It took an establishment voice to elevate the massive shortcomings of the Obama Administration‘s failures to stand up for wilderness, wildlife, and other conservation values that so significantly contribute to the character of our country – but the message seems to be gaining steam. It’s about time.
LA Times Editorial: Obama lukewarm on conservation
It’s probably going too far to say that former president and onetime oilman George W. Bush was a better conservationist than President Obama. But they’re not as far apart as most people think.
Just how much will this sentiment contribute to a change of course in Obama’s MIA modus operandi ? This question probably depends in large part on our willingness to do our part to keep his feet to the fire.
Comments
5 responses to “LA Times Editorial: Obama lukewarm on conservation”
Although there have been no comments on this story, I note from looking at other web sites and my email received that this story is circulating widely. I think it will have considerable impact
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/opinion/13mon3.html?_r=1
editorial from the times from the same perspective. assumption is that if re-lected he will grow a backbone like clinton did. maybe…
Clinton’s backbone was still a little mushy.
He may have reintroduced wolves, which I applaud, but he sure wimped out on grizzly reintroduction and salmon recovery.
While I have a family connection to Craters of the Moon, I don’t see that expanding it did much to protect the lava fields which weren’t really at risk. The grazing in the kīpukas was kept in place even though these areas are seldom used.
Maybe I’m a little too cynical but I don’t see Clinton as a strong environmental hero, even when compared to Nixon.
Right, but remember, this is from Bruce Babbitt’s perspective. He needs Clinton to have a backbone to prove he (Babbitt) was effective.
I wonder what Salazar thinks of Obama….other than worrying about oil wells blowing out, does Obama ever have the luxury/interest to think about Interior and the environment? I would guess it is way way way down his totem pole of worry.
And here is a link to a 2007 Counterpunch article, reminding us of how spineless Babbitt was when he was Secretary:
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair02102007.html
So Babbitt is hardly the paragon of progress on western environmental progress. I’m glad Babbitt is speaking out now, but too bad he wasn’t willing to take real action when he had the power to make changes. Talk is cheap, where’s the beef? (pun intended).