MARCH 1, 2006
The
day after Mr. Bush won another 4 years in the Oval Office, 5 paragraphs in a New York Times article illustrate another reason why sleeping is not an option for me during the next Presidential term.
1. "The election is a validation of our philosophy and agenda," Michael O. Leavitt, administrator of the EPA said emphatically.
2. "Clear Skies establishes lower emission standards for pollutants like nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury, but environmental groups complain that it does not reduce them as much or as soon as levels set forth in a competing bill or by enforcement of the Clean Air Act."
3. "For now the Bush administration has no intention of regulating the heat trapping gases, like carbon dioxide which scientists believe contribute to global warming."
4. "Several pending actions to open up wild areas of the West to energy development could be made final in the coming weeks, touching on areas like Roan Plateau in Colorado and Otero Mesa in New Mexico."
5. "The energy bill will pass, he said (referring to Congressman Richard Pombo of California), adding that any bill produced in the House would open 2,000 acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for energy exploration. How is one supposed to feel when we read this description of the attitude of many entrusted with over-sight of our fragile environment, the day after the election? It reminds me of the question my daughter asked me 15 years ago upon hearing that Big Green and the Forest Initiative had been defeated in our California election. "Dad, how do you feel about those environmental things getting beaten?" "Not very good was my reply." She then, as only a 12 year old daughter can, stuck it to me with "so, what are you going to do about it?"
We are always left with the question, what are we going to do about it?
The choice is ours. Remain silent and see creation slip through our fingers or challenge the choices others are making with conviction and compassion.
--Peter