I think I'll avoid the issue of assassination as policy since this is an EE
list. It is, however, interesting that the Israelis have placed all
information on sub-surface water in the region under military security
regulations. The use of water supplies as a means of warfare, or whatever
you want to call what's going on there, is an environmental topic. Several
years ago there was an article on this in one of the environmental planning
journals. One of the authors, a German living in Israel, had his work visa
revoked and was deported. I recall one of the pictures in the article showed
an Israeli village 1/4 mile from a Palestinian village. The Palestinians had
to walk a mile to pump water from a single well, the Israelis had swimming
pools. Although it is a difficult way to get the issue addressed, I would
hope that US policy in the middle east is more closely examined in the
future. I find it hard to accept that the US is supporting a nation who uses
assassination and environmental coercion as policy.

Steven

   On the other hand, prophets have a way of outlasting politicians. Gandhi
has outlasted Nehru, and it appears that Confucius will outlast Mao
Tse-tung.
                                Huston Smith

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Chiaviello, Anthony
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 6:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Russian oil and Israeli assassination


With Bush about to make a deal with Putin on oil supply, it would seem we
could dispense with the Saudis, as Russia produces plenty. The best option,
of course, is to eliminate the reliance on oil and its foreign sources by
using less of it and by designing for an alternative future fuel. It can be
done, but it would take ingenuity, not the long suit of the oil companies.
By the way, the Texans I meet who have worked with Cheney at Halliburton
hate him because he ran off with the pension fund, in the form of his golden
shower (handshake? nahh, shower).
        On a different subject, anyone here note the irony of Israel's
outrage at the assassination of their minister? Isn't assassination of
Palestinian leaders the policy of the Israeli state? The press has not
touched this one, but, is there some reason that Israelis should NOT expect
turnaround on this from the Palestinians? Has demolishing people's houses
ever caused them to say, "sorry, I won't do that anymore"? If not, and
Palestinian assassinations of Israeli's leaders was not planned for, then
what quality of thought went into Israel's assassination policy in the first
place? This one has me stymied, as it seems so obvious. Any observations out
there?
-Tc
Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
Department of English
University of Houston-Downtown
One Main Street
Houston, TX 77002-0001
713.221.8520 / 713.868.3979
"Question Reality"

> ----------
> From:         Steven Bissell[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent:         Monday, October 22, 2001 6:23 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: quiet group and war?
>
> As I said, Norton is *at least* as bad an appointment as Watt, it is just
> that for whatever reason, she is escaping the dissection in the media.
> And,
> she has been able to keep her mouth shut on issues that do not effect her
> agency. And, I do believe that ANWR is a disaster, but my point is that
> given the war in Afghanistan, a plea that "we need that oil" is going to
> resonate much better than "It is not enough oil." If environmentalists
> take
> that stance they are putting themselves into the position that they have
> to
> come up with an alternative. ANWR is bad of everyone, not because it is a
> poor source of oil. So, Ray, I guess we agree. (Did hell just freeze over?
> ;-{))
>
> Steven
>
>  Dada is not dead
> Watch your overcoat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ray Lanier
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 4:35 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: quiet group and war?
>
>
> Hello Steven B.,
>
> Well, you sure can open the can of worms!!  Good!
>
> Of course, I disagree with much of what you said.  But most importantly, I
> believe that it is just at such times as this that we must be alert to the
> way we impact the environment.  Developers are already champing at the bit
> using WAR as an excuse for any attack on our environment.  ANWR, for
> example.  It seems to me that the potential for energy interruption is
> highlighted now, perhaps more than ever.   ANWR is a piddling response; we
> need to move as quickly as possible for energy sources not dependent on
> oil.
> Increased efficiencies in energy use seems to be the    most immediate
> productive potential followed by development of alternative energy
> sources.
>
> Considering alternatives, it seems to me that any unbiased analysis -
> mine!
> :-) - would show that the costs of developing oil in ANWR would be
> substantially higher that the very short-term benefits.  Compounded by the
> probabality that many folks would perceive ANWR as a credible move toward
> foreign oil independence, rather than the pitifull panacea that it would
> be
> actually.
>
> Following is a report from the Washington Post re Norton's bias.  My
> problem
> is that I do not trust the Bush-Cheney Big Oil administration.
>
> Ray
>
> Following from:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18216-2001Oct18.html
>
>   Departmental Differences Show Over ANWR Drilling
> Interior's Norton Rebuffs Wildlife Service in Senate Testimony
>
>  _____Federal Page_____
>
>
> By Michael Grunwald
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Friday, October 19, 2001; Page A03
>
>
> When a Senate committee asked Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton questions
> about caribou in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, she sought answers
> from the agency in her department that runs the refuge.
>
> But when Norton formally replied to the committee, she left out the
> agency's
> scientific data that suggested caribou could be affected by oil drilling,
> while including data that supported her case for exploration in the
> refuge,
> documents show. Norton also added data that were erroneous, stating that
> caribou calving has been concentrated outside the proposed drilling area
> in
> 11 of the last 18 years, when the opposite is true.
>
> The Arctic refuge was already the first issue to pierce the bipartisan
> consensus that prevailed on Capitol Hill since last month's terrorist
> attacks, with drilling proponents pushing for a vote on national security
> grounds and opponents arguing for delay.
>
> Norton's behind-the-scenes rebuff of the Fish and Wildlife Service --
> which
> is the Interior Department's front-line environmental agency but is not
> yet
> staffed by Bush administration political appointees -- is likely to
> heighten
> tensions over the nation's most disputed patch of tundra.
>
> Norton spokesman Mark Pfeifle said her error was simply that -- an
> inadvertent substitution of "outside" for "inside" -- and noted that she
> has
> preached peer-reviewed science ever since she got to Washington.
>
> As for other disparities between her response to Congress and Fish and
> Wildlife's proposed response, Pfeifle said, she relied on external input
> as
> well, especially a peer-reviewed caribou study from the Wildlife Society
> Bulletin concluding that oil development has little impact on caribou.
> That
> study's acknowledgments thank the oil company BP Exploration for funding,
> but Pfeifle said that makes no difference.
>
> "One of the cornerstones of this department is to reach out and listen to
> a
> wide variety of people and sources to determine the best information and
> the
> best policy," Pfeifle said. "Sometimes we look for guidance inside the
> department; sometimes we look outside as well."
>
> A Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman referred all questions to Pfeifle.
>
> President Bush's nominee to head the agency, Steve Williams, had his
> confirmation hearing on Wednesday, so the agency should get political
> direction soon. For now, Norton and her aides oversee the bureaucracy, and
> the two sides clearly approach the Arctic refuge from different
> perspectives.
>
> Fish and Wildlife is a purely environmental agency that does not concern
> itself with economic development or America's dependence on imported oil;
> it's no secret that most of its employees oppose industrial development in
> the refuge. Norton is a conservative Cabinet member who has led the
> administration's pro-drilling campaign.
>
> Still, some Fish and Wildlife officials said that they were careful to
> send
> Norton a complete and balanced portrait of the science, regardless of
> personal biases, and that she cherry-picked the data that suited her.
>
> "If Congress is going to have a serious discussion on the future of the
> Arctic refuge, it ought to have the whole story, not a slanted story,"
> said
> one agency employee, who requested anonymity. "We tried to present all the
> facts, but she only passed along the ones she liked. And to pass along
> facts
> that are false, well, that's obviously inappropriate."
>
> The disagreement has its roots in a series of questions posed to Norton on
> May 15 by Sen. Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Energy and
> Natural Resources Committee and a fierce advocate of drilling in what is
> called the 1002 area of the refuge's coastal plain.
>
> The four questions related to caribou -- two about calving habits, two
> about
> the potential impact of oil development -- were referred to Fish and
> Wildlife. On May 24, biologists at the refuge provided their recommended
> answers, which were approved by five offices up the agency's chain of
> command without substantive changes, agency sources said.
>
> When the answers arrived at Norton's office, they were rewritten with
> input
> from her congressional affairs director, David Bernhardt, and her senior
> counselor, Ann Klee. The before-and-after documents were provided to The
> Washington Post by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
> (PEER),
> which has battled Norton since her nomination.
>
> The scientific data the agency gave Norton offered fuel for both sides of
> the debate. The bottom line was that caribou gravitate toward the 1002
> area -- and that they tend to avoid oil fields when calving -- but that
> they
> have mostly prospered over the last three decades despite the development
> of
> sprawling oil infrastructure.
>
> On the calving questions, Fish and Wildlife did suggest that the
> 130,000-strong Porcupine Caribou Herd prefers to calve in the 1002 area,
> which is about as far as it can get from predators and which is rich in
> nutritious food. The agency noted that the herd has calved there in 27 of
> the last 30 years, a statistic Norton did not use.
>
> But Norton did use the agency's statement that the migratory Porcupine do
> not concentrate most of their calving in the 1002 area in years of late
> snowmelt, because they can't reach it in time. Then she added that
> "concentrated calving occurred primarily outside the 1002 area in 11 of
> the
> last 18 years," when she should have said "inside."
>
> Norton also neglected to mention Fish and Wildlife's data illustrating
> that
> "calf production and early survival of calves are lower in such years"
> when
> the caribou do not calve in the 1002 area.
>
> "The long-term evidence shows that's where the caribou want to be. But I
> guess if you're going to be an advocate, you're not going to mention that
> if
> it doesn't help your case," said another Fish and Wildlife official, also
> on
> the condition of anonymity. "They're not denying facts. Just ignoring
> them."
>
> On the oil questions, Fish and Wildlife reported that the Central Arctic
> Herd has grown dramatically since the onset of oil field development in
> its
> historical calving grounds, from an estimated 5,000 in 1975 to about
> 27,000
> today. It also included two sentences noting that since the development of
> the Kuparuk field in the early 1980s, the oil industry has been more
> sensitive to caribou, sentences that Norton copied into her response.
>
> However, the agency again included several caveats, warning that the
> consequences of further development would be "very difficult to predict."
> It
> pointed out that in the harsh-weather years from 1988 to 1994, the overall
> caribou numbers declined, and that the herd's birth rate was 64 percent in
> developed areas and 83 percent elsewhere.
>
> Norton included no such caveats, stating that the "data do not support the
> hypothesis that oil fields adversely affect caribou productivity."
>
> Pfeifle said the Interior officials believed that Fish and Wildlife had
> relied too heavily on one source. He said the officials also objected to
> statements in the agency's proposed answers that included the words
> "suggesting" and "apparently," because they indicated too much doubt.
>
> The Wildlife Society Bulletin article also included such phrases as "as
> suggested previously," "we believe" and "seems most likely," but Pfeifle
> emphasized that it was peer-reviewed first.
>
> Environmentalists have never been fond of Norton. The former Colorado
> attorney general endured countless comparisons to former interior
> secretary
> James Watt during her confirmation hearings, and yesterday PEER's national
> field director, Eric Wingerter, called on her to resign. He said the
> inside-outside error sounded too conveniently pro-drilling to be an
> accident.
>
> "This went way beyond spin," Wingerter said. "They manipulated the data in
> an attempt to manipulate Congress. Norton's big mistake here was getting
> caught."
>
> But there are often tensions between political appointees and the
> bureaucracies beneath them, and there is always a fine line between
> strengthening an argument and twisting the facts.
>
> "I'm not sure it's a perversion of the facts," a third Fish and Wildlife
> official said. "It's just selective of the facts. I guess it all depends
> what the meaning of 'is' is."
>
>
>
> © 2001 The Washington Post Company
>