It's been nearly four years since Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson said he would support drilling for oil beneath Everglades National Park if there were substantial reserves there.
Well, Mr. Thompson soon left that race, but another GOP presidential hopeful says she'd do the same thing if it could be done "responsibly."
U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann was quoted the other day in an Associated Press story that she wouldn't automatically rule the park off-limits if oil were found beneath it.
"The United States needs to be less dependent on foreign sources of energy and more dependent upon American resourcefulness. Whether that is in the Everglades, or whether that is in the eastern Gulf region, or whether that's in North Dakota, we need to go where the energy is," she said. "Of course it needs to be done responsibly. If we can't responsibly access energy in the Everglades then we shouldn't do it."
Those comments immediately drew a reply from the Everglades Foundation.
"NRA card-carrying hunters, fishermen, waterfowlers, and other outdoors enthusiasts do not want to see oil drilling in their Everglades wildlife paradise. In addition, the Everglades is the source of fresh, clean drinking water for more than 7 million Floridians," the organization said. "Congresswoman Bachmann needs to understand that oil and drinking water do not mix.”
Comments
Parks are supposed to be, and should be, off limits to any resource extraction, hence the reason they are parks. If we take away the parks protection, what's the point of having established the park in the first place? Why not open all parks to resource extraction?
Oil or water. Which one is more important for human survival? I know the answer.
I'm not sure that Michelle Bachman does.
In a lenthier article, Bachmann decried the use of "scientists" or "environmentalists" to decide what would or would not be a "responsible" use of the Everglades. In other words, she'd get the expert opinions of BP et.al.
Anon... there's no "open mind" when MB speaks.
Makes good sense. Might cut down on war due to oil, our sons might not have to get killed and mutilated as often just so we can have the oil to get our cars, trains, planes to take us to see (but not touch) the national parks.
Ramon - I am sure that Bachman does as well. But, she also knows they aren't mutually exclusive.
Whether it's the Constitution or a National Park, is there no national treasure the woman won't desecrate?
ecbuck wrote,
"She would consider it after looking at the facts."
Given so many of her statements in the past, I'm troubled by what she undertsands to be a "fact."
Why not try to get us off the oil fix instead of trying to wring every last drop of oil out of the ground?? If we really wanted to do it we could find an alternative to oil-- there's just not the will yet