So much for the Government's much touted commitment to alternative energy. The New York Times reports that the Bush administration has placed a nearly two-year moratorium on the construction of new solar energy projects on public land. While the amount of oil drilling and gas drilling on public land has reached a new high -- the President approved a record 7,100 new licenses in 2007 alone --- the Bureau of Land Management is saying it needs until the spring of 2010 to study the environmental impact solar projects might have on land in Arizona, Nevada, California and other western states.

Meanwhile in other news, the Washington Post reports that the Defense Department is resisting orders to clean up Fort Meade, and two other military bases where "dumped chemicals pose an imminent threat to the public health and the environment." The Pentagon is also in violation of EPA orders to clean up twelve other military sites on the SuperFund list of most polluted spots. The Pentagon doesn't want to follow the law, and guess what, the EPA isn't going to push it. "Under executive branch policy, the EPA will not sue the Pentagon as it would a private polluter." According to the Post, military officials wrote to the DOJ last month to challenge the EPA's authority. And challenged it was.

Do you feel defended? Protected, Managed? I say it's time for some departmental renaming. What do you call a Defense Department that makes you sicker, an environmental protection agency that can't, and a bureau of Land Management that seems to care most about managing threats to the oil and gas industry. You can post your suggestions here.

The F Word is a daily commentary by Laura Flanders on GRITtv. Watch GRITtv on Free Speech TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415) or at GRITtv.org. And become a subscriber.

Comments (19)

1. there will be more drilling and as long as

   a) its done responsibly and carefully with all the best latest measures taken to minimize environmental damage and...

   b) it is done only as a stopgap realistic realization that even without the obfuscating, shortsighted, incompetance of the current administration clean renewable energy will take some time to implement and is the MAIN goal of our energy policy...

   then i also support limited oil drilling for the short term.

   not abandong the real solution of clean, renewable energy at all - just supporting the last great push to supply our economy with the poison we require until we fully develop and implement the real solution...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 12:44am

2. I believe Naomi Klein has put her finger on our government's strategy.

   (1) Create a crisis. (Neglect usually does the trick.)

   (2) Exploit the crisis (for the benefit of your cronies).

   (3) Repeat.

   When we have the leisure to think about it, we can do everything "Ibbleblibble" recommends when we extract resources of any kind: Deliberate beforehand, do it safely, do it efficiently, do it cleanly, do it right. However, what we have now is a government that does not spend its quiet periods between crises thinking about anything except how it can help out its own cronies with minimal effort.

   The solution is to follow the strategy outlined above. Ignore problems like the scarcity of oil until they get critical. Then argue that we've got to drill now and can't afford to think much about the issues, like whether in the long term, our coastal regions will prove more important as fisheries than as sources of oil. Food or fuel? Let's think about that just a little bit before we choose!

   I've often said, and I'll say it again here, that we'll either put a tax on gasoline and use the proceeds to research alternatives, or we'll dillydally long enough that soon, our crisis managers will inform us that the only "responsible" thing left to do is to tax everything else to make gasoline cheaper. This is a policy that only Bush's cronies in the oil industry can love.

   What I have predicted seems to be shaping up. The two wars in Iraq are really nothing but a stealth tax to subsidize oil consumption.

   I'd like to say "okay" to oil exploration on the coast, because our government will make sure that it's done safely, but I don't like what I see. The coast near the site of the Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989 still hasn't recovered completely, but that didn't stop our Supreme Court from reducing the punitive damages that Exxon is required to pay. This at a time when this company is pulling in record profits.

   The world's oil is RUNNING OUT. Environmentalists have been telling us this since the 1970s, and I'm sorry, but the counter-argument "but it's never run out before..." is LAME. Geologists tell us that we've already consumed about half of the oil there is, and that the second half is going to be harder to pump out of the ground, hence more expensive, than the first half. (My advice: Listen to the geologists, not the economists.) We also know that unless we learn to conserve, we won't get a gradual reduction in oil consumption and a gradual transition into the future. Instead, we'll get a continued increase in consumption that approaches a spike and then plummets nearly straight down.

   Ah, the next crisis! What a pleasant prospect! And our professional crisis managers probably already know how they'll exploit it for maximum profit while the rest of us suffer.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 07/01/2008 @ 08:32am

3. Note to readers: Please read "Jomamma's" posting first, "Ibbleblibble's" posting second, and my first posting third. Otherwise, you won't get the whole thread in its proper order.

   What can be done about these misplaced postings? Don't tell me time is going in circles!

   Posted by JakobFabian at 07/01/2008 @ 08:34am

4. Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/30/2008 @ 11:40pm

   MAASCH, the Oil Companies have 65 million acres leased....why aren't they drilling there?

   Posted by Mask at 07/01/2008 @ 09:24am

5. I have followed the Congressional hearings on the high price of gas and their is a general consenus among experts that responsible oil production needs to be a part of our long range energy plan. Oil and alternative energy are not mutually exclusive paths. Both can and should be pursued.

   I do want to take this oppertunity to expost a group that is far more dangerous than any agency mentioned in the above article. It's the ENVIRONMENTALISTS. Here is a short list why:

   1. The Forest Service cannot do its job because bozos and bozettes want to litigate every tree. Hero lawyers are often paid well with taxpayer money and their clients lack the intelligence to understand that it is far better to produce wood products here than have them come from some country where they clear cut and be damned. Sensitive logging would also create green jobs.

   2.They want to put ranchers out of business. DUH!! When that happens the privately owned parcels get sold off to developers.

   3. They want to stop hunting. DOUBLE DUH!! I don't hunt but I have enough sense to know wildlife management could not exist without hunting revenues. Without hunters, animal species would disappear faster than you can say "vegan."

   The list goes on. As someone who is very much anti-development and wants healthy forests with abundant wildlife, environmentalists are my worst nightmare.

   I do not wish death on anyone but, like burning your had on a hot stove, a good injury can teach a good lesson. With that in mind, I wish environmentalist would be mauled by bears, lacerated by mountain lions and have their funky little dogs eaten by coyotes.

   Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/01/2008 @ 10:09am

6. 'What do you call a Defense Department that makes you sicker, an environmental protection agency that can't, and a bureau of Land Management that seems to care most about managing threats to the oil and gas industry.'

   Military Industrial Complex?

   These characters are always searching for ways to make you more insecure and impoverished.... part of age old political tactics of using fear and scarcity to get what they want.

   Compare military spending to alternative energy research spending, and that will give you an indication of how much of a priority energy independence is for our government.

   Posted by OneVote at 07/01/2008 @ 10:12am

7. 'I do not wish death on anyone but, like burning your had on a hot stove, a good injury can teach a good lesson. With that in mind, I wish environmentalist would be mauled by bears, lacerated by mountain lions and have their funky little dogs eaten by coyotes.'

   Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/01/2008 @ 10:09am | ignore this person | warn this person

   Ah....but where will the bears, mountain lions, and coyotes go once the environmentalists are gone?

   Posted by OneVote at 07/01/2008 @ 10:21am

8. Ah....but where will the bears, mountain lions, and coyotes go once the environmentalists are gone?

   Posted by OneVote at 07/01/2008 @ 10:21am | ignore

   A very good point. Here's a possible solution.

   Environmentalists seem to have a penchant for large houses built in pristine areas. Of course they put up solar panels and drive hybrid SUVs. When they get scared and leave, burn those castles and create more habitat.

   Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/01/2008 @ 10:29am

9. Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/01/2008 @ 10:09am

   So, should we leave it up to the free market to make sure that the lumber industry acts responsibly? Who will keep a watchful eye, if not those nasty environmentalist and their little dogs?

   Which evil environmentalists are hell-bent on crushing ranchers, or banning hunting for that matter? Do you really beleive that these evildoer environmentalist have these goals, and if they did, that they'd ever come anywhere close to accomplishing them? Are these just absolutist rants as an attempt to validate your claim that drilling for oil is what's best for us and the environmentalists are the real threat? How dare they consider the future of our planet beyond immediate profit gains!

   Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 10:30am

10. Environmentalists seem to have a penchant for large houses built in pristine areas. Of course they put up solar panels and drive hybrid SUVs. When they get scared and leave, burn those castles and create more habitat.

    Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/01/2008 @ 10:29am

    You're describing a stereotype, and what probably represents a slim minority of people concerned for the environment, or "environmentalists". But the people who profit from the oil market? They much more accurately fit that elitist description.

    It's a good strategy of your though; Make the people who call into question the practices of industry the assholes, while the real assholes who get rich poisoning us come off like the victims of a big liberal conspiracy. Brilliant.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 10:45am

11. 'Environmentalists seem to have a penchant for large houses built in pristine areas. Of course they put up solar panels and drive hybrid SUVs. When they get scared and leave, burn those castles and create more habitat.'

    Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/01/2008 @ 10:29am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Ever read any stuff by Teddy Roosevelt on conservation and preservation? Wasn't he more concerned about the robber barons than the nascent environmental movement?

    The idea here is that federal lands belong to everyone and in the bigger picture, development even on private lands has attending externalities associated with it such as pollution of waterways and strain on public infrastructure. You sound like someone who has been used to making a living off federal lands, and taking a disproportionate share that everyone is entitled to. I suppose you agree with George Bush's proposal to sell public lands to pay for his war debt?

    Don't be short sighted. Environmentalists do a wealth of good for everybody....in an area where government protections (or lack of protections) have failued us time and time again.

    Posted by OneVote at 07/01/2008 @ 11:16am

12. "So, should we leave it up to the free market to make sure that the lumber industry acts responsibly? Who will keep a watchful eye, if not those nasty environmentalist and their little dogs?"

    MATTMAN, I would agree with you if environmentalists were united under one umbrella with a workable plan. They are not. If the Sierra Club doesn't sue the Friends of the Earth will. There is a big difference between forcing industry to act responsibly and stopping that industry from operating at all.

    I live in northern Arizona. Logging has been completely stopped and people have lost jobs. The anti-ranchers and PETA people are everywhere. (I had to run out and buy one of those People Eating Tasty Animals shirts.) The Forest Service has not been able clear properly so forest fires have been even more distructive. There is also the idiocy of not harvesting trees killed by these fires.

    Not all environmentalists live high-carbon lives but many of the powerful ones do. Let me tell you about my earth-friendly candidates in the last election:

    House of Representatives-She is a wealthy lawyer and environmental activist. She lives in a gazillion square foot house on a golf course in what was once one of the most beautiful areas on G-d's green earth. She made a ridiculous spectacle of herself by running around in a ro-day-o drive cowgirl hat so we would think she was one of the common folk.

    Senate-The Democratic party's most powerful developer. This guy would pave the whole state if given half a chance. But Hey! He drove around in a big hybrid SUV.

    My main point is that we need to use our natural resources in the most responsible way possible. Again, let me point out it is better to do that in the USA where we have better controls. Unfortunately, environmentalists are part of the problem and not the solution.

    Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/01/2008 @ 11:48am

13. "So, should we leave it up to the free market to make sure that the lumber industry acts responsibly? Who will keep a watchful eye, if not those nasty environmentalist and their little dogs?"

    MATTMAN, I would agree with you if environmentalists were united under one umbrella with a workable plan. They are not. If the Sierra Club doesn't sue the Friends of the Earth will. There is a big difference between forcing industry to act responsibly and stopping that industry from operating at all.

    I live in northern Arizona. Logging has been completely stopped and people have lost jobs. The anti-ranchers and PETA people are everywhere. (I had to run out and buy one of those People Eating Tasty Animals shirts.) The Forest Service has not been able clear properly so forest fires have been even more distructive. There is also the idiocy of not harvesting trees killed by these fires.

    Not all environmentalists live high-carbon lives but many of the powerful ones do. Let me tell you about my earth-friendly candidates in the last election:

    House of Representatives-She is a wealthy lawyer and environmental activist. She lives in a gazillion square foot house on a golf course in what was once one of the most beautiful areas on G-d's green earth. She made a ridiculous spectacle of herself by running around in a ro-day-o drive cowgirl hat so we would think she was one of the common folk.

    Senate-The Democratic party's most powerful developer. This guy would pave the whole state if given half a chance. But Hey! He drove around in a big hybrid SUV.

    My main point is that we need to use our natural resources in the most responsible way possible. Again, let me point out it is better to do that in the USA where we have better controls. Unfortunately, environmentalists are part of the problem and not the solution.

    Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/01/2008 @ 12:03pm

14. The solution...?

    Using up what "Bucky" called "our global energy savings account"... ie. the remaining oil reserves... before we have newer, cleaner, and cheaper energy alternatives in place and on-line... is just what the 'market forces' are all keen on.

    Oh... that and endless war...

    The environment is not in their equation except under the headings 'raw materials' and 'territorial imperative'... Please stop your endless bemoaning of 'beauty beyond man and 'the human condition'... we need to produce, and you need to pay your bills...

    Yep... it's a charade that parodies itself... and can only promote the destruction that encourages the 'predictability' of our 'wrong way tack'... which is precisely what precipitates the spineless pandering preen...;^)

    Market forces can not be trusted to provide the care and concern necessary for a timeless congenital relationship between our burgeoning human population... and the fragile and limited planet that is our sole endorsement to survival and florishment.

    Welcome to the tipping point.

    Posted by ttr at 07/01/2008 @ 3:18pm

15. MAASCH, the Oil Companies have 65 MILLION acres leased...

    why aren't they drilling on them???

    Posted by Maskbeta

    "well, it's not economically viable at this time...."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/02/2008 @ 1:06pm

16. Environmentalists seem to have a penchant for large houses built in pristine areas. Of course they put up solar panels and drive hybrid SUVs. When they get scared and leave, burn those castles and create more habitat.

    Posted by RAGGEDSTEP

    keep chewin' that cud...

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/02/2008 @ 1:08pm

17. I live in northern Arizona. Logging has been completely stopped and people have lost jobs.

    Posted by RAGGEDSTEP

    i think these critters may have A LOT to do with that:

    "4. Are the pine bark beetles native to northern Arizona? Yes. Under endemic (non-outbreak) conditions, pine bark beetles act as a natural disturbance agent in the forest. However, we should not expect an "un-natural" forest to behave in a "natural" manner. Even under outbreak conditions, the beetles are decreasing the density of our pine forests. It seems drastic to most residents because the amount of pine mortality may be unprecedented (a similar outbreak was documented during 1956). Remember that our current forest conditions are the result of human impacts and ecosystems are not static and periodic disturbances help keep our forests healthy. "

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/02/2008 @ 1:12pm

18. Table 1. Estimated acres of ponderosa pine forest affected by bark beetles in Arizona, 2002.

    National Forest Acres of ponderosa pine type forest Acres of ponderosa pine with bark beetle attack

    Apache-Sitgreaves 729,306 129,895

    Coconino 714,864 60,425

    Coronado 6,916 10,255 *

    Kaibab 432,023 6,010

    Prescott 50,650 75,580 *

    Tonto 140,128 66,585

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/02/2008 @ 1:14pm

19. We need an immediate, full-scale effort to drastically cut back on our use of non-reneable energy sources (like oil) and convert as much as we can to renewable energy sources (wind, solar, etc.)

    Anything less is just moronically stupid.

    Period.

    Posted by Lillian at 07/04/2008 @ 3:24pm