Allan,
Thanks for clearing this up. I, for one, had no idea who Gale Norton is
(with the family activities between Christmas and New Year's Day, it's easy
to ingnore the news). I agree that this topic is not out of line for this
discussion group for the reason you mentioned.
There is a perception "up here" that a George W. Bush administration will
lead to environmentally negative effects. For a Canadian perspective, I
have copied the following news item from the CBC
(http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?category=Canada&story=/news/2000/1
2/18/enviro001218 dated 2000 December 19):
YELLOWKNIFE - Aboriginal people in Canada's Western Arctic say their future
is at risk. They say if U.S. President-elect George W. Bush follows his
plans to drill for oil and gas on Alaska's coastal plain their way of life
will be changed forever.
They want outgoing President Bill Clinton to declare the area a national
monument before he leaves office.
The Gwich'in nation fears the Porcupine caribou herd will be wiped out
unless Clinton moves to save it. The Gwich'in depend on the caribou for
food. But in a recent television interview Clinton said designating the area
a national monument may not protect the herd. The U.S. Congress could still
open the area to drilling.
Gwich'in leader Wilbert Firth lives in Fort McPherson, a community along the
Northwest Territories-Yukon border. Firth says oil and gas companies are
pushing the American government to open up the area to drilling. "Those big
companies control the agenda. If they want to open it, they'll open it.
That's where they get their money from," he said.
Gwich'in people have been lobbying the American government to protect the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge since the 1970s.
But Alaska congressman Doug Young says he'd oppose that. "If you don't think
this is a national emergency, this energy crisis, just wait for a couple of
months."
Despite that, Firth and other Gwich'in leaders remain optimistic that
Clinton will act in the best interest of the environment. "The whole world
benefits from having this herd there. And if these lands are protected the
whole world will benefit."
Some Gwich'in say they will take drastic measures if the land is not
protected. They say they will have to be forcibly removed from the calving
grounds before any development goes ahead.
I don't know if the Gwich'in are overreacting or not. However, to me, this
is yet another example of saddling one group with the risk so that another
group can reap the benefit. Note the quote attributed to Alaska congressman
Doug Young: "If you don't think this is a national emergency, this energy
crisis, just wait for a couple of months."
As Christians, as "brothers and sisters" of the Gwich'in, and as stewards of
God's creation, we need to be concerned.
Chuck Vandergraaf
Senior Scientist
Engineered Systems and Analysis Branch
Waste Technology Business Unit
Whiteshell Laboratories
AECL
Pinawa, MB
R0E 1L0
e-mail: vandergraaft@aecl.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: SteamDoc@aol.com [mailto:SteamDoc@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday January 03, 2001 9:36 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Gale Norton
In a message dated Wed, 3 Jan 2001 8:58:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,
"M.B.Roberts" <topper@robertschirk.u-net.com> writes:
<< Can you inform an old colonialist whether Gale Norton is a bad thing
for
the environment >>
I suppose this is not off-topic since stewardship of creation is on-topic.
Since Norton (for those unfamiliar, she has been nominated as Secretary of
the Interior by President-elect Bush; the Interior Department, among other
things, manages most of the land owned by the U.S. Government) is from my
home state of Colorado, I can offer a few thoughts.
Of course it depends on one's view of what is "bad." From my point of view
(concerned about stewardship of creation but not as "left" on the
environment
as Greenpeace or even the Sierra Club), I would say "somewhat bad, but
probably not as bad as some fear."
What has people scared is that Norton's first job out of law school was
working for James Watt at his Mountain States Legal Foundation (see
www.mountainstateslegal.org), which fought for the rights of corporate
America to pillage the environment in the West. Watt became Reagan's
Secretary of the Interior, was highly controversial and confrontational, and
was eventually canned. Watt was influenced by a belief that the Second
Coming was near, and he dismissed the idea of stewardship for future
generations, saying that Jesus would return before the future generations
arrived. He was later implicated (and I believe convicted, though I could
be
wrong) on some charges of corruption; I don't recall the details. Watt was
a
disaster not only for environmental stewardship, but also for public
perception of Christians in politics.
Gale Norton has taken pains to distance herself from Watt. Certainly in
style, but also in substance to some extent. While she is no
environmentalist by any stretch of the imagination, she did act as Colorado
Attorney General to punish illegal polluters and to get the Rocky Flats
nuclear site cleaned up. She lost a Senate primary a few years ago because
she was too "moderate" for the conservative-dominated Colorado Republican
Party.
So, the accusation that she will be "James Watt in a skirt", as one
environmental activist put it, is unfair. But clearly she will carry out
the
policies advocated by Bush in the campaign, which means no concern for
energy
conservation, much less concern for environmental protection, and more
emphasis on increasing energy production and removing regulation of private
use and exploitation of land. I think that's somewhat bad, but your mileage
may vary.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2001 - 11:37:03 EST