Great Lakes Preservation Funding

I found two articles that I found particularly interesting regarding speculation about how the Obama administration will approach the environmental policy issues moving forward.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/32530574.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/36078824.html

These articles indicate that Obama will take a strong stand on water quality issues throughout his term, particularly involving the Great Lakes, the largest fresh water bodies in the world. Being from the Milwaukee area in Wisconsin, and moving to Cleveland, Ohio next year, I am particularly interested in the cleanliness and sustainability of the Great Lakes.

The first article indicates that the Obama administration will restore taxes from the rolled back levels for oil and gas companies to fund a $5 billion dollar “jump start” effort to protect and restore the Great Lakes. This effort should not be confused with the $26 billion plan to restore the great lakes that has been initiated within Congress, rather it is a commitment on the part of the Obama administration to make major changes with the Great Lakes. The article refers to the Great Lakes as a “national treasure” and even compared them to the Florida Everglades. The article mentions that funding to preserve them has take a back seat for a long time leading to the severe degradation from invading species and pollution. The Obama administration seeks to employ a “zero tolerance” policy for invading species.

I do not agree with the opinion piece I posted which argues that we should preserve the “Great Lakes” in a balanced way. The author argues that we can look at cleaning and preserving the Great Lakes while at the same time expand the oil refining industry along them. I do believe in balance between environmental preservation efforts and a strong economy, yet I do not believe it is necessary to increase the oil refining business along the lake to build the economy in the region. The author of this piece does mention that the country needs to move toward alternative fuels, and yes oil is needed now, but I do not believe Canada is the better supplier if it requires polluting Lake Superior, removing pristine wetlands, and risking disaster. After all, one out of three Canadians and one out of seven Americans receive their drinking water from the Great Lakes. If we want to move away from oil then why would we build this infrastructure to support it if we want to phase use of oil out? Yes we’d get oil from Canada, a conflict free source, but would we need to build this same risky infrastructure if we continue to get oil from our current sources? Growing the oil refinery business along Lake Michigan will provide jobs in Northern Wisconsin, but people in Northern Wisconsin also tend to be the environmental friendly types and I do not think these jobs would be ones that they would want (although a study to back up my opinion here would be in order to validate this thought). I believe we can protect the Great Lakes as well as build a strong economy if we focus on building greener industries in the area.