Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Environmentalists Advocating Destruction of Environment Oppose Rigs-to-Reef Bill

  1. #1

    Question Environmentalists Advocating Destruction of Environment Oppose Rigs-to-Reef Bill

    http://www.independent.com/news/2010...gs-reefs-bill/


    Governor Signs Rigs-to-Reefs Bill

    Controversial Proposal to Allow Offshore Oil Platforms to Remain Once Dead Becomes Law

    Friday, October 1, 2010
    By Matt Kettmann

    After being debated for decades, the proposal to turn offshore oil rigs into underwater reefs for the benefit of marine life is now a California law. That means that, when a rig is decommissioned, oil companies can ask the state to assess the environmental benefits of leaving a portion of it in place. If the state determines there is a net benefit, then a portion of the savings — which would amount to as much as $650 million for the state’s 27 rigs — would be kicked from the oilers back to the state coffers.

    Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the bill on Thursday night after it sailed through the statehouse with very little opposition. In fact, the bill, which was authored by the Speaker of the House John Pérez, nearly passed unanimously; only three state legislators voted against the measure, one of whom was Santa Barbara’s Assemblyman Pedro Nava.

    Proponents — including scientists who’ve seen abundant marine life on the rigs, politicians who believe the financial windfall will help the budget-strapped state, recreational fishermen who hope to capture the increasing underwater bounty, and oil companies who stand to save millions — are hailing the law as a victory for marine resources. It was also supported by Audubon California, California League of Conservation Voters, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Ocean Conservancy, Oceana, and The Nature Conservancy.

    “This law creates a legacy program for our state’s marine resources,” said Barry Broad, president of the Coalition for Enhanced Marine Resources in a prepared statement. “It preserves the life on the platforms, provides the certainty needed for platform operators to begin the decommissioning and removal process and generates hundreds of millions of dollars specifically for marine programs.”

    Opponents — namely, commercial fishermen who worry their gear will snag on underwater debris and environmentalists who believe the bill is a boondoggle for the oil industry — are crying foul. Of the state’s 27 rigs, 20 are located in the Santa Barbara Channel, so the S.B.-based Environmental Defense Center has traditionally been the loudest critic of this plan. “We’re naturally disappointed,” said the EDC’s Linda Krop on Friday upon learning the news. “We think the legislation is misguided and based on assumptions that are not supported by any scientific evidence.”

    Krop pointed to a recent state report that highlighted the gaps in information. “We take exception to the assumption that the platforms provide a benefit to the environment when, in fact, there is no scientific consensus on that,” she said. “We also take great exception to the statement that it will encourage platform operators to decommission earlier. All of these platforms are in federal waters, and federal law does not permit that.”

    The EDC does not have any plans to sue over the bill, however, because it calls for platforms to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. “It would be premature to bring any challenge now,” said Krop, who said the future opposition would arise when oil companies apply to leave their rigs in place. “We definitely will be monitoring this as platforms are ready to be decommissioned.”

    According to a recent survey, some rigs may be ready for decommissioning as soon as 2015.

    To me it doesn't make any sense, considering that the ecosystem has adapted to the rigs in place, why one would want to destroy that eco system that has developed... Why can't they provide evidence that taking the rigs down completely will benefit the environment?? I have a feeling that the Environmental Defense Center is purely anti-oil companies and doesn't seem to care about the environment, but I could be proven wrong.
    Last edited by dannno; 10-04-2010 at 01:43 PM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    This is why "enviornmentals" should be referred to in quotes, its kind of like "conservatism" anymore, it doesn't necessarily mean by what you read in a dictionary.

    I consider myself an environmentalist, but I think many "environmentals" are nuts and don't really care much about the environment.

    I don't see anything wrong with this bill and I am not really in favor of offshore drilling.

  4. #3
    bump
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."



Similar Threads

  1. Great Barrier Reef Hit By Four US Jet Bombs
    By Warlord in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 07-22-2013, 06:52 PM
  2. Ron Paul: I oppose ‘In God We Trust’ bill
    By cindy25 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-05-2011, 09:50 PM
  3. Ron Paul: I oppose 'In God We Trust' bill
    By theczar1776 in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 11-04-2011, 01:59 PM
  4. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-22-2010, 12:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •