Originally posted at TexasKaos.com
Right whales, technically baleen whales, got their name from 19th century whalers who called them the "right" whales to kill because the whales were slow and floated on the water when killed.
Consequently, thousands were killed in the 19th and 20th centuries and today only 100 Northern Right Whales exist in the world.
So, why would you want to kill these whales? Well, oil of course. Sound familiar?
Now why would you save it - besides its beauty and right to live? Economics. Who woulda thunk it!
As you'll see on the flip, good environmental policies are good for the economy and harmful environmental policies will hurt our economy.
One right whale even somehow made to Texas back in 1972.
And then it beached itself off Freeport.
So since this happened during King George's reign, should we give him & the GOP credit for such environmentally friendly and economically smart legislation?
After all, Bush took credit in 2004 elections for the "cleaner air" in Texas, which was actually initiated by Democratic federal mandates and implemented despite his disapproval by cities who ignored Bush. Didn't stop him from taking credit for someone else's work.
Nope. This wasn't a rare example of vision by the GOP either. It took a lawsuit filed by environmentalists and supported by the tourism industry that forced the government to create a sactuary.
Brent Plater, a lawyer with the Center for Biological Diversity, which filed a lawsuit in 2000 to get critical habitat designated for the whales, said species that get critical habitat protection are twice as likely to recover.
And that is what may be the 2nd biggest and inexplicably the least reported reason why the Northern Right Whales (and all whales) should be protected.
Bush used economics to back out of the Kyoto Treaty on environment and we continue to accept that economy and environment are at war with each other.
Like the Iraq war, this too was fight we did not have to wage.
A 2000 US Department of Energy report proved that Kyoto would not impact the US economy greatly except possibly to improve it.
Global climate change threatens to impose significant long-term costs from increasing temperatures, rising sea levels, and more extreme weather. The prosperity and well-being of future generations will be strongly affected by the manner in which the nation responds to these challenges.
Smart public policies can significantly reduce not only carbon dioxide emissions, but also air pollution, petroleum dependence, and inefficiencies in energy production and use. A range of policies exists - including voluntary agreements; efficiency standards; increased research, development, and demonstration (RD&D); electric sector restructuring; and domestic carbon trading - that could move the United States a long way toward returning its carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2010. Additional means would be needed to achieve further reductions, such as international carbon trading and stronger domestic policies.
The overall economic benefits of these policies appear to be comparable to their overall costs. The CEF policies could produce direct benefits, including energy savings, that exceed their direct costs (e.g., technology and policy investments). Indirect macroeconomic costs are in the same range as these net direct benefits. The CEF scenarios could produce important transition impacts and dislocations such as reduced coal and railroad employment; but at the same time, jobs in wind, biomass, energy efficiency, and other "green" industries could grow significantly.
Once again, the Bush administration view of the world was the polar opposite of reality and the detailed, scientific analysis of experienced staffers.
Good environmental policies are good for the economy. Harmful environmental policies harm our economy.
|
The tourism industry in the Northern Pacific and Alaska regions is HUGE. And more than all the fishing and whaling jobs it'll ever supply, the whales support thousands of tourism related jobs - including fishermen - by attracting tens of thousands of visitors around the world to the Northwest. So it's not a bunch of "bleeding heart liberals" or "tree hugging hippies" that forced a bunch of fishermen out of a job. |
No. It was progressive and environmental groups that ensured the economic stability of the Pacific Northwest - including its fishermen - by protecting a species that provides economic and spiritual benefits to the region.
Saving the environment and the species that support that environment is not just feel-good, impractical extremism.
It's about cleaner air for your family, healthier living for yourself, fewer asthmatic children, and a future where your children and grandchildren will be able to share in the beauty and bounty of this world.
And yes, it's about the economy, stupid.
So if you're unable to appreciate the natural beauty of these whales and of the world, perhaps you oughta give a damn about the economy and your security.
In that case, it'd seems that the tree-hugging, whale loving lib'ruls were right about that too.