The 1969 oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara was a major catalyst for environmental reforms, and spurred the creation of GOO! (Get the Oil Out), an environmental group dedicated to opposing offshore oil drilling. But something has changed in the intervening decades.
Thirty-nine years later, GOO! is still around. But this April the group did something astonishing. It publicly supported an oil company's proposal to drill off the coast of Santa Barbara.Environmentally sensitive oil exploration and extraction has been possible for quite some time. The National Audubon Society and a state affiliate first allowed oil and gas development in their preserves decades ago, on the condition that oil companies agreed to various measures to lessen the impact of such development. In one case, Audubon allowed drilling and extraction in a nature preserve too sensitive for tourism or birdwatching. In another, ten years after drilling ended it was impossible to identify where it had taken place.Houston-based Plains Exploration and Production Company proposed drilling 22 wells from a platform 4.7 miles from land. It made numerous concessions to the local environmental groups that would curtail drilling in about a decade -- and in the end even the adamantly "no-drilling" crowd agreed that the deal was beneficial for everyone. The Environmental Defense Center, a nonprofit environmental law firm, endorsed the plan. Abe Powell, president of GOO!, told the Los Angeles Times it was "good for the community." Terry Leftgoff, a former GOO! executive director, wrote in the Santa Barbara Independent the deal was "a brilliant proposal that finally gives the public something back: the certain removal of four offshore oil platforms, the decommissioning of a notorious industrial plant, and the reversion of rural land subjugated into oil development back into the public trust as parkland."
When an environmental group formed for the sole purpose of opposing offshore oil drilling warmly embraces a plan to drill off its own coast, you know something important has changed in our culture: Americans have recognized that offshore oil drilling is largely safe.
I first wrote about this in 1991 after interviewing some of the preserve managers. (I can't find the op-eds online, but I found this letter.) As one described it, when Audubon was approached by an oil company, their response was essentially "you can drill if you pay us royalties and can prevent the following impacts." This prompted the oil companies to devote their energies to meeting Audubon's demands, leading to significant innovation.
Government agencies often impose requirements on oil and gas development on federal lands or offshore, but they are rarely so tailored to the specific ecological conditions of a given site. Government agencies are also less adept than private owners at negotiating these sorts of deals, particularly when constrained by broad regulatory requirements. Nonetheless, when oil companies have an incentive to reduce the environmental impacts of oil development, they are often able to do quite a bit.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Anti-Drilling "Snake Oil":
- Anti-Drilling Group Supports Drilling:
Jonathan hinted at it with "you can drill if you pay us royalties". RKV pointed out that the "county will impose a tax on all oil drilled in the county so as to up their revenue"
I suspect we are missing some pieces to this puzzle.
This is a very positive development for those of us that are convinced that the extractive industries could reduce their impacts if they put half as much effort into it as they currently do trying to dodge regulation. Of course, the fact that they do so is proof-positive that our current mode of regulation is poorly designed.
Oh, and EH: You're projecting.
Yes I am. Sometimes you have to do that to convey the sense of something in just a few words.
I could go on about the fine environmentalists that I had the pleasure to work, with and the very high quality work they produced. I only found out later that I was singularly lucky.
Oren, if the voters approve theft, it's still theft (channeling Janice Rogers Brown in San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco).
Oh, and EH: You're projecting.
No, I'm making an observation. I'm not deriving any meaning or consequence to my life from Zarkov's actions. Now, if you're saying that I'm denigrating Zarkov by pointing out that he's splitting, then that speaks to meaning, but in that case it would be you who is assigning a negative connotation to my statement and are therefore "projecting" yourself.
Zarkov:
Sometimes you have to do that [splitting] to convey the sense of something in just a few words.
Yet it is the splitting itself that you are convey the sense of, since by your own words the "something" was more nuanced than what you said. It's the difference between being honest and shooting from the hip.
I never realized you were such a fan of Bush and his policies.
After all his election was democratically-ratified and hence legitimate.
And apparently moral authority to disregard the stated will of the voters is not vested in anonymous blog posters on the internet.
Not exactly my opinion but according to your stated standards, the voters elected Bush and that is all it takes to make Bush, and his policies, legitimate.
Moving toward $5.00/gallon gas; moving toward a trillion dollar a year oil import habit (and yes, that's toward $1,000,000,000,000 per year, fellow citizens tax payers); we import 70% of our oil (it was 24% in 1970); we import that oil from places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela; we have sizeable reserves in a notably small section of northern Alaska; we have huge reserves in the eastern Gulf; we have huge reserves on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts; huge shale oil reserves in the Rockies; technology has advanced hugely to help ensure environmental safeguards and other limits can be responsibly codified.
Yet enviromental dilettantes and extremists inveigh and preach and browbeat and posture and pose and we continue to succomb, while Obama styled politicians talk about "change" as if the term is merely a mantra for purposes of garnering votes rather than reflective of something substantial, critical and reality bound.
That doesn't address other energy sources, but it addresses the most critical source in the present and near to medium term future.
I have no problem with the either the concept or execution of limited government but all too often it becomes an empty rhetorical device conveying no other meaning other than the speaker's disapproval of the government policy in question.
1. Is the statement meaningful?
2. Is it relevant?
3. Is it accurate?
4. What is a realistic uncertainty estimate?
The answer to all those questions is "no." I can go through each question methodically, but I'm afraid the people who agree don't need convincing and those who are opposed will ignore what I say anyway. USGS estimates for Alaska are provided here.
The confidence intervals for their estimates are very wide, about a factor of three. I suspect their statistical methodology is flawed. It's also worth noting that industry is precluded by law from conducting seismic soundings in ANWAR.
BTW RFK's voice sounds somewhat abnormal. Perhaps he's still on drugs. Recall he was convicted of heroin possession.
[Attempting to explain why theft, if approved by the voters, is A-OK. BUT...]:BWAA-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-A-A!!
So theft, which does not comply with any law, is fine so long as the voters approve of it ...unless it's the ee-e-e-vil George W. Bush who, in the opinion of Oren, is violating the law.
That hypocrisy is simply yummy!
Sorry, Oren, but you stepped in this one.
This is how the environmental terrorists operate. Make a technically true statement, but juxtapose assertions to imply a causal connection. A lay person not listening carefully could certainly form that connection.
If implying the unproven makes RFK Jr. a terrorist, words have no meaning. By that definition someone should arrest the whole blogosphere.
Obviously I'm engaging in hyperbole. An environmental terrorist is someone who tires to spread fear, not someone who blows up buildings and shoots people in shopping malls. Environmental activists like RFK Jr. try to scare the public about pesticides, ionizing radiation, global warming, air pollution etc. Listen to JFK Jr. talk about nuclear reactors and insurance, but not say anything about the imposed strict liability. He's certainly a fear monger. Note also that I didn't say "terrorist." I said "environmental terrorist" and the meaning of that should be clear from context.
Sorry, but that's not hyperbole. It's redefining terms, with a straw man thrown in for good measure. An environmental terrorist is a tree spiker, not an activist whose unproven dire implications (if that's indeed what RFK Jr.'s comments are) you disagree with.
"An environmental terrorist is a tree spiker,..."
If you want to get pedantic, the term for a "tree spiker" is an "eco-terrorist," and that's materially different from an "environmental terrorist,"RFK Jr. is using the environment and natural resources for a political objective, so I'm engaging in hyperbole at worst. However these are all neologisms anyway and what I meant should have been clear from context. As for RFK Jr., he goes beyond an activist who makes "unproven dire implications." He makes errors and omissions designed to spread extreme fear. It's not just a matter of opinion.
What the hell are you talking about? I said Bush's policies are legitimate because they are democratically ratified and do follow the law.
Reading comprehension is key.
Yes, I'm aware of that distinction (not universally adopted, by the way), and I chose not to point that out because that would have been nit-picking. If conflating the meaning of a term (whether "eco" or "environmental") that connotes actual violence with someone you disagree with -- and that's all you've established -- is hyperbole, it's not a rhetorical move that serves constructive debate. It's just name-calling.
"If conflating the meaning of a term (whether "eco" or "environmental") that connotes actual violence with someone you disagree with ..."
As is clear from the definition, an environmental terrorist need not use direct physical violence. My disagreement with RFK Jr. and others of his ilk goes beyond a mere disagreement over scientific facts. They use tactics that could cause real physical harm.
You might find Michael Crichton's speech on Complexity Theory and Environmental Management informative. The transcript is here. Note in particular his medical story where a doctor saved a man's life by lifting a curse. Medical intervention failed because the mind alone can make the body sick. Fear mongering can cause real harm.
I don't dispute the power of fear, just your unsupported assertion that RFK, Jr. is fear-mongering.
Fear mongering is often in the eye of the beholder. You apparently see it in predictions of AGW bringing more Hurricane Katrinas. Other people see it in warnings about smoking guns taking the form of mushroom clouds. (Does the tobacco industry still insist the hoopla about lung cancer is just fear mongering?) But those perceptions overlook that when somebody honestly believes what he's warning about, he may be wrong, and his advice may be useless or worse, but we don't call what he's doing "fear mongering." We call it "trying to be helpful." I see no evidence RFK, Jr. doesn't believe what he said. If you do, please fill me in.
I was hoping to avoid a semantic argument over the definition of environmental terrorism, but you keep saying or implying it means something it doesn't. I agree with the definition you quoted:
For example, blowing up an oil well, or grounding an oil tanker off a resort coastline. In other words, "attack" means "attack" and "use" means "use." They don't mean "talk," "argue," "warn" or "scare monger."
Back to RFK Jr., he said something ambiguous, the likely implication of which (i.e., that tropical storm severity should at least roughly correlate with the rising ocean temperatures predicted to follow AGW) you presumably disagree with. But for what he said to be "fear mongering" it would have to be intentionally exaggerated, and you've given no indication it is. Instead, you bootstrapped it a second time by reading "environmental fear-mongering" into the definition of "environmental terrorism." (And I just explained why that's wrong.)
So an arguable prediction becomes fear mongering, which in turn becomes environmental terrorism. Don't you see that that's the sort of Orwellian gymnastics people use to rationalize fudging the truth?
There really are lots of parks in Santa Barbara. New ones are appreciated as well. This is one of the things that makes living there so different than other cities along the California coastline. It certainly distinguishes it from the Metro LA cities. If you're ever in SB, I highly recommend the Alice Keck Memorial Gardens.
The oil rigs in question are called the "5 mile dereks" which conveniently line up to mark that distance as you sail out of the harbor. (at least, that's what we and other local sailors call them. I'm sure they have other, more official names.)
Santa Barbara gets a lot of it's character from the local environment. The 1969 spill had an enormous effect on the locals. It was covered extensively in my SBCC biological oceanography and marine bio classes back in the mid-80s. Pictures of it could be seen from time to time around the city, usually in combination with pro-environmental literature.
It's also worth noting that Santa Barbara has historically kept growth to a bare minimum. They've used water rationing and other methods to keep the city small (around 200K people) and not become part of the metro LA sprawl. There has been conflict over this for as long as I can remember. It was discussed over the dinner table many nights and my dad still talks about it when I visit. RKV's comments about "tax base" are part of the language of this conflict.
Our basic disagreement comes down to whether JFK Jr fear mongers. Evidently you don't think he tries to scare people about the environment and natural resources. However when I see someone engage in a series of false statements or exaggerations, always linking to some dire consequence, I think he's using fear for political ends, not "arguable prediction." He frequently holds back information to make something seem scary. We could go through these things one by one.
As far as the term "environmental terror" goes, you read that definition differently by a narrow interpretation of the word "use." Some activists like RFK Jr. use environmental issues for political ends. The essay by Crichton explores these ideas more fully.