I have a simpler view of this kind of action. Opening up national parks seems like a bizarre thing to do when you think of it. The National Parks DO NOT represent a great land mass, so how much more oil and copper or whatever can you dig out of them? Itís a symbolic action only. Itís saying, weíre rich and we can destroy the country if we want, so youíd better do what we say or else.
That is, if we can do this to national parks, think what we can do to your backyard.
I see this in much the same way as I see those photo ops from G20 meetings. All the discussions that take place at trade talks occur behind closed doors for years before the actual meeting. So what is the real purpose behind the meetings, the security, the baiting of protesters. IMO, the real purpose is to show "our leaders" behind fences and barriers, surrounded by swat teams, supposedly in danger from a few protesters throwing bottles. It is saying to us, "Look how important we are. Look what we are protecting you from?" And all the political leaders attending these things are the ones currently in power, so the re-election aspects are obvious. I see these things as a TV show, nothing more.
If they want or need more oil, do they really have to dig up the national parks, of all places? Do you really believe that that is necessary? It's a con, set up to create false debates in places like this forum. Where some people can say that nature is important and others more hard-headed and "realistic" can contradict and pretend that they're clear thinkers, unlike those wooly-headed ones who like birds and camping.
Stop it, it's silly. Do you really not believe that keeping the air and water clean is important? How would you feel if it was your daughter getting sick at the next Love Canal? Why do we keep repeating the same mistakes. Black lung disease is making a comeback in West Virginia, do you think that's a good "compromise" to make for "jobs". Really?