Citing climate change, Obama fences in huge Pacific area after wheeling and dealing

Remember when I wrote that I kinda approved of Obama protecting a large swath of the Pacific? Yeah, about that

(Fox News) Weeks after the White House was warned that a plan to vastly expand a maritime preserve and no-fishing zone in U.S.-controlled Pacific waters would harm the American fishing industry and geopolitically advantage China, the Obama administration has gone ahead anyway—with some concessions to make the environmental medicine, administered by presidential fiat, go down more smoothly. (Big snip)

Perhaps significantly, the White House announcement contains almost no mention at all of the threat of commercial fishing to the Pacific area where the expanded monument now extends. It does note that atolls and reefs in the area “are hotspots of biodiversity that harbor uncounted numbers of new and unique marine species”—meaning that they aren’t known to be under threat, either.

It further claims that “the expansion will better protect the habitat of animals with large migration and foraging ranges that stretch throughout the area, including sea turtles, marine mammals, and manta rays”—which are not fished.

The bigger dangers mentioned in the White House announcement are “the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification” which have only hypothetical impact on the area, and in any case are not affected by a commercial fishing ban.

Environmental Protection is good. This idiocy of having to add “climate change” is monumentally stupid. Seriously, can’t we just protect the environment for the environment’s sake?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

3 Responses to “Citing climate change, Obama fences in huge Pacific area after wheeling and dealing”

  1. John says:

    Well if Fox News reported it I guess there would be no reason to actually check primary sources to make fire that was true

  2. gitarcarver says:

    “Primary sources” like the White House John?

    So if you say it isn’t true, there would be no reason for people to actually look to see that you have no clue to what you are talking about.

  3. Beat me too it, GC.

    John? Rebuttal?

Pirate's Cove