Palin, republicans, other animals and national forests (New Scientist)

In this weeks New Scientist two short news articles caught my eye.

"Alaska's beluga whales should be keeping their flippers crossed that Sarah Palin won't make it to the White House."

Apparently Sarah is not the whales best friend, she has made strenuous efforts to ensure that the beluga whales in the Cook Inlet in Alaska were not given enhanced protection and put on the endangered species list. She originally tried to claim there wasn't enough evidence to put them on the list but only managed to delay the listing for 6 months while a recount took place.

This was following on from the outrage she expressed when the polar bear was put on the endangered list. Alaska has even unsuccessfully sued for loss of revenue from oil and gas development resulting from putting the polar bear list.

So this year's Cruella De Vil 2008 award for a person most likely to have a stone heart when it comes to protecting the environment and clearly putting financial benefits above environmental concerns goes to Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Give it up for the wicked witch of the north!

In the interests of political balance Sarah may feel that the local economy of Alaska which is heavily dependant on the oil and gas industry should not be put last below animal welfare. Maybe she feels that in Alaska the rights of humans should be put first.

The other reason not to vote republican is because thanks to George Bush "roadless" areas of national forest totalling 230,000 square kilometres which is an area virtually the size of the UK is under threat from development such as phosphate mining or logging.

So if you care for the environment, really, don't even bother thinking about voting for Mcain and Palin.