Bio
The short version: Jill Miller Zimon writes the topical blog, Writes Like She Talks (www.writeslikeshetalks.com) and often highlights the paucity of...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

Obama Ends Moratorium on Off-Shore Drilling, Atlantic Seaboard Most Affected

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 20
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

 

Today, President Obama announced that new portions of the United States will be open for off-shore drilling:

Mr. Obama said that his plan to allow drilling along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska - ending a longstanding moratorium on exploration from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean - would balance the need to produce more domestic energy while protecting natural resources. But it is also intended to generate revenue from the sale of offshore leases and help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation.

...

Under the plan, the coastline from New Jersey northward would remain closed to all oil and gas activity. So would the Pacific Coast, from Mexico to the Canadian border. The environmentally sensitive Bristol Bay in southwestern Alaska would be protected and no drilling would be allowed under the plan, officials said. But large tracts in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska - nearly 130 million acres - would be eligible for exploration and drilling after extensive studies.

You can read the full text of his comments or watch video of the announcement.

The ocean's bottommost sands aren't the only thing that are shifting. This announcement by the President coincides with his shifting position on drilling during his 2008 campaign. From August 2008:

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

...

"If, in order to get [energy policy] passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage _ I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

I adore the idea and goal of increasing our country's energy independence from oil and oil-producing nations as much if not more than the average American.  But I also adore the Atlantic coast and have to tell you, the vision of oil rigs bobbing in the waves just south of Cape May down to the northern coast of Florida gives me some icy feelings (New Jersey politicians and the NJ chapter of the Sierra Club share these sentiments).  Similar reaction is coming from environmentalists. Previous general debunking of how this drilling won't help us reach energy independence is presented by Sheryl Canter at Environmental Defense Fund's Climate411 blog, and today, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune had this to say:

"Drilling our coasts will doing nothing to lower gas prices or create energy independence. It will only jeopardize beaches, marine life, and coastal tourist economies, all so the oil industry can make a short-term profit.

...

"There's no reason to drill our coasts. We can achieve real energy independence and economic vitality by investing in clean energy like wind and solar and efficiency. This kind of power creates good, lasting American jobs and positions our nation to become a global leader in the new clean energy economy."

Lesley Clark's post for Naked Politics, "Enviros Bash Obama Over Oil Drilling" includes multiple screeds and concludes with this:

“We’re appalled that the President is unleashing a wholesale assault on the oceans," said Oceana senior campaign director Jacqueline Savitz. "Expanding offshore drilling is the wrong move if the Obama administration is serious about improving energy security, creating lasting jobs and averting climate change."

For those who might want to rationalize this policy decision by the President as one intended to walk back from the discord he faces with Republican legislators following the acrimonious health care debate, you may feel let down. Monica Potts at The American Prospect's blog, Tapped:

This is presumably meant to get conservative support for climate legislation. From the Times:

The Senate is expected to take up a climate bill in the next few weeks — the last chance to enact such legislation before midterm election concerns take over. Mr. Obama and his allies in the Senate have already made significant concessions on coal and nuclear power to try to win votes from Republicans and moderate Democrats. The new plan now grants one of the biggest items on the oil industry’s wish list — access

  • 20
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Denise 9 pts moderator

Each comment does have a reply, if you are logged in when you're reading the comment. If you don't see it, would you mind emailing denise@blogher.com and telling me about your system?

1) Browser, type and version
2) Operating system

I suspect we've missed something for your OS or Browser in the recent push that re-added spam reporting functionality.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net/ )

DLS 5 pts

Jill,

First, if you do have any tips on being able to use a Reply feature that is not displayed on my screen, I welcome email.

Second, only a small part of the Gulf Coast has rigs near it. Quick story: I worked on a military helicopter simulator that had a terrain database that reached the Gulf Coast. Sadly, it was not part that included oil rigs, which would have been great for navigation skills and pinnacle operational skills development and demos.

People who are curious about the rigs and their whereabouts can look here, for example.

http://www.cccarto.com/gulf_platforms.html

Third and last, a side issue, given that you are a feminist, is that I thought of you (as well as of my goddaughters) while watching and listening to something at the clinic where I was last night:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10943

Note the comments associated with it. (They're largely right, as you can see for yourself. Poor Kyle! He seems like he'd be great in a bar, as well as a good blogger.)

Cheers.

DLS

DLS 5 pts

And all it would take is one collision...

(Think Santa Barbara + Sunshine Skyway)

Somehow I believe this is a good additional fed-state issue. Who controls what offshore? (How far offshore?) Related to that is, we don't (legitimately) have a place for federal referenda but certainly many states have the referendum, which could apply easily here.

Jill Miller Zimon 5 pts

I think one of the links in the post has a couple of maps but the direct links are great - thank you.

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

Jill Miller Zimon 5 pts

I would know - that's all that matters. ;)

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

DLS 5 pts

"How's that for imagery!"

Structures could be required to be beyond the horizon. Then who could or would complain?

DLS 5 pts

Jill, there's no Reply on the page. Sorry for how confusing it may be for my postings to be stuck at the top or outermost level.

(Also, the window for the subject header is much longer than the cutoff limit for display of that header.)

First: This offshore-drilling announcement by Obama may be a sop to the GOP prior to energy legislation -- it was issued also at the same time car fuel efficiency regs were just announced, don't forget -- and a nice distraction for so many people (the majority) who rejected the health care "reform" legislation. (Obama is on another traveling "campaign" tour to tout the goodness of the reform legislation.)

* * *

"I just don't find them persuasive on me. [...] I just don't find them weighty[.]"

Understood.

"being able to argue different sides"

You'd be surprised at the amount of lefty literature I've read (and at the 90%+ level of lefty listening I do on the radio when I am on the road these days). It's me who has been discussing Social Security's future and criticism of the stimulus with respect to how it relates to a program for a guaranteed minimum income, for example.

As far as blight or "visual pollution" (though I still suspect you and so many others just view only some structures as offending, based on related politics -- oil bad, wind good):

"wind towers and wind farms offshore"

Maybe what's needed here is a more thoughtful approach to this nation's territorial waters and "offshore policy."

* * *

"NIMBY - yes, I understand. I'm totally dealing with that issue in my city council gig. Frankly, it's kind of an American right"

Yes -- in the land of freedom, "there ought to be a law about" nearly everything (in addition to our being so litigious)

"our belief that we do what helps our entire country/society function best"

The individual or family comes first, though we aren't a clannish Third World nation(even if you may claim that our inequality is heading down nearly to Third World levels if we do nothing to stop it). There's a limit to how much people should be expected to be anemable to being sought or coerced on behalf of "society" for various collective goals, especially if the same people have the view it's not really in their or in "society's" real interest.

Jill Miller Zimon 5 pts

At least that's where I see it. I'll send you a screenshot if you need.

I did not and am not saying that your characterizations aren't accurate - I just don't find them persuasive on me. This is part of what I mean about being able to argue different sides - there are facts or perceptions that attain that I can see others seeing, I just don't find them weighty, for me, when I analyze and calculate.

Thanks re: NIMBY - yes, I understand. I'm totally dealing with that issue in my city council gig. Frankly, it's kind of an American right almost, but in theory it's supposed to be balanced by our belief that we do what helps our entire country/society function best. I'd say that we're failing as humans because of the level of poverty and suffering we're willing to tolerate rather than work on how we can be a capitalist economy and promote a rising tide.

Anyway - far away from the shores of NC, SC etc.

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

DLS 5 pts

This site doesn't include replies, only top-level postings. Here goes.

"I'd rather you explain"

NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard. Many people choose to oppose anything that's too near them for their own acceptance, typically things that many would consider unpleasant or undesired, and the closer to them, the worse it is (a jail, a halfway house, a landfill, a power plant, a McDonalds).

"I'm not going to agree with a good chunk of your characterizations"

They're accurate, Jill.

I find Obama's decision interesting, and revealing, given the reaction to it. There have been one or two environmentalist groups that have rushed to make fools of themselves. The more clever critics have given reasons to discount this as anything useful or meaningful, while they and other critics have asked instead the better question of what political reasoning went in to this decision. His actions are not pro-industry or conventional, by any means. Why only drilling off Red Nation shores? I believe he should explain this.

* * *

"water-borne borders marked with oil-rig shaped stanchions all around"

As I noted earlier, many will say the same (and they're hypocritical if they do not) about wind towers and wind farms offshore.

* * *

Oh, and note that this decision may mean he and his administration makes a move (for better or worse) on coal soon.

What he did surprised me as much as anybody else. I would have thought they would have done something more conventional, such as (petty and childish as it is, it also is what we'd expect of the current people in charge) to deliberately reverse, the same exact sequence, step by step, everything Bush-Cheney did on behalf of industry during the past eight years.

Jill Miller Zimon 5 pts

I could just google it but I'd rather you explain (and a welcome and thank you for clicking to this post, DLS).

You know I'm not going to agree with a good chunk of your characterizations but I understand them - this is yet another issue where both sides have arguments that can be made to work depending on what you want to argue. Ultimately it comes down to how we feel and the visions we have for what we want our lives to look and be like.

And I want my life and that of my kids to look like one that is not bounded by water-borne borders marked with oil-rig shaped stanchions all around.

How's that for imagery! :)

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

DLS 5 pts

"Note NIMBYism and predictable hypocrisy already in action with wind farms in Nantucket Sound."

So far we normally have seen the (predictably) biased sentiment (from a predictable crowd) against not wind farms normally, but oil (and, for example, new liquefied natural gas terminals).

We'll see the predictable howling (not from the enviro groups that rushed to discredit themselves with silliness already, but from the people in the states and along the affected coasts themselves), especially in Florida. I suppose it will add more interest and material for their campaigns (though probably nothing more useful than more sound bites, as we have encountered all year) from Rubio and Crist.

Don't be surprised to see this happen in more places than Long Island Sound when it comes to offshore wind farms someday. NIMBYism is powerful. (Also, wind farms are controversial in that to many they constitute a form of visual pollution.)

Note that it's irrational and worse than silly to insist on a blanket law of no development of any kind offshore, anywhere.

DLS 5 pts

Jill, here's a rational view -- more food for thought.

1. Of course every place that may have oil should be explored, and if it's economical to get and use the oil, then there should be development. That includes all the coasts and continental deposits everywhere.

2. It's interesting how Obama limited it to Red nation coasts. Is it just a test of political sentiment as well as NIMBYism, expecially in Florida?

3. Note NIMBYism and predictable hypocrisy already in action with wind farms in Nantucket Sound.

4. Note that there is a piecemeal, jumbled, and possibly inept or irrational approach made at the same time with nuclear energy. Obama has said he's amenable to nuclear energy (which touches off the anti-nuclear loon squad) while at the same time cutting nuclear power off not at the knees but at the hips by stopping work on Yucca Mountain.

5. It could be just a feeble sop to more mainstream political elements so that he can make more progress on legislation he and the Congressional Dems want to pass this year, including environmentalist legislation that antagonizes the maintream -- "climate change" related political-based legislation related to energy (cap and trade this year).

Jill Miller Zimon 5 pts

(Another thank you for reading and commenting here to a TMV regular)

What's so off to me is that if this is just a symbolic go-ahead, given how little we expect it to affect oil production and given that no one really expects many right of center to speak or lobby positively about this policy, I just don't get it - what is gained? Now it's me sounding calculating, but I suppose being a spanking new council member in a city with a huge deficit is making me look at everything that way more than ever.

I guess that's the question I really want an answer to from the president and his advisors.

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

Jill Miller Zimon 5 pts

JSpencer - thanks for reading here and commenting.

For BlogHer community folks who may not be aware: I'm a co-blogger at The Moderate Voice and have been for a long time now. A decision was made to take a temporary hiatus from allowing comments to be posted but whenever I cross-post there, I provide a bit of the post from here and link back to the original at BlogHer. I'm glad that some of the TMV readers are following the link and engaging (much as I love the TMV engagement, it's not there right now - though I do hope it returns).

Anyway - thanks on both ends.

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

Jill Miller Zimon 5 pts

Yeah, I agree with all you write. It's a political calculation without a sum yet, I guess.

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

GreenDreams 5 pts

that's how Thom Hartmann characterized it yesterday. Maybe so. It short circuits the "drill baby drill" mantra, which was always stupid. The idea was never sound, but rallied the GOP base. The problems?

1 – oil companies aren’t exploring 45 million acres of their current leases
2 – they have made no commitment to drill new leases
3 – even if they do it will take a decade to produce any oil from them
4 – we lack the refining capacity for more
5 – oil companies aren’t interested in building new refineries here
6 – the oil companies have never pledged to sell American oil to Americans
7 – only a fraction of current Alaska production goes to the USA. Most goes to Asia
8 – we have very little, a drop in the ocean, in terms of global resource
9 – no one predicts it will reduce prices or free us from dependence

Take a look at the real situation here. http://www.ewg.org/oil_and_gas/printerfriendly.php

" The federal government has offered 229 million acres of public and private land in 12 western states for oil and gas drilling, an area greater than the combined size of Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona

" Despite access to more than 200 million acres of public land over the past 15 years (1989-2003), the oil and gas industry has produced enough energy from this land to satisfy only 53 days of U.S. oil consumption… This rate of production amounts to an average of 3.6 days per year of oil…"

In 15 years of access to a HUGE chunk of America to drill, they’ve produced 53 days of oil for us. How this will work out is unclear, at least until there's a bill to read, but some features that intrigue me:

1 - it's all red states. Presumably it is "the will of the people" in those states, to "drill baby drill." We'll see how that goes, but I'm hearing grumbling from Florida already. Some of the governors and legislatures in those states have complained that the feds keep them from oil income and fume about "states rights" to drill their resources. But there's also NIMBY, and now the NIMBY voters and the "drill baby drill" voters will be split on this.

2 - I heard that the drilling window would be 5 years, so no getting the leases and then sitting on them, which is the current oil company strategy.

3 - Environmental impact statements. These are tougher than they were when some of the existing leases were acquired.

Food for thought.

JSpencer 5 pts

...feeding the oil addiction is not going to cure us of it. but maybe the intent is to set a back fire, the forest fire fighting technique whereby a fire is intentionally set to direct a larger fire where it can do less damage. That said, my initial reaction is one of disappointment. If this is a continuing attempt to reach out to conservatives, well... good luck with that. As for the views of oil rigs on ocean horizons, well... I've always been one to believe that some things need to be kept sacred. How long are we going to keep moving the line?

Jill Miller Zimon 5 pts

Thanks, Catherine. Your comment made me realize that I would love to hear the experiences of residents who've been through the transformation of their horizon, from no rigs to rigs. Did the capitalistic symbolism of trying to both profit and become independent from something we depend on make up for the loss of an obstructed vision of distant waters? I write that because for sure there are people who feel that way, I imagine, but we don't ALL feel that way, I know.

Any takers on offering up their views of the views and changing views?

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

Catherine Morgan 5 pts

Hi Jill, great post. I moved to Florida from Pennsylvania several years ago, and I live about five minutes from the beach. When I'm driving over the bridge to the beach and see the beautiful horizon where the blue ski meets the blue ocean...it takes my breath away. It may be selfish of me...but I do not want to see oil rigs on the horizon when I go to the beach.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
Also at Catherine-Morgan.com ( http://catherine-morgan.com/ )