Dear Mr. President, “I believe,” is not good policy
An open letter to President Barack Obama:
Dear Mr. President,
As a woman who worked very hard to make sure your last opponents were not elected — walking door to door in the snow on your behalf, registering more than a thousand Alaskans to vote, exposing Palin in the national media, etc. — I feel obligated to write you about a few of my concerns.
Your secretary of the interior, Ken Salazar, recently told reporters asking about Shell’s recent drilling permits and Alaska’s Arctic, “I believe there’s not going to be an oil spill.”
Sir, he just wrote the headline for the first oil spill under arctic ice.
“I believe” is not good policy. I believe that unicorn fur is the most absorbent clean-up product.
The Coast Guard, on the other hand, has held to its reality-based position that it doesn’t have the assets necessary to cover a spill in the Arctic. The Coasties will have to pull resources from drug enforcement and fishing fleet security to boost safety in our most northern ocean. The Kodiak Coast Guard base is closer to Seattle than it is to the Chukchi and Beaufort seas – 700 miles closer. Last winter we had to rely on a Russian icebreaker to deliver fuel to ice-bound Nome.
Trusting and believing is great in church, but when it comes to oil exploration and development, we have to do better.
Lloyd’s of London recently insured the new Freedom Tower in New York City, but said the Arctic is too great a risk. Lloyd’s said what Salazar should have said: “The environmental consequences of disasters in the Arctic have the potential to be worse than in other regions. The resilience of the Arctic’s ecosystems in terms of withstanding risk events is weak, and political sensitivity to a disaster is high. As a result, companies operating in the Arctic face significant reputational risk.”
No, I’m not making this up. Lloyd’s is betting that a skyscraper known as the Freedom Tower, the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere, erected at One World Trade Center, on the same land where terrorists attacked us on 9/11, will not be hit again.
But the Arctic is too risky to insure.
Royal Dutch Shell has been prosecuted and fined more than any other oil producer in Britain’s North Sea. And these weren’t fines for not having enough cupcakes at the company picnic. The company repeatedly failed to maintain pipelines and other essential equipment. Its executives failed to report a dangerous incident and weren’t truthful with the government about the extent of a 218-ton oil spill. They also failed to protect workers from hazardous chemicals.
Where else might we apply the “I don’t believe” analysis? How about: I don’t believe I’ll be in a car wreck so I won’t wear my seat belt and I’ll turn off the air bags. Really? No way. I’d be ticketed for not wearing a seat belt. Why? Because “I don’t believe” doesn’t prevent accidents. It’s why we want every man, woman and child in this country to have access to affordable health care, because “I don’t believe I’ll get sick” doesn’t mean diddly.
Mr. President, you said, “Oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills” 18 days before BP’s deepwater disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. You were right; they “generally” don’t. Oil tankers generally don’t run aground on charted rocks. But the Exxon Valdez did and Alaskans waited 20 years for the Supreme Court to finally award 10 cents on the
dollar. When I walked across a beach in Prince William Sound two years ago, my boot prints filled with a sheen of oil.
Shell has claimed they can clean up to 90% of an oil spill. Since when? They certainly never have before, and no one else has either. Only 6% of the BP spill was contained, and 11% of the Exxon Valdez.
In 1989, I had a Macintosh SE computer with a 20MB hard drive. Today, you can buy a MacBook Pro with a 768 gigabyte hard drive. Between the two largest spills in America, Apple’s technological growth was phenomenal. Yet there was no change to oil spill response technology; same wimpy booms and same dispersants that are more toxic than crude oil.
Generally, accidents don’t happen, but when they do, it doesn’t matter whether you believed it could happen or not. More than 200 million gallons of oil gushed into the Gulf of Mexico. Two years later, the Gulf is still reeling, both ecologically and economically. There won’t be a full recovery in either of our lifetimes.
The 111th Congress introduced 101 oil spill-related bills and exactly ZERO of those bills were enacted into law. The time to act is before a spill, not after. A cup of prevention is worth 200 million gallons of cure.
Mr. President, your administration missed an opportunity. Any conservationist worth his salt would rather see ANWR opened than the Beaufort and Chukchi seas drilled. So open ANWR, set a time limit – say 10 years — and step up the oversight. The trade? Shut down arctic drilling. You can’t control a spill in water or under ice. No one can. I know Shell has a rig on the way. You still have time to cut them off at the pass. “I believe” you can still do the right thing.
Yours truly,
Shannyn
No argument from me about arctic ocean drilling. It’s abhorrent to think about it – all for nothing but satisfying the bottom line margin of nearly the richest corporation on the planet.
However, I was most dismayed when I read that last paragraph, wondering who had slipped her the kool aid while she wasn’t looking. Then, I remembered that she’s “just a girl from Homer” as she so frequently likes to remind us. So, naturally she is overtly concerned about drilling in the Arctic Ocean – imagine how she would be if Exxon received permission to drill in Kachemak Bay. Oh, my. It follows that she would consider on-shore drilling expendable as compared to off-shore drilling. Sadly. Personally, I remain steadfast to my conviction that this country is capable of solving its problems through innovative, creative solutions that serve to lead us into our brighter future, rather than accommodating the old and outdated which serve only the few. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge coastal plain would create jobs – for a time – but that’s not the premise of her remarks, is it? She is suggesting that it is expendable, not all that important, after all. Apparently she feels it’s okay to compromise on the last remaining arctic wilderness habitat for all its incredible, intact diversity and global significance, even though our brightest young minds are every day taking us into the future with innovative alternatives to our old, outdated, dirty, planet killing ways. Shannyn, this is a wake up call. Either you are true to your passion about *all* the last remaining shreds of this original planet’s dignity, or you are not.
In the meantime, I recommend a little reminder. Please enjoy this link:
The “fact sheets” offer plenty of data for those searching “logic and facts” in this “emotional” argument.
The “latest video” is a great reminder of the *real* reason we must not drill in the Arctic Refuge coastal plain.
(and, no, it’s not a matter of “if they must allow drilling”, it’s a matter of *they need not allow* drilling)
http://www.alaskawild.org/our-issues/arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-campaign/
No argument from me about arctic ocean drilling. It’s abhorrent to think about it – all for nothing but satisfying the bottom line margin of nearly the richest corporation on the planet.
However, I was most dismayed when I read that last paragraph, wondering who had slipped her the kool aid while she wasn’t looking. Then, I remembered that she’s “just a girl from Homer” as she so frequently likes to remind us. So, naturally she is overtly concerned about drilling in the Arctic Ocean – imagine how she would be if Exxon received permission to drill in Kachemak Bay. Oh, my. It follows that she would consider on-shore drilling expendable as compared to off-shore drilling. Sadly. Personally, I remain steadfast to my conviction that this country is capable of solving its problems through innovative, creative solutions that serve to lead us into our brighter future, rather than accommodating the old and outdated which serve only the few. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge coastal plain would create jobs – for a time – but that’s not the premise of her remarks, is it? She is suggesting that it is expendable, not all that important, after all. Apparently she feels it’s okay to compromise on the last remaining arctic wilderness habitat for all its incredible, intact diversity and global significance, even though our brightest young minds are every day taking us into the future with innovative alternatives to our old, outdated, dirty, planet killing ways. This woman needs a wake up call. Either you are true to your passion about *all* the last remaining shreds of this original planet’s dignity, or you are not.
In the meantime, I recommend a little reminder. Please enjoy this link:
The “fact sheets” offer plenty of data for those searching “logic and facts” in this “emotional” argument.
The “latest video” is a great reminder of the *real* reason we must not drill in the Arctic Refuge coastal plain.
(and, no, it’s not a matter of “if they must allow drilling”, it’s a matter of *they need not allow* drilling)
http://www.alaskawild.org/our-issues/arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-campaign/
I think I’ll copy this off, pen something at the top like, “I completely agree with this letter and could not have expressed myself better,” and send it on to the White House and Salazar.
Just because.
Anytime I see a drill rig set up and operating around massive amounts of sea ice… I wonder, how the hell they would clean up a blow out or gusher or spill…
With all the technology these big oil companies boast, I see very little info or even talk of cleaning up a oil spill IN A SEA ICE ENVIRONMENT.
I do not believe a oil company can clean up a spill in a sea ice environment.
Good words Shannyn.
I too sincerely hope that you actually sent this letter to the President. Maybe we ALL should.
Wind power, tidal power, solar power, and geothermal power (if we can figure out how to do it without starting earthquakes) are our future.
Drilling in the Arctic is the worst idea ever.
Indeed the woman holds high..a shield of truth and wisdom..and will be standing in the way of so much corporate funding..it is like sending a regulation rabbit..out to fight a pack of hungry, maddog animals..who already have the scent of ..blood-money..in their nostrils. Oil-blood..Will spread across the land because some people were born to greed. Power to stop..such greed..needs to have..the nongreedy..flow to stand ..With..those who see the situation..for what it has been, is..and..will be..if left to simply..Play Out.
***applauding***
Shannyn, Your letter made me weep because I know there’s no stopping that Shell rig on its way to the Arctic. I agree that oil exploration/drilling would beso much better in ANWR than in the ocean! ….
Oh well, maybe the relentless 24/7 sonar blasts used during exploration will kill or displace all the sea creatures before they die of an oil spill.
Sigh…
Good job (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Shannyn.
Thank you, Shannyn. I, too, hope you sent this directly to the White House. Arctic drilling IS an accident just waiting to happen. It will happen…just a question of when. And Shell will be just as prepared as BP was in the Gulf.
Great letter. As much as I admire what Ken Salazar has done, both for my state as well as the country- this is not one of his better moments.
My I be the first to say I hope you sent it to Obama, as well as Salazar.