immediately after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush lifted aid sanctions imposed on Pakistan and India after both countries tested nuclear weapons in 1998.
Additional sanctions set against Pakistan after Musharraf seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999 were also waived."

In light of all the above, this item in Froomkin’s post seems an appropriate way to conclude:

CBS News reports that "a statewide poll conducted by CBS affiliate WCAX in Burlington, Vt. posed the question to 400 likely voters. Sixty-one percent said they would be in favor of Congress beginning impeachment proceedings against
President Bush. Thirty-three percent opposed it, and 6% were not sure.

"The numbers for Vice President Cheney differed only slightly: Sixty-four percent favored impeachment, while 31% opposed it."