Make this my home page
More buttons
Best of the Day
Page
Turn off that Wi-Fi network - it's disturbing our chakras.
Video

Hot For Words: Lollipop

Blog
Innocent Spam
Game
EA SPORTS Complex on PlayStation Home
Art
Kinetic sculpture is a cross between art and engineering.
Cool tools
Hot links
Dadaist deconstruction of new media, as a flash game.
Everything you need to know about microscopic water bears
News for nerds
For lovers of the Green Fairy
Stories and art from Australia's Yolgnu people
Australia's best science fiction author
Did the earth just move?
Don't discount journalism
Novelist and comic book legend's homepage
Searchable history of the internet
Exposing systematic torture in Iran
Museum of science fiction, utopia and extraordinary journeys
The real story of christianity
Image bookmarking
Developing tech to get the internet to its full potential
Bush takes aim at the environment

Bush Takes Aim At The Environment

Friendly to industry, indifferent to environmental threats - that's how critics have summarised George W Bush's record on green issues. And as his term ends, the outgoing president seems to be living up to his reputation. From New Scientist.

In a flurry of last-minute rule-making, Bush looks set to weaken protection for endangered species and hand environmentally risky concessions to oil companies.

One of the administration's first new rules, issued this week, opens the door to commercial oil extraction on almost 2 million acres of largely undeveloped public land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

The oil in those areas is held within sedimentary rocks known as shale that make extraction tricky. Flushing it out would require large amounts of water in what is already an arid area.

The process is also energy intensive: greenhouse gas emissions associated with fossil fuels extracted from shale oil are 20 to 50% greater than with normal oil, says Adam Brandt of the University of California, Berkeley, who has studied the process.

Any applications for commercial drilling will undergo tough environmental review, says the Bureau of Land Management, which is responsible for the change in policy. But research into the impact of shale drilling is still ongoing, notes Brandt. "We need a decade before commercial extraction can begin," he says.

New rules can be easily reversed within either 30 or 60 days of being issued, depending on the nature of the change. The shale decision requires the longer time period, but was announced on 17 November, so will have been in effect for 64 days when Barack Obama takes over on 20 January.

Gun rules relaxed

Other rules are also popping up as Bush's tenure comes to a close, including a proposal to allow guns to be carried into national parks.

Critics complain that the rule, which is the final stages of approval, will actually endanger visitors. Park rangers recommend that pepper spray be used in the event of a bear attack, for example. Unless the gun owner is a very good shot, say rangers, it is likely that they will wound and anger the animal rather than kill it.

Also under consideration are plans to alter endangered species rules. Government projects such as new roads or dams currently have to be discussed with scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fishery Service. If endangered species are affected by the plans, the scientists can require more detailed assessments.

Now the Department of Interior is proposing that the need for consultation with either service be removed. If the Department of Transportation wanted to build a freeway, for example, it could consult only with its own staff.

Environmental groups say that will introduce conflict of interests and undermine endangered species protection. "They call this self-consultation," says Andrew Wetzler of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The name says it all."

View the pageGo back to previous pageLeave some feedbackPrint this pageEmail link to friendsBookmark in del.icio.usAdd to Stumble ThisAdd to your favourite bookmarksDigg this article

Tags

 

Related Stories

   
Next

So, I read today that the designer of Mattel's Barbie doll was obsessed with sex. Seriously? We need a book-length study to tell us that?

We in the land of feminist academics have been teaching the pernicious sexual politics of Barbie for years. The breasts that defy gravity, the hair, the long, long legs and of course the cruel, nipped in waist. Oh, don't forget the tiny clothes, the f*ck-me pumps, not to mention the well-equipped kitchens in every Barbie Dream House. The message of Barbie seems unambiguous to me.

Still, many students (and not a few colleagues) consistently resist seeing Barbie as a miniature sex toy, claiming instead that the doll was a good role model for little girls. (One could, after all, purchase a Barbie doll dressed as a doctor.) Or claiming, equally untenably, that toys had no impact on their ideas about gender roles or their own sexuality.

These students, mostly women, want to rescue Barbie, to protect their own childhoods from academic interrogations of pop culture and what those interrogations might reveal. That's understandable. Yet, many of these same students sit in my class pouring out of tank tops, squeezed into low-rise jeans, or tugging on mini-skirts so short they are nearly impossible to sit down in. That is, dressed like Barbie.

It's an experience I regularly have as a feminist critic of popular culture: a media event, book or news story demonstrates that I'm not wrong, my ideology is not based in "over analyzing," "hyper sensitivity," or "reading too much into things" (the three most common criticisms feminists tend to encounter). It's disappointing, frankly, to stumble so often upon evidence of society's sexism and to keep having to explain that it's there. Disappointing that Barbie was so obviously a sexed-up, misogynist, bad idea for little girls and to realize how thoroughly our culture embraced the toy anyway.

So, here we are again. Feminists were right: no one but a sex-obsessed man with a perverse idea of female anatomy would create a female toy like Barbie. And, as is too too often the case for feminists, being right isn't something to celebrate.

Dr. Bean is an Associate Professor of English at Marshall University, specializing in Gender Studies, Film and Drama. She is the author of "Post-Backlash Feminism: Women and the Media Since Reagan/Bush" (McFarland & Co. 2007). She hosts a blog on mid-life and feminism at kelliebean.com.