You are here

Congresswoman Bachmann Would Support Drilling For Oil In Everglades National Park

Share

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

Yes Kurt - you made a "misstatement" - like the ones you claim Michelle made.  Unfortunately in your correction you forgot to mention that the numbers she cited had been published in the media and she appropriately cited them as her source in the interview with Cooper.
If you don't believe her earthquake and hurricane comment was metaphorical and believe she actually believes it was a willing act of God - prove her wrong.


Boy, you're hanging in there, EC. If you read the entire post I linked to re the 2000 staffers, you would have seen at the bottom that politicians, like everyone else, including the media, should factcheck before they start spewing figures. At least I was on the low end.
I won't go further into the act of god statement, as I've already violated two of the three principles of what not to discuss.


I wish that all of you would just think about each of your children's futures.  If this country does not let companies explore for oil in areas that people deem as parks or off limit (North Slope of Alaska) then we are doomed to buying oil at OPECs price.  Wake up!  If MB wants to think about drilling in the Glades then let her...at least she is thinking about finding a way for us to get our own oil.  As for other methods of energy then lets hear them...make a car that runs on air...or a car that runs on water...oh wait...we cannot use the water....

Obviously, those of you that have posted negatively about drilling in parks or even looking for the life blood of this country off shore must ride the subway or city buses and not own a car.  Get a job where you have to commute by your own means...no bus, not subway, not train....shut up and drive to get to work and fill your tank when it is low....


I wonder if she'd park a drilling rig in front of the Lincoln Memorial if there were 20 million barrels of oil beneath it?


EC, my definition of "environmentalist" is a synonym for "wise steward."  I am not -- and most of my acquaintances are not -- simply opposed to all drilling and mining.  We just believe it should be done wisely and with all due precaution.  It should not place profit margins first.  That should be secondary to implementing adequate safeguards to prevent water, air and other forms of pollution.  It would never include sabotage or terrorism of any kind. 

There are, unfortuately, extremists in all things.  You point out environmental extremists, I could point out others.  While it may be true that some of the "spikers" had Sierra Club cards in their pockets, they no more represented the Sierra Club than Timothy McVeigh represented any sane group of Americans.

As for your charge that I have called anyone who is not an environmentalist a terrorist, I'm scratching my head on that one.  Will you show us the quote?

Now, it's probably time to give this a rest.  We're quibbling over semantics and seem to have lost sight of the important issue --- what is wise use of resources and what is not?


ecbuck wrote,

" Unfortunately - as exhibited on this board - too many fit."
And since environmentalists are, as you say, "often" terrorists, I imagine we may very well have a few terrorists posting here, too.

"Of all the post so far, not one has made a legitimate argument to refute Bachmann's statement or suggest why it is wrong. No one has made an argument (other than demagoguery) why it should be automatically ruled out."

Take another look at the arguments, which address Bachman's language, her relationship to science, as well as competing values about what a national park is.  To say none of the arguments on this thread is "legitimate" is to recognize only one criteria (set of values) to judge the legitimacy of the arguments--yours; it's a mark of ideology.
 
 


First - Kurt:  You think everyone should personally fact check everything they see in the media?  Good luck on that one. Have you personally fact checked every report you have cited on this blog?  I think not.   She repeated information reported in the media and identified it as such.  She didn't "go off" on anything.

For Lee:  doing drilling "wisely and with due cautions" is what everyone wants and there was nothing in Bachmann's statement to suggest otherwise.  As to the terrorist charge - I apologize, that was not you but an Anon who said "So, I have to ask, are you an environmentalist or a terrorist?"

For Justin - I still haven't seen a legitimate argument.  Heck I haven't seen any argument other than demagoguery.  Please tell me why drilling should be "automatically ruled out".


The solution to this problem is simple: make it illegal to explore for oil or other mineral resources in national parks. If we don't know what's underground in the parks there won't be presure to drill. In this case, ignorance is bliss.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.