Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUS Gives Shell Green Light for Offshore Oil Drilling in the Arctic
Conservationists say the decision by the Obama administration to allow drilling in the Beaufort Sea repeats Bush era mistakes
Conservationist groups based in Alaska have accused the Obama administration of repeating the mistakes of George Bush after it gave the conditional go-ahead for Shell to begin drilling offshore for oil and natural gas in the environmentally sensitive Beaufort Sea.
![[Conservationists fear the decision to allow Shell to drill for offshore oil in the Arctic will threaten polar bears and endangered animals. (Photograph: Hans Strand/ Hans Strand/Corbis)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/Polar-Bear-on-Iceberg-001.jpg "Polar-Bear-on-Iceberg-001.jpg")
The Minerals Management Service, part of the federal Interior Department, yesterday gave Shell the green light to begin exploratory wells off the north coast of Alaska in an Arctic
area that is home to large numbers of endangered bowhead whales and
polar bears, as well as walruses, ice seals and other species. The
permission would run from July to October next year, though Shell has
promised to suspend operations from its drill ship from late August
when local Inuit people embark on subsistence hunting.
Environmentalists condemned the decision to allow drilling, saying it would generate industrial levels of noise in the water and pollute both the air and surrounding water. Rebecca Noblin, an Alaskan specialist with the conservation group the Centre for Biological Diversity, said: "We're disappointed to see the Obama administration taking decisions that will threaten the Arctic. It might as well have been the Bush administration."
Whit Sheard, the Alaskan expert with the environmental group Pacific Environment, accused the US Interior Department of "again trying to implement an overly aggressive Bush-era drilling plan in one of the riskiest areas on the planet to drill".
The question of offshore oil drilling in the Arctic was one of the controversial environmental issues that confronted the Bush administration. Its permission for exploration in the Beaufort Sea, widely condemned by environmentalists, was struck down last year by a federal court on grounds that it had failed sufficiently to consider the impacts on bowhead whales and the subsistence activities of Inuit populations.
The ruling was later set aside and Shell withdrew its drilling plans.
According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, there are between 30,000 and 50,0000 bowhead whales in the world, with up to 9,000 of them feeding in the Beaufort Sea. The whales migrate twice a year through the area and are crucial to the subsistence economy of the Inupiat people.
Whale experts warn that the bowhead stocks are sensitive to noise and could be driven further off shore by the disruption of drilling. That in turn would have an impact on their chances of survival, which have already been harmed by early side-effects of global warming.
There are also fears that any drilling could lead to oil spills which would be impossible to clean up amid the Arctic's broken sea ice.
Shell must now satisfy the authorities that it has met air and water quality standards and safeguards for whale protection before it can begin drilling. The oil company's head in Alaska, Pete Slaiby, said objections had been taken into account.
"We sincerely believe this exploration plan addresses concerns we have heard in the North Slope communities which have resulted in the programmes being adjusted accordingly," he said.
52 Comments so far
Show All"gave Shell the green light to begin exploratory wells off the north coast of Alaska in an Arctic area that is home to large numbers of endangered bowhead whales and polar bears, as well as walruses, ice seals and other species".
When I saw that the city I live in put traps out in the pond behind my house to trap and kill beavers, I ran out of the house to confront the trapper. Then I got the city official on the phone and then I called wildlife centers. I found that the beavers are protected in the State of Illinois by the Natural Defense Council. I called the city back and the traps were removed that day. Neighbors, they said, were concerned about the trees being chewed. I researched alternatives and suggested fencing around the trees. The city complied.
If only I could run out of my house and stop the drilling.
I know the conservation groups in Alaska will fight this and I hope that Peta and Greenpeace and even little Hayden Pelletiere, the animal activist/actor will be out there.
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress...power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." -- Frederick Douglass, 1857 speech, West India Emancipation
Bless you.
Aarrrggh.
Derrick Jensen was right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_(Derrick_Jensen_books)
Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.
Premise Ten: The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane. The culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life.
Premise Thirteen: Those in power rule by force, and the sooner we break ourselves of illusions to the contrary, the sooner we can at least begin to make reasonable decisions about whether, when, and how we are going to resist.
The long emergency is in progress. Earth's "survival" will depend on us. What about that does Obama not understand!!!!
This is Obama's contrition for not having given away the entire store to his corporate "contributors". He is currently being punished by corporate defunding and greatly increased corporate Repug funding.
After this "master stroke" by Obama, I can only imagine him strumming a guitar and singing "Pleased to meet you, hope you guessed my name."
Since when does SHELL OIL ask the US Government to do anything?
They told their whores that run our government what they were going to do and in return the whores asked if they wanted fries with their order.
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Ok, now I'm really pissed. Time to ditch the car, and bring the whole stinking mess down. Citi bank cutting off credit cards, oil going back up- methane chimneys?
Are you ready? Are you scared and angry enough yet? Join me?
that's the ticket, kate...we grab the big switch and turn it all Off...
Global Start Date: September 22, 2012...let's get those gardens growing!
Got mine started this spring...chickens too. Started a Transition Initiative, and getting the rest of Bellingham on board. Powerdown!
Drill the Earth to death, you mothafuckas!
It is just the beginning of President Obama's term. I can just imagine how we are going to feel about him toward the end of his term? If he is already surpassing Reagan as 2nd worst President of our lifetime, he may actually surpass George W as the worst. Let's face it he has 3 more years and he can still reach the number one spot in that time.
We all know that he wasn't being totally honest when he ran and made promises that he knew he wouldn't keep. A lot of young people who supported him I hope don't get discouraged to the point that they give up trying to change things within the political system. I hope that they will join the Green Party and fight for third party candidates to win political office in Congress on the local, state, and federal level.
More and more I come to the conclusion that America's best hope is if real Progressives give up on the Democrat party and join the Green Party and find qualified and honest candidates who we support and work our tails off to get into elected office. It won't be easy because we do need real election campaign reform to take the big money out of the political process. Yet, I believe that there is still a little time left, but not much to bring the real change that this country needs.
I try to look ahead and think of ways we can actually overcome our struggles and achieve success. Instead of focusing on President Obama's failure to tell the truth and keep his promises we need to look at what we can do inspite of him to make sure this drilling doesn't take place. Since he has chosen to be part of the problem like George W, than we who really care about the environment and the future need to find a way to stop this drilling from happening. At least we know now that President Obama is not on our side on this issue and we can move forward and not be trapped in the illusion that he is on our side in this fight.
Go 3rd party!
Let's go for electoral reform, too, though: we need local referenda to disallow private campaign funding.
Christy, I have a lot of faith in the young voters. They supported Obama because first of all, they hated Bu$h's greed based domestic and war mongering foreign policies, and second because like them, Obama was active in community and TALKED of change. The "millenial generation" voters have a lot of very positive ideas and a lot of political power. If they don't get their hopes totally dashed by Obama's performance, they could indeed turn out to be a powerful factor for true positive change. Let's hope that the latter happens and they turn out in droves to support a future candidate who will perform rather than a party that says it will!
chrisy58: Yes by all means we need to support third party candidates as I did in the last election. " We know now that Obama is not on our side ". I am glad to hear some of you Obooba supporters are finally waking up to the fact that he conned you and took advantage of your hard work and good intentions, now channel that anger in a positive way by supporting third party candidates. As I tried to tell so many of you in the last election; the lessor of evil is still evil!
The more pertinent question is why in hell anyone in government is even thinking about opening up new oil drilling anywhere, knowing that the stuff is killing the biosphere that keeps us alive.
One might suppose that the idiots in government and business actually believe that they can eat and breathe money once the air and food are gone.
It might be interesting to see them watching their grandkids choke to death on hydrogen sulphide and suffocate in low oxygen conditions in a few decades.
As long as corporations rule, peons die. That means you.
Obama needs to find a breakfast cereal with some moral fiber.
Naturally
What is shocking about your assessment is not so much that it may indeed be true but that Obama may have slid past Reagan for that ignominious honor while being in office for less than a year. So many wars to start, so little time to kill and maim and cripple people in third world countries.
Erroll,
Yes. The other shocking anomaly is that Obama is a Democrat. The other two were Republicans.
Short of the emergence of a major third party, or implementation of ranked-choice voting for federal offices, we may see a Republican re-emergence in the next elections.
Erroll: well if you think like the Nobel Prize committee, maybe it's okay to give Obama the "worse than Reagan" award even though he hasn't yet earned it. Yeah, there are indeed "so many wars to start" but give the guy a chance for Pete's sake, and giving him the award now will give him incentive to try to break the war record of the last Great Communicator.
Jerry D.
Point well taken.
Rose 11:25 ---- What chance have the Afghan children he has ordered incinerated had ?
glenn ford: apparently you didn't pick up the deep satire of my comment. I'm "urging" actually that Obama be given a "chance" to incinerate enough more Afghan children to fully earn his "worst President" award. What I'm obviously trying to do is ridicule the Obamamats who say Obama isn't perfect, but give the guy a chance, a decent amount of time to bring about peace. By giving him "more time" without protest, he's only going to continue and escalate the wrong policies he has already pursued.
What the Obamabots don't seem to realize is that Obama was already given a chance when he was elected President, and he blew it. Actually, I think they do understand that, and are in denial, either about Obama or their own political leanings. When you look at the behavior of Obama and the Democrats in Congress, it would appear that a large number of Democrats are subconscious Republicans.
Well now thats clear.( no satire intended)
Obama's resume: fake anti-war, fake green economy, fake environmentalist. Like George W., he's giving us "the music," but he's giving industry "the action."
Here's a question. Who is the second worst president in your lifetime? George W. is the consensus pick for the worst. Before W. I would have said Reagan was worst. George W. overtook Reagan, who dropped to second worst.
Now we have Obama, who I think surpasses Reagan as the second worst president in my lifetime. Even Reagan, as intellectually and ethically challenged as he was, didn't start and escalate foreign wars. Covert ops, yes . . . but not hot wars.
Ever hear of Granada.
Hot enough for the folks who were killed and wounded there.
Not to mention support for the murderous 'Contras.'
And the hundreds of U.S. Marines blown up in Lebanon because Reagan stuck them there for nothing but his own political purposes.
Yes, Reagan was bad. But, the question is, how does all of that rank compared to Obama's record? My point is, Obama's record is worse.
Measure it in soldiers killed, civilians killed, soldiers maimed, civilians maimed, civilians displaced, atrocities, dollars spent, GDP spent, national security harm, squandered prestige . . . any way you like.
I am going to disagree with this... Keep in mind Reagan's resume... he destroyed the limited environmental policy of Carter, he deregulated pollution, he presided over countless coverts ops in Central America that killed hundred of thousands of people, he changed the tax rate from like 70% to 39% on the wealthiest Americans (or something to that extent), he refused to enforce labor laws allowing corporations to go hog-wild busting unions... yeah Obama has definitely sucked so far, but Reagan was a demon. He was like every corporations wet-dream. He had been a shill for corporations his whole life.... Reagan literally amped up all things evil. Obama just hasn't turned the amp down yet, nor is he likely to, but he isn't turning the amp up.
The one area that Obama is amping up is foreign wars. When the religious fundamentalists blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon in the 1980s, Reagan withdrew the troops from Lebanon. Obama, however, is doubling down on the wars in Asia. Drone attacks in Pakistan have increased, and since a drone assassinated their leader a month or so ago, the rebels in Pakistan have escalated their military actions to the level of civil war . . . one that may bring down the government of a nuclear power.
In addition, just in the last few days a major covert op assassination inside Iran has provoked the most militant response from Iran in decades. This did not happen without Obama's approval. The Obama plan of escalating the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and of drawing Iran into the conflict, is becoming clearer. How thick does a man have to be, not to see the disaster looming in such policy? Or, how venal does he have to be, not to care?
I should have added fake diplomacy to Obama's resume.
Your other comparisons of Reagan and Obama are true, but may also be mostly perspective. By that I mean, the changes Reagan made are being left in place by Obama. So, yes he didn't make those changes, but perhaps because he didn't need to. Inaction has the same effect.
Nah, Reagan and Obama are tied. You might be correct about Obama starting the foreign intervention war in Pakistan but much of it has been ongoing. Pakistan may need democracy from religious tyranny but I can't see bombing it as the answer.
I think a goodly part of the blame goes to Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public, as well; we Americans want cheap petroleum products, and many of us are willing to go to any lengths to get them -- and the environment be damned. I may be wrong, yes, but this is what I suspect. No matter how convenient to have such large whipping-boys, the oil companies can't be blamed for it all.
I am sure the Public would back a massive green upheavel( Scientific American 2008, $600 Billion to go totally solar) with all the jobs and clean air, land and water it would create.
There are dozens of alternatives to Fossils and Nukes.
Wind for one is already less expensive than coal.
Drilling off the Inuit Coast is ethnic cleansing and possible the completion of genocide.
The corporate dictatorship wants global warming so in can access the Artic minerals and oils.
Is Shell the oil company complicite in murdering Nigerian oil platform protesters?
I am sure they adjusted their programs around local concerns , they hired more mercenaries.
We should stop debating whether Obama is a good guy or bad guy, at this point only the braindead do not know the answer.
I think we need an honest leader, it seems movements need one to rebound off of.
PLease come forward now !!!
There's gotta be some way to alert Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public on algae for oil. The chemical equivalent of light sweet crude oil can be extracted from algae and wild algae can grow anywhere on the planet. Hemp is another great plant and can also replace fossil fuels from the ground. With both hemp and algae, say goodbye to drilling and wars. There's also carbon negative light sweet crude oil from genetically modified bugs but I believe that's complicated to set up.
"With both hemp and algae, say goodbye to drilling and wars."
And therein lies the reason for hemp being illegal and off the table as far as discussion goes.
A side note: Did you notice the folks who were arrested at the DEA's office last week while planting industrial hemp? They were charged with trespassing, not PCS!
I'm aware of the DEA and its foul moves. I always thought that the DEA should be abolished. The illegality of hemp certainly does keep discussion off the table but that's where I believe that needs to be reversed. Until that gets done, no amount of environment funerals will change public minds.
None of these could replace more than a fraction of the oil we use, and then only with many years of R+D, and lots of money thrown at it. Part of the problem is that so many people think that a miracle will come along and let them continue to live the "lifestyle" they are used to. It just isn't going to happen.
We just have to USE A LOT LESS, now. Techno-algae-miracle-fixes are mostly fantasies...let go.
You think they are fantasies. But there are realistic scenarios to switch to Renewables for as little as $600 Billion and a couple decades.
Of course conservation does not hurt.
Lets see build atomic bomb, no problem !!
Go to moon, cakewalk !!!
Clean Energy ?? Oh that's much to difficult for little ole me.
Actually, hemp and algae have been proven to satisfy the general public demand without forcing the public to bare bone themselves. Guzzlers will need to trim down regardless but you have no idea as to just how much it means to have those two renewable plants out on the market. I still say give both of them a chance and let the public decide. Conservation will automatically finds its way into the equation.
You may as well blame auto theft and burglary on all Americans -- because we all want material things -- rather than on the thieves who commit those crimes. It's nonsense.
Or rape and incest since most of us enjoy sex.
Naturally: Paul's wasn't a "rather than" statement about blame for unwise drilling but a large PART of the blame, and I think his point is not without merit, though it certainly doesn't absolve the thiefs or the politicos for their actions. "Cheap petroleum" promises buy you a lot of support from the public, fraudulent though those promises might be. With that PR stick, you could practically get permission to drill over your grandmother's grave. So yeah, we need fines and jail terms and voting out of office for those who violate the earth, but we also need a lot more "values education" with our people to call out the ethical consequences arising from the selfish choices that we as individuals and as a collectivity make.
Rose 10:51 --- You are correct the oil companies can only be blamed for 90% of the havoc the create, the publics acquiescence is worth 10% blame.
The public does not even need to be educated to follow their own self interests, the very same propaganda and control system that has created this horrific culture can lead it to a better world( of course education would not hurt, but my point is even that is not necessary).
Most mature adults are not inately stupid and self defeating it is only when they are manipulated by corporate state apparatus that the become so ignorant and dangerous.
Perspective is important, and you've provided it by suggesting the public is 10% at fault. I agree. And that's not "a goodly" part of the blame, as the original poster said.
I'm reminded of a recent article (in Mother Jones, I think) that compared consumer recycling to industrial waste (lack of recycling). The garbage created by industry far surpasses that created by consumers. The perspective was disheartening. As we have all conscientiously reduced, reused and recycled our consumer wastes over the past thirty years, we've barely made a dent in the overall waste stream, because of industry waste. Further brow beating of consumers can only make small changes around the edges. To make real change, industry attitudes and actions must be changed.
Government regulations, incentives and disincentives are our primary tools in that effort, and Obama has shown no movement in that direction (that I know of), as this article points out.
"The garbage created by industry far surpasses that created by consumers."
Presumably, the said industry doesn't create the garbage for the sake of creating garbage. If there was no market for whatever product the industry makes, there would be no industry-generated garbage. I think it's fair enough to pin much more than 10% on the consumer.
As far as recycling - if you took a walk around my community on a garbage pick-up day, you'd notice that not even half the people bother to recycle, and the amount of trash is staggering. And I don't think my community is unique in that respect.
I agree that more government regulations to limit industry waste would be helpful, but as long as people buy the stuff, there will be garbage, pollution, and CO2 emissions.
Conclusion: limit your greed, customer. The world won't stretch.
"Presumably?" You can presume all you want, but if you care about facts read "Industrial Strength Solution," by Joel Makower, in the May/June 2009 issue of Mother Jones.
Makower points out that Municipal Solid Waste (everything that goes into dumpsters from homes, businesses, government offices, etc.) is just 2.5% of all waste, or what he calls Gross National Trash. The other 97.5% is produced by industry. In other words, even if every dumpster in America was perpetually empty and nothing was being trucked to municipal landfills and garbage burners, the total amount of trash being produced in this country would only be reduced by 2.5%.
While it's great to promote the Three Rs to consumers, having an accurate perspective of the overall situation is critical.
As for Obama's outrageous decision to allow Shell Oil to drill in the Beaufort Sea, and the massive environmental destruction that is sure to follow from that decision, it's pretty lame to try to blame that on the public's supposed desire for "cheap petroleum products" as the poster claimed. In truth, the public wants electric cars, light rail and other alternatives to gas guzzlers. Greedy oil companies and a venal president who would permanently destroy the environment for some quick cash don't get to say "the public made us do it."
You missed my point. I don't disagree with your claim that municipal waste is much smaller than waste generated by industry. My point is that the industry would not produce any waste if they were not able to sell their products.
I just read the article you mention and I don't see how it refutes anything I have said. In fact here is one of the comments that says exactly the same thing:
"It is good to bring to light the amount of industrial waste. However, I am saddened that Joel did not propose a better solution than greening industry: don't consume. The simplest way to cut out industrial waste is to not buy their products. That is 100% more effective than encouraging (or forcing) a company to change their production practices."
You say: "In truth, the public wants electric cars, light rail and other alternatives to gas guzzlers. Greedy oil companies and a venal president who would permanently destroy the environment for some quick cash don't get to say "the public made us do it." It’s true to a point. But I am tired of the "don't blame me attitude." Yes, there are a lot of things that we, as individuals can't do, but there are a lot of areas where we do have a choice. A lot of people say that they would buy a fuel efficient car, but . . . it's too expensive. They would use public transportation, but . . . there isn't any in their area, or it takes too much time, or is too inconvenient, or whatever. They would drive less, but they have to drive to work, etc., etc. While it all could be true, there are plenty of things anybody can do to limit their impact on the environment. You may have to drive to work, but maybe you don't have to mow your yard three times a week with a power mower, and dump a ton of pesticides on your lawn. Get a reel mower, they work great and they don't pollute. Maybe you don't have to buy cleaning supplies - make your own instead - they work just as well, they are cheaper, you won't be throwing away all that packaging (not to mention your money)- in fact that packaging won't even be made - and your home will be healthier.
Buy in bulk, make toys for your kids, grow your own food if you can, and if you have to buy anything, buy things that last, and not something you'll have to throw away in a few weeks. Google "green living tips" if you don't know what you could do to make your footprint a little smaller.
Once again - limit your consumption, and you'll reduce not only municipal waste, but industrial waste as well - if you don't buy it, they won't make it.
Still nonsense. Very few of these industrial goods are sold to the public at all.
If you read the article you know that consumer behavior has little or nothing to do with the 97.5% of all waste created in the U.S. That is, unless you want to stretch the definition of consumer behavior to the use of basics like wood, iron, concrete, electricity, tap water, sewers and paper. You'd have to take the country back to the stone age before consumer behavior alone would have any significant impact on the amount of industrial waste created.
If you read the article you also know there are things that industry can do (and has done already, in some instances) that make huge differences in the amount of waste they generate. And, these things also have nothing to do with consumer behavior.
My only point in all of this is that things must be placed in proper perspective in order to achieve understanding and change. The facts indicate that changing industry behavior has far greater consequence for the environment than changing consumer behavior. Reducing the industry waste referenced in the Mother Jones article is accomplished primarily with laws and regulations, and only marginally by changing consumer behavior. That's the "perspective" I'm talking about.
Your argument, as well intended as it may be, is essentially the same objection that was raised against creation of the EPA, OSHA, the Clean Water Act, etc. Partially-true-but-totally-misleading, perspective-free arguments are traditionally the province of Karl Rove and the right-wing. Such arguments reach their zenith in nonsensical constructions like "if the public didn't want flush toilets, cities wouldn't dump untreated sewage into lakes and rivers," and (the argument presented above in this thread) if the public didn't demand cheap petroleum products, Obama would not have given Shell Oil permission to drill in the Beaufort Sea and destroy the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the indigenous subsistence culture on the North Slope.
Hopefully, we can agree that such arguments are just not true. We can have the convenience of flush toilets without polluting lakes and rivers. And, we can have the conveniences of modern travel and home heating without drilling for oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea. In both cases, protecting the environment is accomplished with laws, regulations and enforcement, not by refusing to use indoor toilets, stoves and motorbikes.
Yeah, I talk nonsense, and lack proper perspective. That's me. Your way is infinitely better, and I am not kidding. I'll take it one step further and say that the government should legislate that nobody pollutes, and that should include both industry and individuals. However, I think you will agree that it's not going to happen today or tomorrow, and so you, as an individual, have two choices:
1. Sit on your hands and do nothing, other than maybe complaining about it;
2. Do what you can personally, and that means - be as "green" as you can, limit your consumption, recycle, and educate and influence others to do the same.
I do the latter. I still pollute, since I do not live in a cave and walk around naked, but if everybody else in this country had my footprint, we would cut municipal waste by 95%, and industrial waste by, say 50%.
Will my efforts save the world? Probably not. But it makes me feel better, and makes a dent - albeit a small one. I think it's a good start.
The third thing you can do is to be outraged by Obama's decision to pollute the Arctic environment on behalf of Big Oil, and to act on that outrage. Call (don't write) your legislators and the White House. Tell them your vote depends on their actions, and mean it. Write your newspaper and other media outlets. Contribute to Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental protection organizations.
Also, when you influence others, it would be helpful if your information didn't downplay environmental protection regulations in favor of individual choice and the invisible hand of the free market (which, ironically, are what Republicans always favor).
For myself, I've reduced, reused and recycled for many years, and I agitate for businesses in my community to do the same. People have grown weary of my disdain for plastic, but I keep on. I'm also active politically. No reason not to do both.
asked to make a comment obama said"i'm only following orders"
just like he does in similar situations. he later added
" hey do you think i'm the boss here? i got to do what they
say and a little later added.i'm not in charge and they
paid me to do this do you think i would do this on my own?
750 million gets alot of favors.