Defenders of Wildlife recently published report cards on how members of the U.S. Congress--Senate and House--voted on key issues having to do with wildlife and habitat conservation. Click here to see how our representatives did.
The information is welcome, but the presentation is tendentious to say the least.
For example: "Recklessly Mandating Construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline."
Not so fast. One alternative to the Keystone XL Pipeline is to ship these same materials down the Hudson River, so deciding which is more "reckless" may depend on where you live.
And is it reckless to have a sober energy policy, distasteful as it is that we all use petroleum? We non-politicians have the luxury to pretend that alternatives to oil are already available, but that's not being real. I'm all for less use and even less growth, but the whole picture is so much more complicated. For instance, what the Canadians don't sell to the US they ship to China. It's truer to say that all of the choices are freighted with recklessness.
When the same Action Fund website dramatizes the "Slashing [of] Funding for Private Land Conservation," it's actually talking about the "farm bill." That's even more misleading than the first characterization!
Have a close look at the voting history, but do your own thinking.
The information is welcome, but the presentation is tendentious to say the least.
ReplyDeleteFor example: "Recklessly Mandating Construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline."
Not so fast. One alternative to the Keystone XL Pipeline is to ship these same materials down the Hudson River, so deciding which is more "reckless" may depend on where you live.
And is it reckless to have a sober energy policy, distasteful as it is that we all use petroleum? We non-politicians have the luxury to pretend that alternatives to oil are already available, but that's not being real. I'm all for less use and even less growth, but the whole picture is so much more complicated. For instance, what the Canadians don't sell to the US they ship to China. It's truer to say that all of the choices are freighted with recklessness.
When the same Action Fund website dramatizes the "Slashing [of] Funding for Private Land Conservation," it's actually talking about the "farm bill." That's even more misleading than the first characterization!
Have a close look at the voting history, but do your own thinking.