Palin views on oil, polar bears may be liabilities

[khronik]

Palin has a very bad environmental record.

She opposes listing polar bears as threatened. Contrary to what others have said in this thread, polar bears ARE losing habitat due to human activity --- the human activity that is contributing to global warming. Her reason for opposing the listing is that she is worried that listing polar bears as threatened will interfere with new oil field and pipeline development, and offshore drilling. So clearly she is worried that these activities DO affect polar bear habitat and will be limited if that habitat must be protected.

True, polar bears are losing habitat as the arctic ice recedes, but the species still has a huge undeveloped range. They typically inhabit the areas where the ice melts in the summer, so as the ice sheets recede, the bears would just go with it. Assuming that the polar ice caps don't melt entirely, polar bears will still have plenty of habitat. Other species like mountain gorillas and rhinoceroses have a lot more to worry about.

Now, I'm all for protecting the environment, but listing a species as threatened because of speculation over what might happen if certain events occur the way part of the scientific community thinks they will in hundreds of years, just seems a little disingenuous.

khronik Reviewed by khronik on 09-02-2008. Palin views on oil, polar bears may be liabilities Palin views on oil, polar bears may be liabilities By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 42 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Democrats are probably cobbling together the campaign ad right now: "John McCain's running mate is for big oil and against the environment," a somber voice intones as cute baby polar bears scamper across the screen. ADVERTISEMENT If McCain hoped to stop Democrats from getting much mileage out of the oil issue in this presidential election, he picked the Rating: 5