Congressmen Praise Ocean Panel Report, Pronounce It DOA

[hatrack]

WASHINGTON, DC, April 23, 2004 (ENS) - At two Senate hearings Thursday, federal lawmakers praised the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy for its work but raised doubts about the political feasibility of implementing its recommendations. Lawmakers appeared skeptical of the plan to create a National Oceans Council and even less certain there will be support for setting aside a dedicated Oceans Trust Fund. The 514 page report, released Tuesday, lays out some 200 recommendations for how the U.S. government should revamp and strengthen its commitment and framework for managing the oceans.

It offers a "practical blueprint for ocean policy in the 21st century," retired Admiral James Watkins, chair of the commission, told the Senate Commerce and Appropriations Committees. "It lays out a logical sequence of actions that can begin immediately." "The current management regime is outdated and inconsistent with an ecosystem based management," Watkins said. "There is a lack of coordination, goals and funding at all levels."

EDIT

"You have a heck of a good report," Senator Ernest Hollings told the commission members. "But if that is not a nonstarter, then I have never seen one." The South Carolina Democrat said "you will have all the cabinet members in there with their interests ... and they will fuss." "That oceans policy council to me takes away from what we got right now," said Hollings, who expressed concern the report does not focus enough on the need for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to serve as the leading federal ocean agency.

EDIT

But his House colleague, Michigan Republican Vernon Ehlers, was more cautious in his outlook. He said the report's call for "an organic act of NOAA," which would redefine and strengthen its focus on oceans policies, is critical. "We want to pass a bill into law this year," Ehlers told the Senate panel, "but this will not be easy." Ehlers said the report does not "clearly specify priorities for funding. It will be extremely difficult to find $4 billion in new money for the oceans," he said. "I agree there are enough problems and issues that it requires this much new funding, but I want to make sure Congress is not hit with sticker shock."

EDIT

So, less than one's months Iraqnam costs to at least TRY and come up with systems to protect our oceans is just WAY too much for this Congress to try and get a grip on. God help us all.

http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=31076

[Robbien]

1. I watched a story on the Ocean study this morning

The scientist was so sure they would get funding because the proof was so damning that everyone would surely support it.

He was so positive, and I was so sad. He is trying to do the right thing, but doing the right thing doesn't mean a thing to this administration.

[enough]

2. "extremely difficult to find $4 billion in new money for the oceans"

Right, we need that 4 billiion to fund three weeks worth of the war in Iraq.

Why don't we just tell them to cut the occupation short by a month -- presto, there's your oceans money.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Here's when they will fund it

After the first winter where the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation is unable to deliver enough warmth to Europe. England and the continent will suffer the worst winter in at least 700 years, and quite possibly since the downstroke of the Younger-Dryas period. It will put such a drain on the world economy that a recession will be inevitable, in addition to the humanitarian disaster.

We'll fund it then, all right -- because the next phase of that cooling pattern will be a monstrous winter in North America as well as Europe a year later.

We'll be seeing all the precursors -- hotter summers, more clouds and rain, later first frosts, sinking towns in Alaska and Siberia, increased temperature gradients between both the north and equatorial Atlantic, as well as between the ground and the stratosphere -- but "Global Warming" will continue to attract smug laughter.

When "it" happens, it won't be quite like it's portrayed in The Day After Tomorrow, but it will be nasty. And inevitable.

And they will blame the liberals, the Democrats, and Bill Clinton.

--bkl