Slow Dance at Sunset

September 1, 2008 · Posted in Domestic Policy, Election 2008 

slow dance at sunset

Just after sunset on Friday night, dolphins played in front of me; sea lions behind me.

As I watched, I couldn’t help but wonder what kind of scene this would be if offshore platforms were built and oil pulled from the ground. In an earthquake, would those platforms survive?

As I hear the reports of the platforms and refineries at risk along the Gulf Coast, I can’t help but wonder how the majority of people in this country can support building more. Have we really become that deeply entrenched in our lust and greed that we would even take the small risk of losing scenes like this?

On Friday, I was a guest at a magnificent dance of light and nature. Those 45 minutes are worth whatever sacrifice might need to be made to preserve even the prospect of attending another.

This post concludes the series of shore photos. Reality: Congress will, by doing nothing, allow the moratorium to expire. The President has signed the executive order lifting the order of his father to preserve these areas. The oil companies will have the right to drill with certain state agreements. The states are in agreement, and over 70% of the population has bought the lies of John McCain and his cronies that drilling offshore somehow solves the problem of high oil prices and demand.

I stand in a doorway. To my back, scenes like this. In front of me, scenes like the mess the Gulf Coast will see with the damage of one natural disaster doing serious damage to platforms and putting them at risk of leaking oil into the Gulf.

It’s an invitation to reconsideration; turn around and walk into this picture instead. Leave behind the notion of destruction, choosing more creative options for supply and demand than simply padding the balance sheet of Exxon/Mobil and the like.

Sphere: Related Content

Tags: , , ,

Comments

  • dale
    One last comment for the record.
    Three Mile Island had no deaths or injuries to workers or in the surrounding community.
    It did scare the crap out of them, but no known environmental damage occured.
    Don't take my word for it though. Read the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reports.
    Hope that eases some of your concerns about containing radiation after an accident.
  • dale
    When you compared Chernobyl to us building nuclear power plants now.
    Here's where the discussion comes in. Do you think that the technology used in nuclear power plants in France and other places around the world pose the same risk as Chernobyl? Do you seriously think those that advocate drilling 50 miles offshore truly want oil spills?
    You state in the blog that began this that the risk is small, is there no chance those who want to drill believe that the reward is worth the risk?
    There is nothing wrong with and honest disagreement.
    And sorry about the animal vs human comment. I was just giving my friend shit. He knew I wasn't serious.
  • Nowhere did I make a comparison. All I said was that residents in those areas mught disagree.

    For the record, I oppose offshore drilling. I am neutral on nuclear power. My biggest concern with nuclear power is how to handle the waste (and there is), the vulnerability of nuclear power plants as they relate to national security concerns (mostly because I do not have faith in our current government's competence in that regard), and whether damage can be contained in the event of an accident.
  • dale
    When people who are willing to give their lives to destroy us, I don't think any one can stop that. Doesn't matter if your talking about power plants water supply or people just trying to go about their daily lives in an office.
    As far as the waste goes I have a lot of faith in the genius that exists in this country to come up with solutions once we start to build them. Even if its not right away we can use the methods currently used around the world.
    Again, for me, the risk is worth the reward.
    Thanks. I am surrounded by too many people who think disagreeing with someone must mean the other person is evil.
    I'll continue to read your blog and may comment occasionally.

    "He who knows only his side of the case, knows little of that...Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form"
    John Stuart Mill
  • dale
    You aren't seriously comparing the Soviet Union to the U.S., come on!
    I like having discussions with people who are passionate about their ideas, but please don't insult my intelligence with silly one liners.
    We're getting enough of that from this stupid election rather than discussions of issues.
  • There is nothing to discuss here. Where have you left an avenue for discussion? You came like blazes, laying down the law and suggesting that anyone who disagrees or has other ideas for solutions other than digging under the sea for that black gold cares for animals and shorelines more than people.

    There's no room for discussion here. You have an opinion. You've stated it. It's here for all to read, no holds barred. Don't expect me to bang my head against the brick wall of one whose mind is made up. I won't -- it wastes my time.

    How did you get a comparison of the Soviet Union to the US out of my last reply? read it again. I named the two most recent locations of major nuclear accidents. that is all. no comparison made.
  • dale
    Ah yes the age old arguments. Don't drill offshore because it might cause a spill. Don't build nuclear power plants because there might be an accident. well lets apply your logic to abortion. Don't perform abortions because some women die during the procedure. One of the truths of life is perfection does not exist, therefore you have to weigh the benefits against the risks. Throughout the world nuclear power and offshore drilling is done with very few accidents. I for one am willing to accept these risks. As I told my friend apparently your more worried about animals and nature than you are human beings.
  • interesting. for thousands of years human beings survived without oil. in the last 100 or so years, it's all about oil. So instead of other options, like releasing the patents that the oil companies hold for viable alternatives, you'd rather just destroy the coastline.

    If you saw Santa Barbara's coast in 1969, you might think differently. The next time you jet off to the coast for vacation, imagine yourself watching the platforms twinkling in the distance next to dead sea water.

    Your ignorance in this regard mirrors over 70% of the American population. Stupidity doesn't make something a fact. Just proves the majority is a bunch of sheep looking for the easy fix.

    Your effort to link up offshore drilling with a woman's right to choose? That's reprehensible, since the argument on abortion centers around the choice and has absolutely nothing to do with risk.
  • dale
    I grew up surfing in Southern California and did see Santa Barbara in 1969. And like many in the Nature Cult you missed the point. The age old argument I was talking about is life requires tradeoffs. Paradise does not exist. Man has to grow to survive. The Industrial Revolution was a huge step for man kind and oil as one form of energy played a big part in that. At this time technologies do not exist that can replace the impact oil has on peoples live. When it does we'll move on. Until then you have to make choices. And decades of evidence show that oil spills are the exception rather than the rule, just as deaths from abortion procedures are the exception. I was just pointing out the absurditiy of the logic so many use to argue against drilling offshore. I find that progressives and conservatives never see the flaws in their own arguments and its frustrating. As an example, how many politicians admit to using drugs in their life and yet have no problem sending others to jail as felons. No one is pure. Check your assumptions.
  • nuclear meltdowns are the exception rather than the rule, too. however, I doubt the residents of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island take that as much comfort.

    We disagree. Fair enough.
  • NVMojo
    To deny any damage puts one in the same category as those fools that claimed the Exxon-Valdez spill was a good thing.
  • Philo Cavecci
    In the case of Katrina, hundreds of oil platforms were damaged, many destroyed. How much damage was done? Zip, nada, nuttin. Why are you guys always so bleak in your outlook? How unhappy you must be.
  • Philo,

    You are incorrect. Please read this. http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=24992

    That was one week after Katrina hit. That area is still polluted and toxic. You won't know how much damage has been done for decades, if not generations.
blog comments powered by Disqus