This is my question that I submitted to the CNN/YouTube Debate which aires on November 25, 2007! I'm concerned about our reefs and our environment as a whole. Please stop in and look. Aslo, please stop long enough to leave comments and rate the video. Perhaps it will get it aired! Thanks to all of you!

YouTube - Republican Debate Question

Phil

I'm sorry for the wrong link! MY BAD! It was corrected.

sweet !! people like you make me proud to be a part of this hobby.

Wow, I guess it was just my imagination when Pres. Bush signed into law the world's largest marine protected area in June of 2005.

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Thursday is expected to announce the creation of the world's largest marine protected area — a group of remote Hawaiian islands that cover 84 million acres and are home to 7,000 species of birds, fish and marine mammals, at least a quarter of which are unique to Hawaii.

At a White House ceremony, the president was planning to designate the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands — which have been described as "America's Galapagos" and as the most intact tropical marine region under U.S. jurisdiction — the United States' 75th national monument.

The decision immediately sets aside 139,000 square miles of largely uninhabited islands, atolls, coral reef colonies and underwater peaks known as seamounts to be managed by federal and state agencies.

Conrad Lautenbacher, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which will manage nearly all of it, said the new protected area would dwarf all others.

"It's the single-largest act of ocean conservation in history. It's a large milestone," Lautenbacher said. "It is a place to maintain biodiversity and to maintain basically the nurseries of the Pacific. It spawns a lot of the life that permeates the middle of the Pacific Ocean."

Conservationists, who have clashed with the Bush administration on most other environmental issues, were just as pleased.

"This an unprecedented win for endangered Hawaiian monk seals, green sea turtles, black-footed albatrosses, tiger sharks, the incredible reef corals in these waters, the people of Hawaii and all Americans, now and in generations to come," Elliott Norse, president of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute, said in a statement ahead of the announcement. "It’s the start of a new era of protecting places in the sea before they’re degraded beyond recognition. In my opinion, this is the best thing President Bush has done for the environment."

Added Fred Krupp, head of Environmental Defense: "The president is creating the world's largest marine protected area. It's as important as the establishment of Yellowstone" — arguably the crown jewel of the National Park System.

The national monument, about the size of California, will be 38 times larger than Yellowstone, and larger even than Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

Roger Rufe, president of The Ocean Conservancy, agreed the area was on par with Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon. "Teddy Roosevelt is largely considered the father of our national park system," he added. With this national monument, "President Bush may be securing a similar legacy in our oceans.”

Jeffdubya...Yes that is correct. And it is good, but with oceanic acidification and increased CO2 in the atmosphere, these preserves will not be safe, either! Some scientists within the Aurtralian government expecxt 95% of the Great Barrier Reef to be dead by 2040. I'm not a partisan person nor a politician. CHINA is the greatest contributor! But today Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Prize, he has collected an Oscar and an Emmy THIS year alone! AND he has a best selling book! Would you agree that all parties political and otherwise should be talking about these issues and searching for good science to empirically prove or disprove that the Global Warming issue is caused by Human causes, Sun Spots, Natural Earth Cycles......I don't know what to believe nor whom to trust. If everyone was working together, COULD we avert a POTENTIAL crisis? I would just like to hear all sides discussing this issue. I posted the same question to the Democrats and it was NOT chosen. This probably won't either..but I'm trying to keep the issue high on the list of issues from a grassroots level.

I don't want to get into an extended political debate or discussion with you on this forum, I think it's pretty a-political as a whole and would like to see it remain that way. I also want you to know that while I am politically very conservative, I am not a Bush supporter, and I don't want my post misconstrued as such.

Here's how I will respond to your last post... and from there I will probably not post on this topic again.

First, I want to respond to Al Gore. Oscar, Emmy, Nobel Prize*... all for being completely full of crap. Gore is a fear monger. He takes relatively good science and blows it out of proportion, all the while traveling the world in private jets and hummer limos, with the carbon footprint something like 500 times the average human being. At the same time he's baptizing a whole new generation of kool-aid drinkers (hopefully you're not one of them) who will one day, God save us all, write public policy. Gore is nothing but a climate change propagandist.

(In case you don't believe me, you might want to refer to a ruling last week in a British court that "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least nine material falsehoods and can be shown to students only if it is identified as containing "partisan political views" that promote only one side of the global warming argument.

Additionally - yesterday, the BBC aired a report claiming that Gore knew his "alarmist" movie presented "false facts," because he feared any uncertainty in his film would only fuel opponents of global warming regulation.

I responded to your video because you crucified the current administration and Republicans for "abandoning environmental efforts." I disagree completely. I think that for whatever reason, politicos from the other side of the aisle try to demonize Bush and GOP legislators just because they hate him. It's wierd, but give me an hour, and I could find you a hundred instances of this odd political game being played.

I also am not a fan of doomsday science. I would bet you that for every scientist you can find who claims the oceans reefs will all be toast within 30 years, that I can find one who says the other scientist is full of crap. When I was a kid, we were on the verge of the next ice age. Now we have people screaming about global warming when the earth's temperature has risen .7 degrees celcius. Of course, to "fix" global warming, we will need to spend TRILLIONS and GAZILLIONS of dollars, and pardon my french, but I am at the point where I don't trust ANY government entity, and the more zeros are attached to that dollar sign, the less I trust.

Additionally, some reputable scientists I have read claim that even if we did spend all that money, and even if we got third world nations like China and India on board (see: melting glacier's chance in hell) that we probably wouldn't even put a dent in it.

Then... what if we could change it? And we did? And what if this global warming thing is a cyclical phenomenon? And what if by CHANGING it, we TOTALLY SCREW THINGS UP? I may not be a climatologist, or even completely understand how pH works in my fish tank, but I'm a thinker...

Here's my personal belief on the matter. I think it's good that we're talking about this. I think environmental awareness, when not raised to some crazy activist rhetoric level, is a very good thing. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle... all that jazz. I am a lover of the oceans and the environment and a serious conservationist. I sold my SUV. I'm thinking about a hybrid. I think that in 2007 the fact that we are driving vehicles fueled by gasoline is a freaking joke! But that's all about lack of original thought, dumbing down our schools, and a topic for a completely different thread.

Human beings are not going to wreck this planet. We could totally screw it up if we tried really hard, but I think what happens in that equation is that WE die, not the planet. Taken as a whole, the earth is an amazing biological organism with the capacity to fix nearly anything we screw up. But like white blood cells fighting an infection, we'll be toast, and the next kid on the evolutionary ladder can step to the plate.

One last thing to consider is this whole natural selection process that has been going on for millions, of not billions of years. We're watching stupid people in our society survive (and breed to make more stupid people) after stabbing each other in the head with meat forks over an argument over "Desperate Housewives." Don't believe me? watch "Cops." Sometimes I think emergency services has an unintended reverse-evolutionary effect on society. Where am I going with this ramble? Nature doesn't have 911, nor should we always attempt to intervene. When it's a species time to go, it's time! Just like one day our time will probably be up. That's the way evolution works. The weak die and are replaced by the strong. If you can't prove it's our fault in the first place, why should we get to play God in matters such as this?

So, do I think any yahoo who is environmentally conscious is crazy? Hell no. More power to you. I'm the guy who calls up my aquarium supplier types and yells at them because they use non-biodegradeable packing materials when they send me stuff. What happened to fostering a love for the oceans when it came to that?

As I mentioned before, reputable scientists are deeply divided on these issues. This isn't an argument we can solve here, unless we both have advanced degrees in environmental sciences, and even then we may argue to infinity.

What I really must take issue with in the strongest of terms is throwing any one political group under the bus on this. It's an invalid argument, and unproveable. (Likewise, I could ask where all the sweeping environmental reforms have been in the past year, since Democrats have taken over both houses of congress.)

At least you are intelligent to admit that China is a huge part of the problem. If you want to throw someone under that proverbial bus, go for it. Or India. Screw it, both.

But yeah, let's all try working together to keep the planet clean. I'm all for that. But polarizing this makes it more difficult to solve these issues, not easier. It's up to all of us to pick up the trash.

- - -

* I understand that a Catholic woman who saved something like 2,500 Jewish children in WWII lost today to Al Gore. Political Correctness run amuck. Regardless if you like or dislike Al Gore, the Nobel foundation should be ashamed. In the words of Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct, it rather seems that Gore's doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilization does not contribute to peace."

Couldn't agree more. With that. I am smashing the soap box to bits and getting back to work.

I really liked your passion and content! I cannot disagree with one word. We are about the same age! I, too, recall when they were fearing Global Cooling and talking of "The Next Ice Age". I just have a passion for the life that I love and protect in my tank! I would like to see this debate as part of the election cycle. As I said, I posted the same question to the Democrats and they passed on the question. I'm just one little man that loves the oceans and the lives contained therein! Rather than hearing stump speeches, I'd like to hear a conversation about something that is important to me, and I believe to everyone that has ever had an aquarium!

PS...The Nobel Peace Prize lost a GREAT deal of value in my eyes today! Alfred Nobel is rolling over in his grave! The Catholic women were far more deserving and were truly advocating Peace in a time of war!