Irresponsible, reckless decision which ruins Obama's environmental record.
19
The answer to the energy crisis is and has always been solar as discovered by Tesla many years ago and suppressed. Today Tesla corp. has developed the device called the Tesla wall. a small unit that could provide far more energy to a home or business with the development of their batteries. Effectively this technology could provide the world with all the power it needs and clean up our atmosphere. It's only a matter of time because of the vast profits in fossil fuels and corporate greed.
9
The proposed exploration may be in shallower water than the Deepwater Horizon, but it will still be in the Arctic, where it is virtually impossible to clean up spills. The effects of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill--which was on the surface!--are still being felt. And I have to ask the NY Times--why no story on the FBI's falsified reports on the Keystone protesters? Somehow the Guardian managed to scoop you. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/12/revealed-fbi-spied-keysto...
8
Profile in Shame:
With the preponderance of scientific evidence suggesting we are headed for a climate disaster and with all of the energy options available to the President to change that trajectory including rebuilding the power grid to accommodate vast amounts of renewable energy or fast tracking novel and safer nuclear power plants, he has chosen the worst option of all: continue business as usual. This is not the President I voted for.
With the preponderance of scientific evidence suggesting we are headed for a climate disaster and with all of the energy options available to the President to change that trajectory including rebuilding the power grid to accommodate vast amounts of renewable energy or fast tracking novel and safer nuclear power plants, he has chosen the worst option of all: continue business as usual. This is not the President I voted for.
6
One of the biggest conditions are to blame Bush if something drastic happens during drilling.
It will become obvious to all in the next few years that most fossil fuels will be left in the ground.
The questions with regard to exploitation of this oil are:
1) Will it add to the total amount of fossil fuels consumed? Probably not. Other fossil fuels will be left in the ground.
2) Is it particularly risky to extract this oil? I don't know, although the fact that the bottom is under about 140 feet is encouraging. I can dive that deep.
3) What benefit will exploiting this oil provide? The United State will further reduce or eliminate its dependence on foreign oil, including oil from the middle east. The price of oil will be kept relatively low, reducing the ability of Russia and Iran to cause geopolitical problems.
I would prefer a large increase in the federal gas tax, a carbon tax, and much more effort to increase utilization of solar and wind power. There is significant momentum in energy efficiency. Hopefully demand for petroleum products will decline over the next few years and much of this oil will remain in the ground.
The questions with regard to exploitation of this oil are:
1) Will it add to the total amount of fossil fuels consumed? Probably not. Other fossil fuels will be left in the ground.
2) Is it particularly risky to extract this oil? I don't know, although the fact that the bottom is under about 140 feet is encouraging. I can dive that deep.
3) What benefit will exploiting this oil provide? The United State will further reduce or eliminate its dependence on foreign oil, including oil from the middle east. The price of oil will be kept relatively low, reducing the ability of Russia and Iran to cause geopolitical problems.
I would prefer a large increase in the federal gas tax, a carbon tax, and much more effort to increase utilization of solar and wind power. There is significant momentum in energy efficiency. Hopefully demand for petroleum products will decline over the next few years and much of this oil will remain in the ground.
2
Shouldn't we all be environmentalists by now? I really wonder why they are still function as a separate group, considering we all share the same home. And we all have a personal responsibility in this, no matter how far removed one lives or one's lifestyle is from these impacted areas. I hear some but not many people discussing conservation as a way of life (as they run out to get a new phone or whatever). As for Obama, all politicians lie.
2
Sigh of exasperation - have we learned nothing in all these years of oil spills??? Get over the freakin oil and start using energy resources that are earth friendly for crying out loud!!!!
7
This is unbelievable! Once again it shows the Interior Department is so inept they will go out of their way to approve power/oil companies,especially Shell,the opportunity to radically despoil another part of the planet. Take a look at what Shell did to South America. The people who approved this are undoubtedly in the corporate oil back pocket and once they make sure the, full steam ahead permits, have been secured these flunkies will leave government before their collusion is exposed off to the upper 9 figure job waiting for them in Houston, Texas. Pathetic. Wait until JEB gets in there, we ain't seen nothing yet.
5
Here's a link to the White House if you want to send comments:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
I am entirely opposed to drilling in one of the last pristine areas left on earth and fear for all life on this planet. Clean water and air is much more necessary for life than oil, oil from anywhere obtained by any method. When are we going to get serious about getting free from the need for fossil fuels?!
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
I am entirely opposed to drilling in one of the last pristine areas left on earth and fear for all life on this planet. Clean water and air is much more necessary for life than oil, oil from anywhere obtained by any method. When are we going to get serious about getting free from the need for fossil fuels?!
4
Why are we allowing yet ANOTHER non-American company the chance of destroying part of our nation for their private gain?
Why is Congress continuing to provide financial support for oil companies making billions?
Why are Americans so stupid -- and there's really no other word to describe it -- that they believe the outright lies mouthed repeatedly by Big Oil?
Because Big Oil learned long ago that a little financial contribution here and a little there buys votes and "buys" them astounding profits, all at the expense of the very Americans who were stupid enough to let it happen.
Are you angry about this development? Well, just wait until the 2016 election season really heats up and you'll begin to see how the Citizens United decision is impacting every aspect of our lives. It's that unlimited flow of cash that has bought our politicians lock, stock and barrel, and the ramifications of that decision are going to be felt for decades to come.
Why is Congress continuing to provide financial support for oil companies making billions?
Why are Americans so stupid -- and there's really no other word to describe it -- that they believe the outright lies mouthed repeatedly by Big Oil?
Because Big Oil learned long ago that a little financial contribution here and a little there buys votes and "buys" them astounding profits, all at the expense of the very Americans who were stupid enough to let it happen.
Are you angry about this development? Well, just wait until the 2016 election season really heats up and you'll begin to see how the Citizens United decision is impacting every aspect of our lives. It's that unlimited flow of cash that has bought our politicians lock, stock and barrel, and the ramifications of that decision are going to be felt for decades to come.
4
President Obama has shown himself, yet again, to be gutless and craven in the face of big business and especially Big Oil. He had a chance to show the world -- and particularly those who helped him gain the White House -- that he's on the side of common sense, decency and science, but he caved without even the pretense of a fight. What a sham. I am ashamed to have voted for him. (Twice!)
6
Like others have said, voice your opinion by writing to the White House! I just did.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
2
Just when Obama was: a) making headway on a legacy of changing the US' course of international relations with Cuba, Iran, the entire Middle East, b) reaping the benefits from ObamaCare, c) experiencing positive economic revenues and reducing deficits this announcement comes down!!
I guess the powers that be did not read about the chemicals found in ground water from all the fracking going on around this country. I guess solar, wind and other alternative fuel choices are meaningless and not worth pushing!
It is just another nod and wink to corporate America and the single largest industry the United States Government has compromised so much for, with little or nothing in return! Prior to giving consent to drill why can't we find out how much of Shell's global revenue is still parked over seas waiting for a corporate tax holiday, which will surely be next!!
At some point and time this country, its citizens included, have to stand up to this industry and big businesses and demand a change!!!
I guess the powers that be did not read about the chemicals found in ground water from all the fracking going on around this country. I guess solar, wind and other alternative fuel choices are meaningless and not worth pushing!
It is just another nod and wink to corporate America and the single largest industry the United States Government has compromised so much for, with little or nothing in return! Prior to giving consent to drill why can't we find out how much of Shell's global revenue is still parked over seas waiting for a corporate tax holiday, which will surely be next!!
At some point and time this country, its citizens included, have to stand up to this industry and big businesses and demand a change!!!
17
I finally get it, that time is NOW!!!!!
Yesterday, the Obama administration approved Shell's reckless scheme to drill in the fragile Arctic Ocean this summer.
An oil soaked polar bear can lose its insulation and freeze and drown. Seismic testing can disturb and confuse whales and other species that use sonar to survive. All creatures rely on clean air and water.
To make matters worse, Shell has a shockingly terrible safety record. Two of its ships have run aground and just last month another one of its drilling ships, which is sailing towards the Arctic right now, failed its Coast Guard Inspection.
An oil spill in the freezing and dangerous waters of the Arctic would be nearly impossible to clean up and could be even more devastating than the deadly 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. With Shell's record of dangerous errors, it's not a question of if but when a spill will happen.
An oil soaked polar bear can lose its insulation and freeze and drown. Seismic testing can disturb and confuse whales and other species that use sonar to survive. All creatures rely on clean air and water.
To make matters worse, Shell has a shockingly terrible safety record. Two of its ships have run aground and just last month another one of its drilling ships, which is sailing towards the Arctic right now, failed its Coast Guard Inspection.
An oil spill in the freezing and dangerous waters of the Arctic would be nearly impossible to clean up and could be even more devastating than the deadly 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. With Shell's record of dangerous errors, it's not a question of if but when a spill will happen.
19
When are people going to care about the only Earth that we have to live on? These kinds of actions serve only to destroy for profit. Do these people (including our government) have another option that I'm unaware of? They are lying to themselves if they think our children and our children's children will not suffer because of our destruction of the planet. Not to mention the values that are prevailing in a society of greed. It makes me heartbroken and I wish I knew what to do to turn it around.
13
This is deeply disappointing news. I understand the Middle East is falling apart and will probably not be a source of oil for very much longer. But we should have started working on a clean energy alternative decades ago when people with foresight started talking about it. Once again, Big Oil rules at the expense of the environment. Very sad.
13
I agree 100%! Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush!!! All gave away every leverage we had in exchange for 'cheap oil' to which have been addicted to for 75 years. The Saudi's have know this for years and years and years as well. The largest transfers of wealth from east to west have taken place at our addicted expense to the benefit of Saudi Arabia. Why cant this country figure alternative fuel sources issue out???? The answer is not in the Arctic, rather it is in alternative wind and solar and home and business battery use during the days and charging at night.
In New Jersey we would have had miles and miles of wind farms off the coast. All stopped due to Chris Christie idiotic politic as well! All these politicians are interested in one thing!!!!! Getting elected and then selling out to the masses with absolutely no concern for any greater good EVER!!!! The greater good is getting reelected or getting their party reelected with the promises to some big doner in exchange for fund raising. This decision angers me at every level!!!!!
In New Jersey we would have had miles and miles of wind farms off the coast. All stopped due to Chris Christie idiotic politic as well! All these politicians are interested in one thing!!!!! Getting elected and then selling out to the masses with absolutely no concern for any greater good EVER!!!! The greater good is getting reelected or getting their party reelected with the promises to some big doner in exchange for fund raising. This decision angers me at every level!!!!!
1
One commenter was nice enough to post the link to the White House to voice our opinions. I suggest that those who commented so wisely against the drilling in the Arctic repeat those comments on the White House site. I'm not sure that just expressing your views on here will do much good, and I'm not sure it will do much good posting on the link below, but I do know that someone will see the comments and perhaps lay them before Obama. Will that do much good? I don't know for Americans have lost their voice through being deaf and blind to our responsibilities. The inmates are now running the asylum and they stand to gain. We, on the other hand, will lose and are losing. As is our environment which is being exchanged to gorge the oil industry. It is time to take back this country from Congressional greed and Presidential duplicity.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
8
thank you for the link - and I wrote.
1
Thank you for the link. I was appalled by the president's move to okay the drilling in the Arctic. Did we learn nothing from the BP Gulf disaster?
1
If the Obama administration was actually serious Shell would have to post a $10 - 15 Billion cash performance bond up front and require that any violations or accidents result in Shell being banned from any drilling in US territorial waters for a decade.
10
What good is a financial settlement, after the damage has been done? Only guaranteed jail time would inspire Shell execs to reassess the risks.
1
Obama is a hypocrite. Denies Keystone pipeline but allows drilling in Arctic waters. Sure make Canada the villain. Gutless. Now how is that oil going to get to the lower 48. tankers? Big pipeline. Not through Canada it won't.
9
This is more than appalling. How many 'accidents' is this industry going to be allowed to commit before some one in a decision-making role has the intelligence and the backbone to say no more destruction. We do not get any second chances. "New rules" and "new safety regulations" only allow for penalty after the destruction is already done; nothing the government sets in place, regardless of the severity of wording, can prevent horrendous damage.
No oil company has any idea how a disaster could possibly be dealt with in the Arctic Ocean.
Common sense and long term planning needs to start superseding special interests, short term gain, and money. We are, literally, destroying the planet. This is not something that should be okay with anyone; and not something that any President - regardless of party - should have the right to do. This is our children's planet, not a disposable resource.
No oil company has any idea how a disaster could possibly be dealt with in the Arctic Ocean.
Common sense and long term planning needs to start superseding special interests, short term gain, and money. We are, literally, destroying the planet. This is not something that should be okay with anyone; and not something that any President - regardless of party - should have the right to do. This is our children's planet, not a disposable resource.
15
So, the president opened the Atlantic coast to oil drilling only, er... one month before the Deepwater Horizon oil spill almost ruined the Gulf, if I recall correctly.
If he can ignore the Deepwater Horizon spill and proceed to open the Arctic so the same thing can (and will) happen there, then I guess the president isn't much of a "The Universe is Trying to Tell Me Something So Maybe I Should Listen" kind of guy.
I like a lot of things the president has done, but aside from the protection of the California coast, I struggle to find evidence of this "ambitious environmental agenda" that the Times is crediting him with here.
If he can ignore the Deepwater Horizon spill and proceed to open the Arctic so the same thing can (and will) happen there, then I guess the president isn't much of a "The Universe is Trying to Tell Me Something So Maybe I Should Listen" kind of guy.
I like a lot of things the president has done, but aside from the protection of the California coast, I struggle to find evidence of this "ambitious environmental agenda" that the Times is crediting him with here.
10
Let's examine the dynamics here. Climate change due in large part to burning fossil fuels is opening up more ice free areas of the Arctic, so we can drill for more fossil fuel to burn. That makes sense.
12
One has to wonder if the timing of this announcement has anything to do with the Saudi King's decision not to attend the President's summit?
7
Did anyone look at a map of exactly where the Chukchi Sea is? Smack between ALaska and Russia. I agree that drilling is generally bad, BUT if it's gonna happen I'd sure rather it be done by companies subject to US regulation and sanctions. There just may be more strategic issues in play here than are immediately apparent.
2
This is another Obama disconnect. He contends that he wants to protect the environment and then approves this project. We should all be quivering. With fracking fluid contaminating California's aquifers during an unprecedented drought, fracking fluid in drinking water in PA we can be prepared to eat poisoned fish, drink poisoned water and then wonder what happened. But really the world would do better with fewer people on it so it can recover from all the insults that have been heaped on it.
8
The author only grants one short paragraph to Shell's disastrous foray into the Arctic with the Kulluk. Is this analogous to Obama's bumbling attempts at "give and take?" Surely she knows better, as the NYT published a wonderful and detailed accounting of the failed attempt in their magazine at the close of 2014. Shell abandoned the efforts, citing that the project was unprofitable with oil prices below $70/barrel. Well the price has rebounded, and they're back trying to squeeze billion dollar profits from Gaia, "unknown unknowns" be damned. (Actually most worst-case scenarios are rather known and foreseeable.)
Here's the somewhat lengthy article, definitely worth the time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/magazine/the-wreck-of-the-kulluk.html
Here's the somewhat lengthy article, definitely worth the time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/magazine/the-wreck-of-the-kulluk.html
5
Just called the WH to express my dismay at this disastrous plan to drill in the Arctic. There is no way drilling can be done safely and with proper oversight. This will be part of Obama's legacy and a bad one at that.
5
Chris, please check your facts about drilling in the Arctic! We have in Alaska for some time.
It's about time this was approved. I'm surprised it took this long. Finally Obama moving in a positive direction.
3
We're positive it will end up ruining Arctic ecosystems with an oil spill, if that's what you mean by "positive."
People always act as if oil is the only precious, scarce, and strategically-important resource. So seafood, and the fresh water (not pertinent for the Arctic, but oil transits past it when we take it back to our land), aren't? I mean, we all use oil, and it's important for transportation; but we can't LIVE without food and fresh water.
I think we'll regret our decisions to foul our own nest.
People always act as if oil is the only precious, scarce, and strategically-important resource. So seafood, and the fresh water (not pertinent for the Arctic, but oil transits past it when we take it back to our land), aren't? I mean, we all use oil, and it's important for transportation; but we can't LIVE without food and fresh water.
I think we'll regret our decisions to foul our own nest.
4
Drill Baby Drill, eh? Now Obama has the drill virus. I think he is out to offend everyone. He will not win over any Republicans and will lose all the Democrats. This, TPP and what's next? Keystone?
6
Possible course of events over a decade or two. Companies drill and bring out oil without significant problems, the government agencies keep close watch and regulate. Years go by, the the oil companies find ways to cut costs which sometimes affect safety. Meanwhile, the regulators have drifted into a too-close relationship with the industry and give permission for certain dodgy actions or allow companies to self-certify, perhaps because the agencies are underfunded. Something dreadful happens, billions spent cleaning up. Huge media coverage, court cases, fines.
Repeat from the beginning.
Repeat from the beginning.
3
An awful decision. Shell will not be careful or foresighted enough to stave off a catastrophe there. This will prove to be one of the worst things Obama has done, up there with his Trans-Pacific Partnership advocacy.
2
How can we reverse this?
5
Election Campaign Finance Reform.
7
It's impossible to square an increase in exploration / production of fossil energy with solving the climate problem. We already have access to FAR more fossil carbon than we can safely consume. Who, exactly, will leave resources in the ground? If not us, then who? Which resources will those be? It seems logical to avoid spoiling yet another part of the planet, especially when cleanup of the inevitable spills will be so difficult in that environment. At some point we'll have to stop our suicidal behavior. Why not start now?
6
Those who are disgusted by this terrible decision might wish to email the White House and the President. Here's the link to the page for doing that: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
You can also contact your representatives in Congress, which might put pressure on the President.
You can also contact your representatives in Congress, which might put pressure on the President.
6
Why on earth will anybody email the WH? If after six+ years of ignoring the problems of the people, turning his back on homelessness, choice in education, raise(?) in real unemployment, more people on welfare, many more in food-stamps, the unbelievable rise of our debt, the decline in responsibility and civility -will you expect Obama to even open/acknowledge your emails? Just something that will make you understand this President -maybe; he despise us. Even after we elected him -twice.
On the other hand, if drill.. goes on good for us -all of us. The planet will heal itself. It's being doing it for thousand / millions of years with even trillions of catastrophic events. So, you think mere humans can damage the planet?
Please do us all a favor and start helping the homeless in your community, then start feeding the hungry in the shelters and go to the adoption shelter and give some loving to the children. It will make you feel even better.
On the other hand, if drill.. goes on good for us -all of us. The planet will heal itself. It's being doing it for thousand / millions of years with even trillions of catastrophic events. So, you think mere humans can damage the planet?
Please do us all a favor and start helping the homeless in your community, then start feeding the hungry in the shelters and go to the adoption shelter and give some loving to the children. It will make you feel even better.
Don't bother. I've contacted Congressional representatives before. The only reply you'll ever receive is some automatic response thanking you for your comments (which will more than likely never be read).
Well, I'M going to email them. The reason is because it is a simple fact that when a large enough bloc of voters signs petitions, politicians listen. Ditto when they get an avalanche of emails. If you want to do the Kochs' work for them, counsel despair and discourage people from sending emails all you want.
I echo the call: email the White House. Let your voice be heard.
I echo the call: email the White House. Let your voice be heard.
5
Unless you are actually using renewable energy like me, you shouldn't knock President Obama on Arctic drilling
What are you doing to reduce the use of fossil fuel?
My home uses passive solar energy. Solar City is also installing solar panels on my roof top to 1) sell electricity back to me and NV Power electric company, 2) provide backup power via a 9.2 KWH Tesla battery so that 3) I don't need a gasoline or gas generator during power blackouts.
Meanwhile, we need the Arctic shelf oil to stay out or Arab and Middle East wars, WMD or not. For that matter, war with any other country that has what we want.
What are you doing to reduce the use of fossil fuel?
My home uses passive solar energy. Solar City is also installing solar panels on my roof top to 1) sell electricity back to me and NV Power electric company, 2) provide backup power via a 9.2 KWH Tesla battery so that 3) I don't need a gasoline or gas generator during power blackouts.
Meanwhile, we need the Arctic shelf oil to stay out or Arab and Middle East wars, WMD or not. For that matter, war with any other country that has what we want.
8
BTW: the electricity in my area is either hydroelectric or geothermal.
3
I am really tired of the likes of the fossil fuel corporate plutocrat welfare kings and queens Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum raping and rampaging like barbarian hordes over the rich natural animal, plant and land natural American resources.
5
Then stop using oil. You ride your bike ? ever fly on a plane powered by solar ?
1
You are the only Hillary I'ld vote for lady! Home in Alaska.
When stuff like this keeps happening and apathy enables the corporations, a massive vote of protest is in order---vote for Bernie Sanders
7
You really are clueless James. Bernie Sanders as the answer? Go back to your granola chewing.
1
I'm all for energy independence. We have paid a price being dependent on Saudi, Iranian, Venzualian and other unfriendly countries. Alaska is part of the US and it makes sense to develop oil reserves if it can be done safely. I don't begin to understand the risks in the actual process. How many oil rigs operate safely in similar condition? It is obvious that if there was a big spill, leak or accident, the effects on the environment and ocean would be catastrophic.
My main question though is where will all this oil actually go? Do we know it will directly provide gas and oil to the US? Or is it going to end up in China? We need to know what is in the proposed Pacific trade deal. Its bad enough risking developing oil for our use and benefit, its another story if it is going straight to China. We need to know the whole story. Good luck NYT in your research. Apparently, only members of congress can read the trade deal, in a basement private and secure room, with no notes allowed or photographs of the document. It all sounds like more backroom deals to benefit the big corporations. Oil. Trade deals. Secrecy. How could this not be good for middle class Americans??? So much for hoping to change the government for the better. Transparency? We can clearly see what Obama is all about. A puppet on a string.
My main question though is where will all this oil actually go? Do we know it will directly provide gas and oil to the US? Or is it going to end up in China? We need to know what is in the proposed Pacific trade deal. Its bad enough risking developing oil for our use and benefit, its another story if it is going straight to China. We need to know the whole story. Good luck NYT in your research. Apparently, only members of congress can read the trade deal, in a basement private and secure room, with no notes allowed or photographs of the document. It all sounds like more backroom deals to benefit the big corporations. Oil. Trade deals. Secrecy. How could this not be good for middle class Americans??? So much for hoping to change the government for the better. Transparency? We can clearly see what Obama is all about. A puppet on a string.
2
Given human track record, this event has always been inevitable. As is the ultimate destruction of the planet in regards to human life. As a senior citizen I truly grieve for the children.
6
One last vestige of the oceanic environment that could benefit from a light touch. Let's complete what we started, take the final step, and transfer the final great piece of US natural history to Royal Dutch Shell, a company with an enviable record of oceanic stewardship. Is this how we write the final chapter on the American Frontier?
4
A bad decision, with the many reasons why detailed by so many other commenters. No need to repeat them here.
3
Fossil fuels represent millions of years of carbon capture, which we willingly put back into the atmosphere by burning. The difference is, millions of years of carbon capture is being released in a few decades. No one can say this will have no impact on the planet. My guess is that we have only seen the beginning of what we have done. Todays catastrophic weather events, like tornados and hurricanes, droughts and floods, will be considered trash can fires compared to what's ahead. Good luck to the survivors.
6
I share the disgust and echo the opinion this is a horrible decision---and one that I fear will lead to disaster. I really do not understand how he and the "experts" in the administration could come to this conclusion. Special interests seem to rule in this case.
7
Here's an idea for a solution to the problem. Make it a mandatory condition for U. S. government permission to drill that Shell be required to carry mandatory insurance in the tens (if not hundreds) of billions of dollars in insurance from multiple highly capitalized giant international companies to cover ALL environmental and economic damages for any and all causes whatsoever. Shell shall have to pay all premiums. If Shell can still make a profit after paying the annual premiums year after year, then the U. S. government must honor the sale of the oil leases to Shell by the George Bush administration.
8
Of course those premiums will be passed on in the form of higher costs to the public.
Saudi Arabia sets the price for oil over the long term. It has done so for decades and will do so for decades more. You may have noticed that the environmentally dangerous process of extracting oil has ground almost to a halt because the Saudi's have been able to control the price. Shell Oil will be subject to the same "bottom line" pressure.
1
Anyone out there still think that Demsreally care about the environment? While ridiculing Republicans who don't believe in man made climate change, they don't seem to believe it either, as they wantonly destroy the environment. Obama while hypocritically droning platitudes, destroys the planet.
2
Dumb, dumb, dumb. The US doesn't need more oil drilling, especially by a foreign-own corporation (Dutch Shell). We export more oil than we consume. This oil will go to Asia at the expense of our own environment.
4
This decision lacks good judgement given the history of devastating consequences from other monumental oil spills since 1967. Is this decision based upon the logic of numbers, safety, humane treatment of our marine life, jobs, or a bottom-line profit motive?
4
We must ask ourselves - why? Why is the administration opening drilling in the Atlantic and Arctic oceans? Are we short on oil? Is he worried about his change in relationship with Saudi Arabia? Is he hoping that this will lead to more of a push from the UN on our nation to accept global cap and trade? Is he seeing dollar signs for the Fed so they can spend more vs. fix the countless programs and policies and inefficiencies of the government? Is his party getting millions from Shell in some super PAC?
What is the motivation - that will tell us why this has been approved. I suspect money.
What is the motivation - that will tell us why this has been approved. I suspect money.
5
Okay. There's only ONE WAY to stop this freight train and you're not going to like it. What kind of vehicle do you drive? Why isn't it a hybrid (and I'm not talking a luxury hybrid SUV) or, better yet, an all-electric? Do you really travel 80 miles/day? Swing by a Nissan dealership and ask how much it would cost you to lease a Leaf. I met a guy in the Safeway parking lot getting into his leaf (in Denver). He loves it. He commutes to Boulder for work. That's not a short commute. But he says he always has plenty of juice to get there and back and run errands on the way home. WHY ARE WE STILL BUYING GASOLINE?????? Put your disgust with this administration and the oil industry into action and stop buying from those polluting behemoths.
2
Connor I cannot afford a Hybrid---So I drive my old small 88' pick up around and She uses less gas than any SUV or most cars non hybrid out there-----WHY: She is a Stick Shift Manuel and even better I have to lock her hubs to put here in 4-wheel drive much more reliable than pushing a button!
You may want to look up the data on how Colorado produces electricity. There is no guilt-free energy.
We need an political enviromental party. It's obvious the repubs and dems are willing to sacrifice our planet and our future for some short term gains for a few individuals in a group of oil corporations. Why don't we just kill off all those birds who fly into our planes and cause such a nuisance. Let's bring on our "silent spring".
3
What a well-packaged, disappointing and duplicitous leader President Obama has been for us. I remember the strange "no fly zone" for media during the BP oil spill--presumably for safety, but I'm certain the administration did not want us to see the horrifying visuals. No doubt he is paying back his corporate donors, all while mouthing empty rhetoric about his values of honoring the environment and concern for the people.
4
This is a tragedy. The conditions in these waters bring thirty-foot waves, crushing ice flows, etc. Spilled oil cannot be cleaned and will not break down in these waters--and there will be great spills and disasters. Sea life depends on these waters and on the ice.
3
Considering that we have had the technical savvy to land a human on the moon, it seems insane that we have not been the innovators to crack the code of affordable renewable energy.
It is a trifecta: it would get us out of the perilous Middle East, be an economic boom, and last but certainly not least, save the planet.
It is a trifecta: it would get us out of the perilous Middle East, be an economic boom, and last but certainly not least, save the planet.
3
It's not only the Arctic. An excellent report that was published recently by Sue Sturgis titled "DRIVE TO DRILL: Energy lobbyists behind governors' crusade for Atlantic oil" speaks about the secret coalition between the Governors and lobbyists groups all working together to drill offshore from Virginia to Georgia. I wonder how the folks that built their multi-million dollar dream homes on the beach feel about that? You can always rebuild after a hurricane but once it's covered in oil, forget about it. It's over.
That raises the question for Obama: Super Hurricanes and Oil Drilling Don't Mix. (think "Sandy"). Q.: How does both drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean square with Obama's "climate change" speeches?
Okay...let's see if this gets posted. ha
That raises the question for Obama: Super Hurricanes and Oil Drilling Don't Mix. (think "Sandy"). Q.: How does both drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean square with Obama's "climate change" speeches?
Okay...let's see if this gets posted. ha
6
If only Obama would read the reader's picks. I've rarely seen such consistent disgust.
9
Horrible. Victim: the human race. Profits: big fossil. Does anybody truly believe this will not end up in a big uncleanable spill and less support of truly clean energy? Extreme fossil is all we know, so we will not look to the future, and it is destroying us all in a big way.
It just occurred to me, Obama is Eisenhower lite.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/series/keep-it-in-the-ground
It just occurred to me, Obama is Eisenhower lite.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/series/keep-it-in-the-ground
7
Yes. I truly believe this will end well.
yes but Obama knows a lot more and should see the danger of this than Eisenhower ever could.
Eisenhower's idea of building an interstate highway system was kind of prescient, don't you think?
Once again this demonstrates the lurid inconsistency of the Obama administration on policies pertaining to global warming. On the one hand, his administration is pushing what can only be called milquetoast emissions standards for power plants, slow moving CAFE standards, and then embracies-- and indeed encourages -- an explosion in natural gas infrastructure which, if the administration understands matters, needs to be dismantled by 2080, beginning in 2040, and now opens the gate for increasing fossil fuel reserves via the Arctic. This is NOT an administration which will be kindly remembered by history, apart from being the first black president. The future will judge this President and this Congress.
To iterate, once that carbon gets burned, there's no way to get the carbon dioxide back in the ground. It will be in atmosphere for THOUSANDS of years unless deliberately and expensively removed.
What a bunch of selfish and greedy short-term thinkers lead this country!
To iterate, once that carbon gets burned, there's no way to get the carbon dioxide back in the ground. It will be in atmosphere for THOUSANDS of years unless deliberately and expensively removed.
What a bunch of selfish and greedy short-term thinkers lead this country!
12
Understand your sentiments, but trees eat CO2, so it will not be around for 'thousands of years.' It isn't so much about the oil and using it, it's about limiting deforestation (so we can get the CO2 out of the air) and it's about the environment - the arctic is pristine.
Have we not learned ANYTHING form the BP oil spill? This is so disappointing.
11
So this means means we can cut back on fracking and save our drinking water! Hooray! Right ...?
5
I like Obama but this goes that one step too far. My governor is allowing fractured gas storage next to Seneca Lake with the potential to destroy it with a leak, now my president is allowing Shell, not even an American oil company, to pollute the waters off Alaska. It's been done in the Gulf and that region still hasn't recovered. It WILL happen in Alaska. I've been out on Oneida lake when the wind picks up, nothing like happens in Alaska, and it's brutal. I've been on the Atlantic in heavy seas, on Long Island Sound with foul weather. It takes it's toll but here we have yet another payback issue for politics. This is wrong.
10
Let's see. The oil companies produce a product that heats up the atmosphere, which melts the arctic ice cap, which opens up more areas in the arctic for drilling. Sweet deal. A win-win for the destroyers of the environment.
And the cherry on the top for them is the fact that a "liberal" president is allowing them to do it. Kind of like Tom Brady getting the opposing team's equipment manager to deflate the balls for him.
And the cherry on the top for them is the fact that a "liberal" president is allowing them to do it. Kind of like Tom Brady getting the opposing team's equipment manager to deflate the balls for him.
11
A disastrous decision! It is inevitable that there will be a huge oil spill or several small oil spills. The waters of the Arctic Ocean and the North Pacific Ocean will be polluted and the vital food chain(s) will be contaminated. This threatens our food supply!
Why? So that the oil industry can improve profits, pay larger bonuses to high-level management employees, and reward members of Congress for supporting their efforts? This decision is just WRONG!
Why? So that the oil industry can improve profits, pay larger bonuses to high-level management employees, and reward members of Congress for supporting their efforts? This decision is just WRONG!
9
I can't understand why the Republicans don't like Obama! He has been a huge disappointment to most of the Democrats who voted for him. Other than picking up the cold trail of Osama bin Laden and killing him, not much has changed since Dubya left office. I will cast my next vote for Bernie Sanders.
11
SO Have they Ron! If you do not think that they will Bennie from this than you must open your mind to reality!
Oil extraction cannot be done safely in this hostile environment. This decision will be just another leg of Obama's pathetic neoliberal legacy.
8
2 campaigns over 2 billion raised. Does anyone believe the Republicans are the only ones who pay back their benefactors?
12
This news hurts my heart. I am disappointed in our president, and I mourn the violence and greed with which we visit our beautiful planet. We will all pay the price. Heaven help us.
16
Based on what we've done to the planet, why in the world would a single one of us ever be allowed into Heaven?
Shallow water is good for drilling - maybe. It is NOT good for weather. Weather is a serious (and in this report, unaknowledged) challenge over shallow areas.
4
I think the most frustrating item here is how Obama appears to arbitrarily pick which energy projects he deems as "good". War on Coal, no Keystone pipeline, filed investment in solar - all at least have the theme of turning the focus away from fossil fuels. Then he comes with this approval and you don't know where he stands.
If the argument for Artic drilling is to maintain U.S. energy independence, then also approve they Keystone pipeline and work on clean coal technologies, all along side promoting green energy.
A balanced energy policy utilizing all of America's vast resources to maximize our independence is the proper approach. Not choosing pet projects on a whim.
If the argument for Artic drilling is to maintain U.S. energy independence, then also approve they Keystone pipeline and work on clean coal technologies, all along side promoting green energy.
A balanced energy policy utilizing all of America's vast resources to maximize our independence is the proper approach. Not choosing pet projects on a whim.
5
This article does not help. The reporter's take that this move is to somehow "balance" the president's "ambitious environmental agenda" is ludicrous.
This is a geopolitical move. This reporter did readers a disservice by not mentioning that it was the Obama Administration's own Department of Energy, and not some big donors, that pushed him to approve drilling.
This is a geopolitical move. This reporter did readers a disservice by not mentioning that it was the Obama Administration's own Department of Energy, and not some big donors, that pushed him to approve drilling.
2
Mr. President, this is a totally irresponsible decision on your part in THIS time and THIS place.
13
Huge mistake you can't trust these companies with the environment . We should be funding alternative fuels and putting our money into them.
14
Hydrogen is a good alternative fuel. However, not enough money is invested in infrastructure. Also, there are a lot of politicians invested heavily in oil on both sides of the system. If you have a 401k more than likely you are invested in oil. If an alternative such as hydrogen emerges, then your investment falls and you lose money.
How long before they foul this pristine environment? The age of greed and stupidity continues.
14
Why suddenly this moment?
Although the government has issued the approval as early as 2012, the actual permission wasn't given until the recent week. Perhaps it has something to do with the seemingly deteriorating relationship with Saudi Arabia? After all, the Middle East is probably the biggest supplier of oil. Is this a back-up plan of Obama's administration? Or is it just some kind of commercial move to benefit the Shell?
No matter what reason the administration uses to justify the permission, the danger in drilling in the Artic can't be neglected. It said in the article that the company was only allowed to drill 140 feet. But honestly... When do the companies actually follow the rules? How many times have the big industries violate the terms only to be caught months later? What would happen to the environment, to the water, IF a spill happened? It seems like there's no solution at this point, so I guess if the government still decides to allow them to drill, we could only cross our fingers and hope that their oil doesn't spill...
Although the government has issued the approval as early as 2012, the actual permission wasn't given until the recent week. Perhaps it has something to do with the seemingly deteriorating relationship with Saudi Arabia? After all, the Middle East is probably the biggest supplier of oil. Is this a back-up plan of Obama's administration? Or is it just some kind of commercial move to benefit the Shell?
No matter what reason the administration uses to justify the permission, the danger in drilling in the Artic can't be neglected. It said in the article that the company was only allowed to drill 140 feet. But honestly... When do the companies actually follow the rules? How many times have the big industries violate the terms only to be caught months later? What would happen to the environment, to the water, IF a spill happened? It seems like there's no solution at this point, so I guess if the government still decides to allow them to drill, we could only cross our fingers and hope that their oil doesn't spill...
5
Fifteen billion barrels will completely supply the US for only two years. With the success of hydraulic fracturing causing us to become the world's leading oil producer, these arctic reserves should only be accessed after our other reserves dwindle. By that time, decades from now, renewables will have grown to the point this oil won't even be needed. Coupling that with the low price of oil and idling of production capacity, one must conclude that Shell is intending to export this production. It's going to China. So what's in that TPP thing?
10
Wait.... you mean "Drill baby Drill" wasn't the rallying call of the Democrats in 2008, hmph. Time to break the two (really one) party system in this country! Jill Stein 2016!
9
Time is getting short for Mr. Obama to pay back his owners. Follow the money, I always say. What a joke he has been for the Democratic Party...oh, wait, he totally represents today's Democratic Party...AND today's Republican Party.
13
Great article. Keep digging in on this project. We need to know more about the history of the decision. This project may pave the way for using a mountain slope on the southern coast of Alaska for private investment in a facility for electric launching of solar satellites into space orbit using superconducting Maglev to propel payload in a vacuum launch tube to orbit at very low cost. This system will make 2 cents per kwhr electric power available for making synthetic gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel made from the carbon in air and hydrogen in water. see www.startram.com. This could be a great source of future income for Shell and other oil companies as their markets dry up. The shift from fossil fuels will and must happen and there is a huge amount of the World economy that is dependent on hydrocarbon fuels. Electric powered transport and electric power generation from renewables will give homosapiens a decent chance for survival.
2
When, not if, the first major oil spill occurs in the Arctic Sea that will redefine President Obama's legacy. The cause of the spill will be irrelevant. His administration approved drilling in the Arctic Sea. Sad for him and sad for the planet!
13
Enough. I'm voting for the Warren/Sanders ticket.
11
In the 2008 election Obama's mantra was "Change". Seems like the ONLY thing that has changed it the INITIALS on the White House Tea Towels.
In the past 7 years, the Obama administration has rubber stamped more Bush Era policies than is fathomable. He is simply just one more politician who is in bed with big business.
Mysteriously, a while ago, the FTC dropped an anti-trust investigation into Google. Of course that had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that many former Google executives either are currently...or have been in the past...members of the White House Cabinet, or held high positions at the White House.
Andrew McLaughlin
Megan J. Smith
Michelle Lee
Katie Jacobs Stanton
Not to mention also hiring over 100 former Lobbyists...many from tech companies...including Google.
So how much has changed in the past 7 years? Not very much. I voted for Obama in 2008...but not in 2012.
Oh...and one more thing...hiring former oil company executive Sally Jewell as United States Secretary of the Interior? I'm SURE that had no bearing on this decision to let Shell drill in the Artic. No...none whatsoever.
In the past 7 years, the Obama administration has rubber stamped more Bush Era policies than is fathomable. He is simply just one more politician who is in bed with big business.
Mysteriously, a while ago, the FTC dropped an anti-trust investigation into Google. Of course that had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that many former Google executives either are currently...or have been in the past...members of the White House Cabinet, or held high positions at the White House.
Andrew McLaughlin
Megan J. Smith
Michelle Lee
Katie Jacobs Stanton
Not to mention also hiring over 100 former Lobbyists...many from tech companies...including Google.
So how much has changed in the past 7 years? Not very much. I voted for Obama in 2008...but not in 2012.
Oh...and one more thing...hiring former oil company executive Sally Jewell as United States Secretary of the Interior? I'm SURE that had no bearing on this decision to let Shell drill in the Artic. No...none whatsoever.
15
None of this bodes well for us.
2
I think that President Obama is feeling unconstrained by political considerations in the last six months or so and he is able to make his own judgments i.e. Iran, drilling, trade. The question is: how good is his judgment?
1
Fact: we need energy and at this time the energy we need most is oil and gas. Fact: we have an overabundance of these resources that would not only meet our nation's needs, but allow us to export oil to raise revenue and strengthen our economy.
As for the eco/climate groups, might I suggest that they all rid themselves of their cars, electrical devices, heat, and hot water . . . purhaps the drop in demand for energy will allow for us to not drill and rely on our natural resources or those resources of other nations.
The next logical move would seem to be to open the Keystone pipeline and begin delivering the much needed resources.
As for the eco/climate groups, might I suggest that they all rid themselves of their cars, electrical devices, heat, and hot water . . . purhaps the drop in demand for energy will allow for us to not drill and rely on our natural resources or those resources of other nations.
The next logical move would seem to be to open the Keystone pipeline and begin delivering the much needed resources.
1
YES!! I agree with you. Let's destroy what little is left of this planet. And let's hurry before someone changes their mind!!!!
4
And I agree with you: Go ahead, invest in that infrastructure. Buy more of their stocks.
And I will laugh and celebrate the day when you and those like you lose their financial shirts and get dumped on the streets without jobs, when the value of fossil fuel reserves go to zero.
And I will laugh and celebrate the day when you and those like you lose their financial shirts and get dumped on the streets without jobs, when the value of fossil fuel reserves go to zero.
The Keystone pipeline was intended to bring oil to Texas to ship to India and China. It wasn't intended for our local consumption.
Only 2 years ago Shell failed so completely in its efforts to attempt drilling in the Arctic that it admitted failure in the press and withdrew its equipment. Two drilling ship/platforms failed, one couldn't get out of the Puget Sound, its containment dome was "crushed like a beer can", its support services were wholly inadequate - with the nearest Coast Guard station a thousand miles away.
Shell and the Administration need to explain exactly how Shell now has the equipment, support, staff and backup to safely handle any challenges presented by the Arctic environment. Shell should also be required to post a bond of at least $43 billion - the cost BP reports it has paid so far to clean up its spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Their willingness to do so or not will tell us something about their real level of confidence that they won't destroy fragile public waters and lands.
Otherwise, this is a risk too great to take.
Shell and the Administration need to explain exactly how Shell now has the equipment, support, staff and backup to safely handle any challenges presented by the Arctic environment. Shell should also be required to post a bond of at least $43 billion - the cost BP reports it has paid so far to clean up its spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Their willingness to do so or not will tell us something about their real level of confidence that they won't destroy fragile public waters and lands.
Otherwise, this is a risk too great to take.
8
By all means, let us continue the raping, polluting and pillaging of this planet. I'm very disappointed in President Obama on this.
8
The most disastrous piece of news I've read in a long while. Our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will curse us for our shortsightedness and greed. As to our great-grandchildren's children, I hope they live to curse us too but we're not helping their chances in getting born.
6
While Europe--Germany and Scandinavia in particular--invests in wind, solar and geothermal energy, we turn back the clock at every opportunity. This is such a betrayal of our future, if we even have one.
16
Even within this story the Time's angle is knee jerk support of Obama. "most ambitious environmental agenda of any president". Really? Obama completely blew off the Deepwater spill. I remember him waving it away and only after a partial picture of its true severity emerged taking some token action. There is no global warming agreement and certainly will not be within his term. In all things Obama is only concerned with appearances and always believes he knows best.
11
As an environmental leader, I've often told people President Obama gets it about climate. This decision to unlock still another carbon pollution bomb shows President Obama doesnt really get it about climate. And not if but when we see still another disaster foul the pristine waters and kill the wildlife off Alaska's northern coast, that will be part of President Obama's egacy.
6
When an article about under inflated footballs elicits more comments than one about drilling in the arctic, then I guess we deserve whatever we get.
14
That'll teach King Salman for not coming to Camp David.
5
I think that maybe the King isn't coming because he sees the increase in US oil production and doesn't like it. If US doesn't buy Saudi oil, how will the Saudis buy the advanced aircraft they spend their oil revenue on?
I think drilling for oil in the Arctic is better than going to war against Iraq for Arab oil. Another smarter plus for President Obama.
1
Lets face it, the likes of the Koch brother's rule politicians and the Supreme court.
The new God is money.
It was not enough for them to destroy our democracy, now the planet.
The new God is money.
It was not enough for them to destroy our democracy, now the planet.
18
"The Interior Department’s approval of the drilling was conditional on Shell’s receiving approval of remaining state and federal drilling permits for the project, ..." -- which nets the government a non-trivial source of revenue. I'm sure this was a factor. At the BP Deep Horizon hearing, the CEOs from all the major oil and gas companies, including Shell, acknowledged they are not prepared to handle spills of that magnitude. I suspect they are still not prepared. This is not a case where the cons outweigh the pros.
7
I believe, as others have mentioned here, that this is a different kind of Obama, one who obviously is concerned about the environment but one who is also smart enough to understand the leverage that an independent oil producing USA can wield in world politics. Fossil fuels will continue to be the backbone of our energy consumption for years to come, even as solar and wind begin to show some measure of profitability (as the Germans can attest to). But the USA is a different place with an entirely different energy calculus, and I think Obama has made an important move with this chess piece, knowing that not a single drop of oil will come out of those fields for years to come.
12
I hope you are right because I really have no faith in Obama as one who really cares in the environment.
I have no issues with drilling in the arctic as long as oversight is robust , however, if it's safe to drill there,why not approve the Keystone XL as well? It's certainly less risky than drilling in the arctic seas?
2
While you're deep in the approval process, why don't we ease regulations for shipping crude oil by trains across the country…so what's a few disasters, back to back with derailed tanker cars spilling millions of gallons of oil or bursting into fireballs and causing entire towns to be evacuated? Robust oversight is an oxymoron as far as oil is involved. See AACNY below - he's got the exact reason we are now talking about reopening the Arctic to drilling.
Recommend you look closer at tar sands production methods, a slow motion disaster compared to Deepwater Horizon.
The Arctic is believed to contain 1/4 of the world's oil and gas. Other countries are actively pursuing these resources.
It was the US Department of Energy that recommended the US start drilling there to get ahead of economic rivals China and Russia.
It was the US Department of Energy that recommended the US start drilling there to get ahead of economic rivals China and Russia.
1
100% spot on. It's all about blocking out China and Russia from profiting from oil.
1
Now that this is a fait accompli the only thing left to do is to make the rule upfront that any spillage will be met with a fine that will, and will be meant to be, crippling for Shell (Billions?) all of which will be used to do environmental good.
11
Aren't the budgets being decreased for the Interior Department and the EPA?
6
How this happening ? Obama suppose to be against this, now everything it's fine ? I guess someone got a good deal with this ?.
4
This, then, is the legacy of the Obama presidency. And a sad one at that. Cave to money is the motto that will be attached to his "legacy."
12
Money talks and legacies walk. Obama is looking out for the rotating and revolving door of politics to big business when he's out in 2016. I'm just surprised that the protestors pictured demonstrating in Seattle haven't been labeled environmental terrorists and had swat teams busting down their headquarters doors in search of incriminating evidence, or the FBI setting up sting operations to discredit their operation.
I have never been so disappointed by Obama and cannot imagine what in the world he is thinking on this one. Please Michelle give him a talking to. This is just disgusting and makes no sense. Look what happened in the Gulf and bear in mind the closest coast guard station to provide clean-up assistance at this location is 1000 mile away.
10
My question, "Who got bought?"
11
I suspect the administration recognizes that the Chinese will not hesitate to mine and drill in the arctic, regardless of environmental concerns.
5
If so, this is a classic example of a Race to the Bottom. And I don't mean bottom of the ocean.
The effects of climate change are now destined to be horrific for humans (and other species). In order to mitigate the potential catastrophic consequences, we MUST leave a good portion of fossil fuels in the ground.
The Chukchi Sea is a perfect example of a place to NOT drill, for the reasons stated in this article. Ending 'mountain-top removal' is another no-brainer.
Pres. Obama is showing himself to be a master politician; I'd rather he be a master visionary and leader.
The Chukchi Sea is a perfect example of a place to NOT drill, for the reasons stated in this article. Ending 'mountain-top removal' is another no-brainer.
Pres. Obama is showing himself to be a master politician; I'd rather he be a master visionary and leader.
16
Why why why? The world is awash in oil.
9
I don't know what's happening to my hero President Obama. Everything he's doing lately seems to be against the best interest of the country. Is he building a retirement nest egg like Bill Clinton's?
5
Well, you do remember that when Obama came into the Presidency, he was "poor" - just like the Clintons. And in the post-presidency world, there's nothing like corporations and big business to help build a tidy portfolio and bank account. Will Obama get $400,000 for speaking to Goldman Sachs? Perhaps…
Shells first effort to explore in this area was a comedy of errors reported in the press. If the rules for drilling have been increased how can Shell meet them?
9
This very sad.
6
Drilling in Arctic? Off Alaska? Given the oil industry's past track record in this [and other] areas, what could possibly go wrong?
10
The Kulluk didn't just "run aground and have to be towed to safety"; the wreck of the Kulluk was wonderfully documented in the Times several months ago. It was eventually deemed unfit for service, and was towed to an Asian scrap yard and cut up, a total loss of several billion dollars. That is the Shell demonstration of readiness to met the Arctic......
13
"..towed to safety" at taxpayer expense. The route where grounding was a probability was chosen because of proximity to Coast Guard stations. So much for "government overreach."
Until we've properly insulated all the nation's buildings, retired every gas-guzzling SUV, and exhausted all other reasonable energy-conservation measures, there can be no rational basis for opening one of the world's last unspoiled marine environments to risky oil drilling.
11
Traitor, traitor, traitor. Lies, lies, lies. That's Obama, a man I voted for twice. On issue after issue, promises made then broken. The Republicans have always been blunt in their scorn for God's green earth. The Democrats just lie. "Hope and change?" Bulloney. I won't vote for them anymore, unless it's for Sanders. I'm sick and tired of their promises never kept. What we are doing to the planet that we are leaving to the future generations is revolting. And, so are the way too many elected that claim to care and then take actions to destroy it.
11
What could possibly go wrong and destroy one of the most important fisherys for the United States.
Let them learn to eat oil.
Let them learn to eat oil.
9
Not to worry. "The Interior Department’s approval of the drilling was conditional on Shell’s receiving approval of remaining state and federal drilling permits for the project, including permits from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and authorizations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act."
We'll all be long gone before Shell works its way through another blizzard of federal offices and regulations.
We'll all be long gone before Shell works its way through another blizzard of federal offices and regulations.
2
Shell? Big money and guns win everytime. There will undoubtedly be a spill at some point but yes! Let's have more oil! We need it! Use it up, chew it, spit it out. Natural resources! Let's sell them! Use up the planet and let's get it and make money!
4
Please tell me how the devastating report on Shell failures in the Arctic in 2012 be mitigated by stronger regulations?? New regulations just give Shell more environmental/safety controls to ignore.
Be ashamed Obama, be really ashamed.
Be ashamed Obama, be really ashamed.
11
Talk about double standards, the Keystone Pipeline, which, in the least, could have been better monitored, is cancelled by Mr. Obama. Drilling in the Arctic, is a disaster waiting to happen, gets the green light. How long did crude oil flow unabated in the relatively calm water's of the Gulf of Mexico, imagine a disaster in the cold, storm tossed Arctic waters. In the long run however, environmentalists can take comfort in the fact that Mr. Obama has a tendency to change his mind, then simply act as if the approval never happened.
Tom Franzson. Brevard NC
Tom Franzson. Brevard NC
5
Ironic that I spend hours a day pursuant to Executive Order No. 4 promulgated last September by Obama, seizing downhole oil goods being shipped to Russia on the merest suspicion that they're going to be deployed in petroleum exploitation in shale or Arctic areas, and now this?
12
Sounds like corruption ..
This is another Exxon Valdez in the making. A single spill continues to destroy the ocean for lifetimes.
Quote from the Atlantic News: On March 24, 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez had just entered Alaska's Prince William Sound, after departing the Valdez Marine Terminal full of crude oil. At 12:04 am, the ship struck a reef, tearing open the hull and releasing 11 million gallons of oil into the environment. Initial responses by Exxon and the Alyeska Pipeline Company were insufficient to contain much of the spill, and a storm blew in soon after, spreading the oil widely. Eventually, more than 1,000 miles of coastline were fouled, and hundreds of thousands of animals perished. Exxon ended up paying billions in cleanup costs and fines, and remains tied up in court cases to this day. The captain, Joseph Hazelwood, was acquitted of being intoxicated while at the helm, but convicted on a misdemeanor charge of negligent discharge of oil, fined $50,000, and sentenced to 1,000 hours of community service. Though the oil has mostly disappeared from view, many Alaskan beaches remain polluted to this day, crude oil buried just inches below the surface.
Quote from the Atlantic News: On March 24, 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez had just entered Alaska's Prince William Sound, after departing the Valdez Marine Terminal full of crude oil. At 12:04 am, the ship struck a reef, tearing open the hull and releasing 11 million gallons of oil into the environment. Initial responses by Exxon and the Alyeska Pipeline Company were insufficient to contain much of the spill, and a storm blew in soon after, spreading the oil widely. Eventually, more than 1,000 miles of coastline were fouled, and hundreds of thousands of animals perished. Exxon ended up paying billions in cleanup costs and fines, and remains tied up in court cases to this day. The captain, Joseph Hazelwood, was acquitted of being intoxicated while at the helm, but convicted on a misdemeanor charge of negligent discharge of oil, fined $50,000, and sentenced to 1,000 hours of community service. Though the oil has mostly disappeared from view, many Alaskan beaches remain polluted to this day, crude oil buried just inches below the surface.
23
I read this a purely political response to the decision, by the Gulf state's, to reject Obama's summit.
3
It may also reflect the administration's acknowledgment that there's an oil drilling race with Russia. Russia is pushing full speed ahead to claim as much territory as they can, with or without US "permission".
1
We can drastically reduce the CO2 increases if we stop buying all the Chinese junk, produced with power from coal fired power plants, and shipped from the other side of the world on ships powered with residual and dirty fuel.
As for oil company safety, remember the BP spill in the Gulf, where the "Blow Out Preventer" 'BOP' had not been tested for several years, and failed. One would think, taken the ocean dept, that the BOP would be tested and assured to have the proper pressure rating as well. Shell will surely make the same mistake. The company is looking to drill within the ice shelf close to Swalbard [north of mainland Norway] as well.
As for oil company safety, remember the BP spill in the Gulf, where the "Blow Out Preventer" 'BOP' had not been tested for several years, and failed. One would think, taken the ocean dept, that the BOP would be tested and assured to have the proper pressure rating as well. Shell will surely make the same mistake. The company is looking to drill within the ice shelf close to Swalbard [north of mainland Norway] as well.
8
Is this decision related to the frayed relationship with Saudi Arabia?
2
You've got to ask why. Especially because there is plenty of oil elsewhere. I think the answer is twofold: energy independence and a boost to the American economy. Obama fears that the rest of the world has too much leverage and will collect too much revenue if we aren't active oil producers. Obama, I believe, is deeply concerned. This is about U.S. status in the world. Those who think he's doing it for Shell misjudge the man.
2
Meanwhile there will eventually be a major and disastrous spill in the artic.
2
He lied in 2008 and he is a liar to this day. He's in the hands of Wall Street and the profitmongers. I don't drink the Koolaide just because he's the 1st black president. He doesn't have the working folks at heart. He is just a politician so he says what seems to be right but big money wins with him everytime.
I suppose this drilling is inevitable. These waters are very dangerous .. and if there is a spill it will be very hard to clean up. They are still dealing with Exxon Vadez problems and that was in calmer waters and how many years ago. The Horizon spill in the gulf was in calm warm waters so it could be attended to rather quick, ( even though they had problems stopping the flow), and many different techniques could be used to gather the oil. Shell themselves calls it an "unforgiving Arctic environment". As usual they are probably diving in without being ready if something goes real wrong. Typical.
3
What a terrible decision.
12
And to think Obama had appalling bad manners and appalling lack of knowledge to lecture Australians about damage to the Great Barrier Reef when he was in Brisbane for the G20 last year. The Marine Park and World Heritage area are protected and managed to world class standards under Federal and State legislation.
9
"Victory" may seem to be the case for these corporations, however, there is no gain without subsequent loss. The action may indeed bring about more resources, money, and jobs, however, we are "borrowing" from nature in order to exploit these powers for our own benefit. These sorts of actions occur on very small or very large scales and their effects are felt all throughout this system we live in. As humans we have a precious and destructive power called "the mind", which we have the ability to use for the benefit of others or for the benefit of ourselves. It's possible to scrutinize anything and everything, and in order to come up with the most balanced solution or action plan -- we must learn to think more integrally. Weighing out all factors, including parts of nature that may seem useless at this time simply because they give us no "profit".
19
Bravo a rare example of the Obama administration making a decision based on science rather than emotions.
Now let's hope that they do the same with the Keystone pipeline & the GMO salmon.
Now let's hope that they do the same with the Keystone pipeline & the GMO salmon.
5
Keystone benefits only the rapacious Koch brothers.
6
It's about the North Pole and Canada, Russia and other competitors, not "science."
7
Actually, science would have deep-sixed [pun intended] this project as dangerous to the environment. This is crony capitalism at work, not science or good sense.
2
We can drill in our own territory or we can fund the very people who want to destroy us. Until we come up with an energy source that is superior to oil, that is our choice.
Personally, I would love to stop using fossil fuel altogether. If that is not possible, I would prefer to keep our oil in the ground and pump oil from the rest of the world instead as long as possible. Unfortunately, the technology is simply not there for us to take either of these actions. Although I have installed sufficient solar panels on my house to meet all my power needs, I understand clearly that alternative energy is only a partial solution. In the meantime, our best hope is to face up to the technical realities of our situation, do our best to eliminate all emotion, and make the best possible hard decisions.
The problem with the environmentalists quoted in this article is that they seem to be acting from a religious belief in the natural world rather than from rational, scientific perspective. Their religious beliefs are an obstacle to a solution.
Personally, I would love to stop using fossil fuel altogether. If that is not possible, I would prefer to keep our oil in the ground and pump oil from the rest of the world instead as long as possible. Unfortunately, the technology is simply not there for us to take either of these actions. Although I have installed sufficient solar panels on my house to meet all my power needs, I understand clearly that alternative energy is only a partial solution. In the meantime, our best hope is to face up to the technical realities of our situation, do our best to eliminate all emotion, and make the best possible hard decisions.
The problem with the environmentalists quoted in this article is that they seem to be acting from a religious belief in the natural world rather than from rational, scientific perspective. Their religious beliefs are an obstacle to a solution.
4
Who said I'm acting on my religious belief? Hogwash!
4
Joe,
The technology is available.
It is just that the alternatives do not suit their bottom line.
The technology is available.
It is just that the alternatives do not suit their bottom line.
5
Environmentalists are not acting out of "religious beliefs", but the long history of oil company incompetence (witness Shell's environmental record in Nigeria and elsewhere and the reports on their preparedness to do the Arctic drilling safely), poor compliance with regulations and the government's lack of true and effective oversight of offshore drilling. And now we are supposed to trust them in a very sensitive and vulnerable extreme environment. I believe the apologists for this kind of corporate capture of our natural resources are the true purveyors of "belief" over science and experience. The subservience to industry pressure for profits will continue and expand under the TPP.
I don't see what all the hoopla is over...oil is a natural substance, y'know.
President Obama is breaking my heart. Why this concession, and why now? What does he stand to gain?
7
Money! It wins everytime.
Having resisted all through but now succumbing to Shell lobbying for being granted oil/ gas drilling rights in the pristine Arctic waters shows Obama's half-hearted resolve on environmental issues. Would it go down well with his much hyped environmental legacy discourse he seems much proud about?
15
As far as Shell is concerned the only consideration that is relevant is whether the potential for profit exceeds the potential risk of loss due to disaster. No one wants a disaster and we'll do what we can to avoid it but worst case scenario can we still make a ton of money after disaster happens. That's the thinking and it doesn't bode well for the future of what is so much bigger than anything that could be given a price. Obama is not the environmental President I was hoping for.
24
Everything in nature (of which some people forget we are a part of) circulates.
Everything people make will break down at some point and always have unforeseen and unpredictable consequences. And then there is the inevitable human error !
To pretend that the oil will not end up in the water is arrogant and absurd.
And as other commenters have said, we cannot burn all that fossil carbon without catastrophic consequences.
It is more apparent everyday that corporations are slaving not only the people and the planet, but the politicians as well.
Everything people make will break down at some point and always have unforeseen and unpredictable consequences. And then there is the inevitable human error !
To pretend that the oil will not end up in the water is arrogant and absurd.
And as other commenters have said, we cannot burn all that fossil carbon without catastrophic consequences.
It is more apparent everyday that corporations are slaving not only the people and the planet, but the politicians as well.
19
One more "hard choice" made by serious people who will rake in donations from Big Oil and suffer none of the consequences when things go wrong.
21
They still have not opened up the Federal lands that Obama closed off when he first took office. We have and are becoming so strong in this industry while being HAMSTRUNG by the Administration. Anwar still needs to be opened up further. And the Pipeline needs to stop being one of Obama's Games for his Greenies.
5
What's a "greenie"?
Someone who campaigns for the environment. You can google it: define:greenie
No to opening ANWR. Regarding Keystone: how much will it benefit Americans (not Canadians and multinationals)? Finally, Scott, do you agree it is okay for a foreign company to take an American's land through eminent domain, as in the case of Keystone?
1
The Department of Interior has allowed the roundup and killing of horses all over the West, has permitted the killing of hundreds of Wolves in the Midwest and Mountain West. Now Secretary Jewell has endorsed the despoiling of an environment which many Alaskans and many Americans regard as sacrosanct.
11
and the animals who live there, in the sea, regard it as sacred, too. They go there on migrations just to spawn!
Environmentalists are the new radically religious responding to logic with emotion. Folks, we are getting out of the middle east, we need to get out because soon they will hurl nuclear bombs at each other. That will destroy their oil resources, at least make them radio active. Do you who oppose energy independence for the USA have any understanding the massive and catastrophic impact that the melt down of the Middle East will have on the people of North America? We need all of the energy resources we have at our disposal and so will the rest of the world once the Sunnis and Shiites create WW III among themselves. You who oppose this need to grow up and realize that the world is not like Epcot Center.
3
So, Henri, Earth is expendable?
3
Henri, you think that nuclear war is going to be confined to the Middle East? It's going to come over here, too.
1
The Arctic melting down will cause a lot more mayhem then the Middle East melting down Henri.
1
Opening up the Arctic Ocean for drilling seems like something Dick Cheney might do.
21
We can never burn this oil without going over the 2C limit on global warming. We can never burn it without triggering civilization-threatening climate change. There is no responsible way to ever burn this oil. Catastrophic spills are likely, perhaps inevitable. Oil spills in the Arctic will destroy the Alaska fisheries for decades or forever. The only reason to drill in the Arctic is to increase the financial value of Shell in the near-term. This proves once again that the federal government has abdicated its responsibility. Stopping Shell, and the fossil fuel industry, is up to all of us.
26
This is incredible. Those of us who supported Obama deserve an explanation of why this decision has bee taken. Ms Davenport in
PBS news seems to indicate that this situation was inherited from Bush presidency, and that the Obama administration could not do much to reverse the situation. If this is so, it needs to be elaborated. Too much is at stake here, not only the trust on a President, but the trust on an entire party.
PBS news seems to indicate that this situation was inherited from Bush presidency, and that the Obama administration could not do much to reverse the situation. If this is so, it needs to be elaborated. Too much is at stake here, not only the trust on a President, but the trust on an entire party.
17
I hate to say it, but if you voted for Obama you own this policy. Let's not pretend like we didn't know….You voted for him because you thought he was better than Romney, when I'm sure you had the Green Party on your ballot. Right?
You own and are responsible for this policy if you voted for Obama.
You own and are responsible for this policy if you voted for Obama.
4
Correct Clark. One can be excused for being fooled by Obama in 2008 but not 2012. By the way, what's Hillary's position on Arctic drilling? Want to make a bet that she'll waffle on it so that she doesn't offend the corporate money?
Really, you are attempting to suggest that Romney would not have permitted this. That he would have stood fast against Shell. That's just plain delusional. Obama was our best hope. The problem of course is that it is only government by and for the people if the people are limited to those in control of large energy corporations. The rest of us are obviously not "people" by custom and usage.
This is absolutely shameful and despicable. Past generations who had far less than us never stooped to such craven greed. These politicians have become shameless shills for big oil.
21
There was recently an article, maybe in the NYT, relating China's increase in number of artic bases, while voicing interest in artic resources. Has the Chinese step-up influenced this government's decision to drill in the artic ? If it has and this is a matter of competition btw. China and America, I suggest these two global powers get to a serious hands-off policy toward this unpredictable, precious and relatively pristine part of the planet. My grandchildren tell me that they wish to grow into adulthood, live healthy lives and pave the way for their children to do the same. So, President Obama," Fast Track, " implementation of clean energy solutions for America ! Bless you Senator Sanders. Because you are campaigning for the Presidency, I can honestly explain to my Grandchildren that I am not contributing to the, " least of two evils " but to someone who is honest, capable, and will act in protection of their futures.
14
My apology, intended to type the word, Arctic.
At least we won't be trespassing on Sierra Club real estate (read glacier).
President Obama has done enough on the environment front (giving more powers to the EPA, coming to an agreement with China on air quality control, stringent regulations on auto emissions) that I am willing to give him a pass on this.
Most of the criticism for this decision is coming from the risk of accident and not due to actual pollution due to drilling. One can only hope that enough safety norms are built into the approval that the whole thing goes smoothly.
Most of the criticism for this decision is coming from the risk of accident and not due to actual pollution due to drilling. One can only hope that enough safety norms are built into the approval that the whole thing goes smoothly.
1
I love that "one can only hope..." HOPE AWAY! There will never be enough regulations and safety norms for such projects to "go smoothly." Just watch! And then it will be too late.
2
It is not possible to do enough on the environment. If Hillary is headed this way no point in voting.
No matter the cost to our planet or future, big oil must have its demands for profit satisfied. I understand that the TPP contains a clause compensating corporations for financial loss of oil left in the ground. But it won't be the 1% paying that bill. Corporations are rather poor individuals, lacking moral sense. Politicians demonstrate that they are little better. Promoting life is the only real value. Any honest person with common sense can see the damage to our planet. Money will not buy a future.
Money will not buy a future
Money will not buy a future
10
Arctic drilling is a disgrace & TPP is an even bigger disgrace.
I'm center to liberal on most issues, voted for Obama twice, and think his decision on oil drilling in Alaska is a good one.
I see a lot of hysterical comments on here from people who are sure that drilling in the Arctic is taking us down the slippery slope toward more global warming and environmental damage. However, the Interior Department reviewed the drilling and approved it. I'm sure this review took potential environmental issues into account.
As for global warming, that's not a valid argument against Obama's decision. As others pointed out, the world is pumping out 90 million barrels of oil every day. A few incremental barrels from the Arctic won't be the proverbial straw on the camel's back. I actually doubt much oil will be pumped from these sites, as Shell had all kinds of trouble last time they tried drilling in the Arctic.
Oil, like it or not, is the lifeblood of our economy. Over the last 50 years, environmentalists have done a lot of good for our country, but they've also blocked many chances to make us less reliant on foreign energy, with all of the political peril that puts us in. I'm in favor of developing our home-grown energy sources whenever possible, whether they be oil, gas, wind or solar. Obama would be foolish if he didn't. Now if only he'd stop playing politics and approve the Keystone pipeline, which a variety of studies have already shown to be safe.
I see a lot of hysterical comments on here from people who are sure that drilling in the Arctic is taking us down the slippery slope toward more global warming and environmental damage. However, the Interior Department reviewed the drilling and approved it. I'm sure this review took potential environmental issues into account.
As for global warming, that's not a valid argument against Obama's decision. As others pointed out, the world is pumping out 90 million barrels of oil every day. A few incremental barrels from the Arctic won't be the proverbial straw on the camel's back. I actually doubt much oil will be pumped from these sites, as Shell had all kinds of trouble last time they tried drilling in the Arctic.
Oil, like it or not, is the lifeblood of our economy. Over the last 50 years, environmentalists have done a lot of good for our country, but they've also blocked many chances to make us less reliant on foreign energy, with all of the political peril that puts us in. I'm in favor of developing our home-grown energy sources whenever possible, whether they be oil, gas, wind or solar. Obama would be foolish if he didn't. Now if only he'd stop playing politics and approve the Keystone pipeline, which a variety of studies have already shown to be safe.
5
Like it not. Why not make every effort to favor non-carbon energy sources? When Americans were addicted to tobacco, lawmakers made smoking costly, burdensome, and increasingly prohibited. Opponents cried overreach-- smoking rates were halved and lung cancer incidence has finally peaked. We remain equally addicted to oil, though the stakes are greater. To spur research and scaling for alternative technologies, likely a greater economic engine than continued reliance on fossil fuels, our addiction should be made costly. It's very hard to find any reasonable justification for Chuchki drilling. Regressive, cynical and economically unsound.
3
So you just want to overlook the probability of gigantic spills and their inevitable catastrophic effects on the environment? Have you read the recent studies of the continuing harmful effects on animals and plant life as a result of the Horizon oil spill? Harmful effects that will go on for generations. Despite a clean-up that cost many billions.
3
Fossil fuels represent millions of years of carbon capture, which we are putting back into the atmosphere by burning. The difference is, millions of years of carbon capture is being released in a few decades. You cannot say that will have no impact on the climate. My guess is that we have only seen the beginning of catastrophic weather events. the tornados and hurricanes of today will be considered trash can fires compared to what's ahead. All I can say is good luck to the survivors.
10
The question is not if there will be a spill but when. Also, shame on these power brokers and decision makers for not putting the resources into fully developing highly functional, reliable and inexpensive alternative, ie non petro based, energy sources.
13
And the Oil Men win again. Who loses? All the rest of us. And the planet. And all the other species on the planet.
Obama.....why? We need the Arctic intact.
Oh, well. We're goners. Another two three hundred years and then bye bye. I guess I don't care so much about America going under when the whole world's population will go under fairly soon after. See? A silver lining.
Obama.....why? We need the Arctic intact.
Oh, well. We're goners. Another two three hundred years and then bye bye. I guess I don't care so much about America going under when the whole world's population will go under fairly soon after. See? A silver lining.
10
It's utterly bizarre at this point that we are not completely committed to large scale projects aimed at replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources as quickly as possible. To continue to invest in fossil fuels is extraordinarily destructive. How is it possible that we continue to do this?
18
While climate change and localized environmental destruction is a threat there is a harsh reality that we are still dependent on fossil fuels for the time being. We have to make hard choices on where we will get them: from hydraulic fracturing, from regressive middle eastern regimes, from massively environmentally damaging countries like Nigeria, or from arctic drilling.
Arctic drilling seems like a solid course of action: the localized environmental damage is far removed from people and relatively endangered habitats. Hopefully we should use the revenue for research into sustainable energy, but at least we are getting the oil from the least harmful of the alternatives.
Arctic drilling seems like a solid course of action: the localized environmental damage is far removed from people and relatively endangered habitats. Hopefully we should use the revenue for research into sustainable energy, but at least we are getting the oil from the least harmful of the alternatives.
2
Just disgusted with this news and our suicidal capitalist society's inability to face the "inconvenient truth" that drilling and burning oil is destroying the planet.
12
Well, at least we humans still have a pristine Antarctic at the southern end of our planet. Wait,...what? You say that the Polar Research Institute of China recently opened a new division devoted to the study of RESOURCES in Antarctica. It's sad! So much for that place too,...I muttered.
1
Wow. Why now?
2
Obama has made many decisions, and failed to make decisions, that are important. Coming at a time when we have an oil glut this makes no sense. The idea that if we don't do it someone else will is pathetic. We should use the glut to find alternative sources, The Arctic oil is worth one polar bear. Having been on a whale boat in the Bering Sea, so cold only burning alive like Sam McGee would make me warm, I see there is a limit. We have reached it.
3
All the safety inspections in the world and all the assurances by Shell that drilling will be done safely cannot prevent an accident, and it only takes one. The only ones who will gain from this decision are the oil Barons and a few rich stock holders. If Obama wants to help the economy, stop all oil exploration and start investing in renewables. This move just delays the inevitable and will make it harder and more expensive to catch-up when the oil runs out, and it will eventually. What good is cheap oil at the cost of the environment?
7
It looks like Rudy Giuliani was entirely right when he proclaimed "Drill, Baby Drill".
1
Just when I thought things couldn't get much worse.
4
Dear Mr. President,
I know this issue began in the previous administration and if you denied the permits the oil company would have sued the government. But there is another way to address this issue. Cancel the leases and return the company's money.
One thing is certain about these leases. There will be oil spills, the company will underplay them and the oil company will sue the government contesting whatever measure of environmental damage occurs and continue the law suits challenging the governments version of remedial measures. History has proven this to be the case. The Exxon Valdez litigation went on for twenty years simply over the scope of the clean up. So, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
But if you don't go forward with these leases you will prevent incalculable harm to the pristine wildlife environment that no amount of money can really restore when major accidents occur, and they will occur. Save this shoreline so that your children and mine might someday visit it in all its wild glory.
I know this issue began in the previous administration and if you denied the permits the oil company would have sued the government. But there is another way to address this issue. Cancel the leases and return the company's money.
One thing is certain about these leases. There will be oil spills, the company will underplay them and the oil company will sue the government contesting whatever measure of environmental damage occurs and continue the law suits challenging the governments version of remedial measures. History has proven this to be the case. The Exxon Valdez litigation went on for twenty years simply over the scope of the clean up. So, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
But if you don't go forward with these leases you will prevent incalculable harm to the pristine wildlife environment that no amount of money can really restore when major accidents occur, and they will occur. Save this shoreline so that your children and mine might someday visit it in all its wild glory.
12
Obama's "conditional approval" is just a way to cover his total "yes" to the petroleum industry. What a disappointment.
33
What is ultimately true is that whether or not the USA drills in the Arctic, other countries will do so and they will not be prevented or limited by domestic public opinion. Other major world powers are making preliminary efforts now. The question is not whether the Arctic will be drilled, it is how responsibly it will be. Perhaps Mr. Obama is seeking to put into place safeguards that other countries and future presidents would not do. Perhaps given the lessons of world oil spills with the proper expensive technology and oversight in place, Mr. Obama could impact a much safer reality for the Arctic. Best that its never drilled, perhaps. But we are 300 Million in a world of over seven Billion (thats 7,000,000,000 people). The practical may be superior to the fanciful.
1
It's so glib to call those who want to stop global warming fanciful. I guess it's fanciful to want future generations to live.
This is a good thing
3
In some parallel universe.
1
We're caught in a spiral and unless a handful of corporations and bankers stop controlling the world we are doomed to be destroyed by the voracious feeding frenzy fueled by profit. Are the children and grandchildren of these handful of men and women immune to cancers and respiratory diseases?
23
I have never understood why men who have won everything and have nothing else to gain will still pander to those who cannot possibly help them. President Obama won two terms, and he cannot by law seek another term to the country's highest elected office. His pension and benefits are set for life.
He has nothing to win from pandering to oil companies determined to place profit above the health of our planet. He has everything to lose by marring his own legacy and threatening the safety -- perhaps, lives -- of his future grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Change your mind, Mr. President, please change your mind.
He has nothing to win from pandering to oil companies determined to place profit above the health of our planet. He has everything to lose by marring his own legacy and threatening the safety -- perhaps, lives -- of his future grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Change your mind, Mr. President, please change your mind.
31
But his party and friends do depend on it...
As much as I don't want to believe it, Obama thinks we should drill for oil everywhere we can. He doesn't really care about the environment or for that matter, any other progressive ideals.
1
He absolutely lost my support because of this, the TPP, and next I'm sure when he approves the koch keystone pipeline.
2
15 billion barrels is two year's consumption for the U.S. alone. Two years.
Then what. Mars? Wake up Obama.
Then what. Mars? Wake up Obama.
9
Your comment shows a huge lack of understanding of how the global oil market functions. Make no mistake, 15 billion barrels is a huge, huge amount of oil, though I doubt that much would be drilled at this site due to the challenging conditions. The Bakken oil field in North Dakota is about half that size and it's caused a huge gain in U.S. oil production over the last six years that, along with fracking elsewhere, has lessened our dependence on foreign oil in a big way.
This sadly is just another push down the hall of doom that our species is walking, I fear there are few alternates that our leadership can lead us on. I cry for my son and his children as I see the earth I/we are leaving him, and wonder how he will survive.
62
Someday soon we will see ourselves as "dead species walking."
1
I'm so glad I worked my tail off for the environmental candidate the past two elections. Capitulation is the rule. Remember when the clean air regulations were shelved?
I'm done.
We're done.
I'm done.
We're done.
20
We who say no do use the stuff. We are all addicted. So what do WE do about it? If we protest but continue to drive our cars all over and take planes to lovely places, where does that leave us? We are somewhat stuck and must look for solutions for change collectively but also individually. Supply and demand. So at least think of little ways- don't use hot water to clean clothes, turn the thermostat up this summer (if you need really need the AC) and down next winter, take public transportation when possible, look into the most energy efficient car you can buy the next time, replace some of your grass so you don't have to mow.... we must examine the ways we consume with a microscope. Change our attitudes, raise our own awareness. And yes, write to our Officials.
8
This is why I vote for the Green Party.
4
Let's get real. The environmentalists tend to go a bit overboard, and tend to fail to take into consideration other contrary-to-their-position compelling reasons. For instance, not a single damn and water reservoir has been built in California for 50 years, despite the enormous increase in population and water demands. All because of environmentalists. Now we are in a drought, people have to cut back on water, it we're not getting the snowpack we need to fill the reservoirs we do have. We need an anti-environmentalists movement in USA just to ensure their position and reasons are rational and supported, and they have taken the reasons to do something they oppose into rational and reasonable consideration. I too see environmental disaster potential with the Artic oil-drilling plan, but I see the necessity for affordable fuel when OPEC changes its arbitrary minds again. We should look for solutions, not to one-sided prohibitions.
3
The solution is to shift the money we currently spend supporting fossil fuels and nuclear power into renewable energy. When you go to the gas pump why do you pay $2.75 a gallon while in Europe drivers are routinely paying twice that?
The answer is that you and I are propping up the oil industry with enormous tax subsidies which they pass on to us with lower prices. But the real cost before subsidies is nearly twice what we are paying at the pump. So we actually pay twice. Once at the pump where the price is obvious, but again on our federal taxes where this cost is hidden.
If those billions of dollars were shifted to solar along with the free insurance underwriting that we give to the nuclear industry we would have more than enough to make solar energy commercially viable even with present levels of technology. We also know that once solar is really on line the technological advances will take off as they do in any industry that goes from pilot plant to full scale.
The real practical environmental answers are there, but the political will is not. Ultimately the real problem is that the oil industry spends so much money buying our political leaders that they are willing to sacrifice our welfare for their gain.
The answer is that you and I are propping up the oil industry with enormous tax subsidies which they pass on to us with lower prices. But the real cost before subsidies is nearly twice what we are paying at the pump. So we actually pay twice. Once at the pump where the price is obvious, but again on our federal taxes where this cost is hidden.
If those billions of dollars were shifted to solar along with the free insurance underwriting that we give to the nuclear industry we would have more than enough to make solar energy commercially viable even with present levels of technology. We also know that once solar is really on line the technological advances will take off as they do in any industry that goes from pilot plant to full scale.
The real practical environmental answers are there, but the political will is not. Ultimately the real problem is that the oil industry spends so much money buying our political leaders that they are willing to sacrifice our welfare for their gain.
We export more oil and natural gas than we import. Ever ask yourself why population control (and I'm only taking about the birthrate, which is easily controllable) is never a topic of discussion, even though, as Al Gore said in "An Inconvenient Truth", the ever-increasing human population was the root cause of the environmental issues he discussed?
Could it be that the transnational corporations and banks at the heart of the environmental pillaging obscenity, would not desire a stable human population? Why not? Simply because without an ever-increasing population of consumers, there cannot be endless "growth", i.e., an ever-increasing ROI. So the fundamental principle of capitalism itself could very well be the causal factor in the end of human life on this planet.
Could it be that the transnational corporations and banks at the heart of the environmental pillaging obscenity, would not desire a stable human population? Why not? Simply because without an ever-increasing population of consumers, there cannot be endless "growth", i.e., an ever-increasing ROI. So the fundamental principle of capitalism itself could very well be the causal factor in the end of human life on this planet.
1
There's no rivers left to dam...If you want affordable fuel consider this...if wind power was put into place in Texas, Montana, and North Dakota alone this would produce enough power for the entire US even if everyone drove electric cars. The infrastructure to put this in place would cost the same amount as 3 years worth of oil imports. Take off your black-colored glasses, green is cheaper and provides short term benefits without the long term risks of fossil fuels.
1
One of those moments when I really, really, really am not sure who I voted for.
26
I viewed the President's speech at the correspondent's dinner. I guess this was on his "Bucket" list as well. Let's see the rest of the list before it is enacted, please.
8
TPP, keystone koch pipeline are next.
1
On the list: the new trade agreement!!
Contact your representatives in DC to vote NO!!
Contact your representatives in DC to vote NO!!
Some quotes from the climate change hypocrite that currently runs our country:
• "The problem with all these tired excuses for inaction is that it suggests a fundamental lack of faith in American business and American ingenuity."
• "The problem with all these tired excuses for inaction is that it suggests a fundamental lack of faith in American business and American ingenuity."
• "Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm."
• "The problem with all these tired excuses for inaction is that it suggests a fundamental lack of faith in American business and American ingenuity."
• "The problem with all these tired excuses for inaction is that it suggests a fundamental lack of faith in American business and American ingenuity."
• "Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm."
5
President Obama is evidently intent on turning the Democratic Party to Republicans.
24
It's called solar, and it's viable. This can severely jeopardize the ocean's thermohaline circulation, the thought horrifies me.
26
Wait. . .WHAT can disrupt thermohaline circulation? The statement that something may is unattached to anything and therefore sounds like it applies to almost anything. . . ?
America needs as much oil as possible.
3
Our sons and daughters and grandchildren will also need oil. Will we be selfish and use it all and leave none for them?
Lets start using renewable energy and leave some oil in the ground for the future inhabitants.
Lets start using renewable energy and leave some oil in the ground for the future inhabitants.
3
Why? We can use vegetable oil for cooking! no one I ever knew used rock-oil as a salad dressing.
Are we sufferring a disruption of our immense vaseline supplies?
Are we sufferring a disruption of our immense vaseline supplies?
Hard to believe Dixie will ever run out of snake oil.
Nice picture of these demonstrators in Seattle. What kind of cars are they driving?
2
I notice many have bikes. Did you notice that?
4
What is it that you think is nice about the picture? Oh, I get it. You're a Republican corporate wannabe, and you are just being sarcastic.
Maybe if people didn't have to drive so far to and from work, we could cut our use of petroleum in half. Etc.
Maybe if people didn't have to drive so far to and from work, we could cut our use of petroleum in half. Etc.
1
Quick! get on a big, stinky cruise ship and get up north before it's all destroyed.
One of the last abundant fishing areas in the world is about to be decimated beyond repair. And for what/why/who?
Why don't we all concede that corporations win and we ALL lose.
Including our grandchildren and their grandchildren.....Yay Shell.
One of the last abundant fishing areas in the world is about to be decimated beyond repair. And for what/why/who?
Why don't we all concede that corporations win and we ALL lose.
Including our grandchildren and their grandchildren.....Yay Shell.
18
The statement"decimated beyond repair" is almost without any meaning. It refers to the military punishment used by Roman commanders against large numbers of rebellious or cowardly troops. The soldiers are lined up and count off 1 through 10 and each soldier who is the tenth one counted is brought out of line and is immediately executed. Only 1 in ten, of an entire group of soldiers-all of who are guilty of a crime which the death penalty demands the ultimate price, will ever be punished but the soldiers, knowing that the "count" could begin or end at almost at any point, know that it is basically "fair" and that any one of them could as easily been a victim as any other.
This is why the Soldiers did not object to the use of decimation when they knew they had committed crimes like running from an enemy, discarding a shield or sword or any other of a number of insults against the order of the military.
BUT DECIMATION DOES NOT REFER TO THE MASS DESTRUCTION OR TOTAL ELIMINATION OF PEOPLE OR THINGS. iT ONLY REFERS TO LEGAL EXECUTION OF INDIVIDUALS SENTENCED TO DIE AT THE HANDS OF A LEGITIMATE MILITARY TRIBUNAL.
It is not nor was not a cruel or deswpotic measure used by commanders who were not in control of troops.
It never refers to the acts of barbarians nor of the massive casualties on one side or another in legitimate warfare.
This is why the Soldiers did not object to the use of decimation when they knew they had committed crimes like running from an enemy, discarding a shield or sword or any other of a number of insults against the order of the military.
BUT DECIMATION DOES NOT REFER TO THE MASS DESTRUCTION OR TOTAL ELIMINATION OF PEOPLE OR THINGS. iT ONLY REFERS TO LEGAL EXECUTION OF INDIVIDUALS SENTENCED TO DIE AT THE HANDS OF A LEGITIMATE MILITARY TRIBUNAL.
It is not nor was not a cruel or deswpotic measure used by commanders who were not in control of troops.
It never refers to the acts of barbarians nor of the massive casualties on one side or another in legitimate warfare.
People need to protest more actively.
There were many more people at a Climate Solutions Fund Raising breakfast in Seattle than there were demonstrating on the waterfront in Seattle that day (in the picture). Where were all those concerned people at the fundraiser? I doubt very much that many of them were on the street.
People need to actively demonstrate and speak up.
There were many more people at a Climate Solutions Fund Raising breakfast in Seattle than there were demonstrating on the waterfront in Seattle that day (in the picture). Where were all those concerned people at the fundraiser? I doubt very much that many of them were on the street.
People need to actively demonstrate and speak up.
15
So the Interior Department report "...concluded that Shell had failed in a wide range of basic operational tasks, like supervision of contractors that performed critical work."
Wasn't BP's failure to oversee its contractors properly one of the problems that spawned the Deepwater Horizon disaster? Oh, but Shell isn't BP, so give them a pass on this one -- they'll get it together ... eventually.
Have we learned anything from past mistakes?
Wasn't BP's failure to oversee its contractors properly one of the problems that spawned the Deepwater Horizon disaster? Oh, but Shell isn't BP, so give them a pass on this one -- they'll get it together ... eventually.
Have we learned anything from past mistakes?
27
Hate it! Why did he do this? We must free ourselves from the control this industry holds over us. It isn't necessary anymore. There are other choices!
29
I'm a disappointed Democrat. I thought Obama was pro-environment, but then again maybe his next job will be advisor to the oil companies. This is something a Republican President would do, not a Democrat.
1
I can only imagine that being a democrat in and of itself is very disappointing.
Obama doesn't have to do this. He is not trying to get reelected (and if he were this irresponsible action would be inexcusable anyway). So what does he think he is doing? Fracking has already driven down the price of gas and oil to the point that there is no economic or national security necessity for this foolhardy and gratuitous action. If Obama is concerned about health, poverty, education, equality etc. he should be doing his best to stop global warming, not facilitate it. If he is a president of all the people, he should be protecting us, not giving in to fossil fuel oligarchs. It is a shameful moment for this president, one when he has betrayed the trust so many of us put in him. Mr. President, I urge you to reverse course on this hideous decision.
23
I, too, am extremely disappointed with this decision as it only reinforces our dependency on oil as our primary energy source. As some readers have pointed out, drilling in the Arctic Ocean would decrease our reliance on Middle Eastern oil and hopefully prevent the Chinese from drilling in the Arctic via unsound methods; however, are these "pros" really worth the risks we are incurring for our children? Many of the recent decisions to further pursue drilling are very shortsighted as they are based on short-term resource exploitation rather than long-term sustainable enhancement. I hope that the administration will adopt a more farsighted position in future environmental decisions.
6
No, drilling in the Artic wouldn't decrease our reliance on Middle Eastern oil - it all goes on the international market. Same as with the tar sands. We wouldn't get any of it. The companies just want to use our duty free ports.
8
The oil companies remind me of big tobacco. They have us hooked and they know it. The only time when our dependency on oil will be regarded as the security issue it is, is when it's gone.
My disappointment with this president has evolve from disdain to disgust and regrettably Hate. There's no words to describe the worthlessness of everyones voices of discontent.
11
Allowing oil drilling the Arctic is a very poor idea. When the inevitable spill or fire occurs, it will be difficult or impossible to do anything at all and certainly not in a timely fashion. The world would be far more secure if this oil were left in the ground and the developmental resources were devoted to improving wind and solar, both of which are already to displace fossil fuels.
8
From Hope & Change to No Hope for Change! If this is what we get under Obama, can you imagine what's to come?? To think Germany has gone from 0% to 25% wind & solar in 15 years, phasing out nuclear, weaning itself off oil & gas, what are we doing?
19
We should use the Exxon Valdeze to supply the oil rigs in the arctic.
1
True, environmental and worker safety issues are real, serious, and deserve mention. But why does the article completely fail to raise the question of why we are permitting ANY exploration at all, when scientists agree that 75% or so of known reserves CANNOT BE USED without devastating climate effects? Does the Obama administration think that climate science is phony? Does the Times reporter? If it's even slightly correct, the intention to locate--and yes, consume--even more oil and gas is COMPLETELY INSANE.
13
We would be quite critical if China or Russia drilled in the Arctic
Or used police officers to shoot unarmed minorities
Or spied on their allies
Or hacked our military computers
Or used drones to attack foreign civilians
Or used inhumane practices to raise and kill chickens for food
Or deliberately destabilized foreign governments
... But these are all things that we do
Or used police officers to shoot unarmed minorities
Or spied on their allies
Or hacked our military computers
Or used drones to attack foreign civilians
Or used inhumane practices to raise and kill chickens for food
Or deliberately destabilized foreign governments
... But these are all things that we do
23
Real Talk: If you are rich and powerful, whether you are a person or a corporation, in this country you can do anything you want - including destruction of our planet. Is this not true?
If you are poor and especially if you are poor and a minority in this country you can be choked to death for stealing a pack of cigarettes or shot in the back for running from a police officer. Is this not true?
If you are of the middle-class you can watch the entire class die before your eyes and politicians solution, as the New York Times pointed out today in a piece by Amy Chozick entitled As Middle Class Fades, So Does Use of Term on Campaign Trail.
Americans better quit fighting for scraps with each other and realize those who run corporations, the richest, the most powerful, own this country lock, stock, and oil barrel. And while we fight these stupid and often meaningless fights about 'assault on belief' or 'war on terror' or 'left vs right' nonsense...while we do that and corporate media is all too willing to entertain us with these idiotic false equivalencies we are literally, quite literally, watching our planet die, our way of life die, our neighbors die.
It's a profound statement of truth that these things are happening and yet we are too powerless and too stupid to do anything about it. Is it not true?
If you are poor and especially if you are poor and a minority in this country you can be choked to death for stealing a pack of cigarettes or shot in the back for running from a police officer. Is this not true?
If you are of the middle-class you can watch the entire class die before your eyes and politicians solution, as the New York Times pointed out today in a piece by Amy Chozick entitled As Middle Class Fades, So Does Use of Term on Campaign Trail.
Americans better quit fighting for scraps with each other and realize those who run corporations, the richest, the most powerful, own this country lock, stock, and oil barrel. And while we fight these stupid and often meaningless fights about 'assault on belief' or 'war on terror' or 'left vs right' nonsense...while we do that and corporate media is all too willing to entertain us with these idiotic false equivalencies we are literally, quite literally, watching our planet die, our way of life die, our neighbors die.
It's a profound statement of truth that these things are happening and yet we are too powerless and too stupid to do anything about it. Is it not true?
24
Well said. Yes, it's all true. "We are too powerless and too stupid to do anything about it." We don't have to be powerless, but it's difficult to imagine how to build a consensus and awareness of the situation that will be a call to action. The media is controlled by a few corporations. Social media? It's so ADD'd and narcissistic that it seems like a weak option. In the 60s there was a social resonance that journalists and the media transmitted and shared. That doesn't seem to be working anymore (gross understatement). Options? Grass-roots protests and organizing? Maybe. "Occupy"-style actions? Quickly nullified by the media and local police.
There does seem to be an odd phenomenon in play when issues/events "go viral" (Freddie Gray/Baltimore/Ferguson, etc.), but they seem to have extremely short "shelf-lives", as they're absorbed by the "24 hour news cycle".
As to "too stupid", it's painful to admit the depth of ignorance in our country. It's treated a joke fodder, yet we (as a supposedly educated country) become dumber and more ignorant every day. Schools don't teach history or civics (or critical thinking) as they "teach to the test".
If I were a cynical person (choke), I'd say it appears transnational corporations/banks have pretty much attained a working functional equivalency with countries, yet unrestrained by laws, taxation, or "principles".
The simplicity of capitalism is the double edged sword: there's only one principle, "Return On Investment".
There does seem to be an odd phenomenon in play when issues/events "go viral" (Freddie Gray/Baltimore/Ferguson, etc.), but they seem to have extremely short "shelf-lives", as they're absorbed by the "24 hour news cycle".
As to "too stupid", it's painful to admit the depth of ignorance in our country. It's treated a joke fodder, yet we (as a supposedly educated country) become dumber and more ignorant every day. Schools don't teach history or civics (or critical thinking) as they "teach to the test".
If I were a cynical person (choke), I'd say it appears transnational corporations/banks have pretty much attained a working functional equivalency with countries, yet unrestrained by laws, taxation, or "principles".
The simplicity of capitalism is the double edged sword: there's only one principle, "Return On Investment".
1
People power is possible, I was a witness to such event during the Marcos overthrow in 1986.
AAARRRGGGHHHHHH.
I can't believe this!
Dear President Obama - very bad idea. This really isn't why I voted for you!
I can't believe this!
Dear President Obama - very bad idea. This really isn't why I voted for you!
17
Did you contact him before hand about this issue? Did you comment on the Department of the Interior site during the comment period?
1
We certainly need a really strong United Nations or a world government. Otherwise we are doomed sooner than later. Such a fragile area being disputed by irresponsible companies only interested in money. The whole world is slaved of greed.
9
We need a more active population working to defeat Republicans and climate science deniers.
8
What a failure by Obama.
23
Bush 2 sold the rights to Shell. A huge lawsuit would be the end result of stopping the drilling. The Bushes have done so much damage to this country and now this. Do we need one more Bush to finish off the USA?
10
Try staying on topic please. This an article about Obama's decision to risk the arctic ecosystem. Pretty sure he didn't consult with a single Bush before he made it.
1
I already anticipate, with great dread, Sarah Palin something like "This is one time where I'm glad Obama flip-flopped."
5
Are we all clear about Obama's legacy now? War mongering, job outsourcing via TPP, and environmental destruction.
14
Loud and clear. And so sick of his hand wringing centrist democrats who look set to join the Hillary bandwagon.
1
Well, we all can thank Russia and president Putin for this one. Geopolitical considerations sometimes trump the best environmentally-minded intents. We are entering the new Cold War pretty fast, and cheap oil and gas will be a major Western weapon in this war. As unfortunate as it is, it is the only decision Obama could have made.
This is a disaster for ALL of us. I know, you know, children in their playpens know -- and Obama certainly knows -- that it's a question of when, not if, Shell will unleash an environmental catastrophe in the Arctic of massive and unstoppable proportions. You might even say it will be the end of oceanic life as we know it.
Does Obama care? Of course not. At that point it will be somebody else's problem. He'll be raking in speaking fees from the .001% and enjoying the adulation of Nike, Shell and all his other paymasters. Anyone who trusts him to do the right thing for the majority of Americans -- or who believes anything that comes out of his mouth -- has simply not been paying attention for the last eight years.
Does Obama care? Of course not. At that point it will be somebody else's problem. He'll be raking in speaking fees from the .001% and enjoying the adulation of Nike, Shell and all his other paymasters. Anyone who trusts him to do the right thing for the majority of Americans -- or who believes anything that comes out of his mouth -- has simply not been paying attention for the last eight years.
7
If we don't drill there the Russians certainly will, and without any regard for the environmnnt. Better us than them.
1
Obama continues to vacillate. I've always believed he lacks the constant courage to be a great leader. He doubled down on Afghanistan, re-engaged in bombing and drone campaigns around the world, and now allows for the despoiling of the Arctic. I give him credit for some of the health care changes and actions on immigration (although we are deporting at the highest rate in our history). He is inconsistent with a fluctuating value system and that is what makes him such an enigma and a severe disappointment.
7
It is hard to figure you out Mr. President. You vote against the Keystone XL pipeline, speak at the state of the Union address on the need to address global warming, admit that man is responsible for climate change with the burning of fossil fuels and then you do something as reprehensible as allowing drilling for oil in the Arctic?
Maybe you thought you could sneak this by and nobody would notice??
Will the real Barack Obama please stand up and then please sit down.
Maybe you thought you could sneak this by and nobody would notice??
Will the real Barack Obama please stand up and then please sit down.
7
Haven’t we already been around the block about this? Didn’t I recently read a very long NY Times article about a disastrous attempt to set up an oil platform in the Arctic? It’s painful to even read the headline of this article.
6
Big corporations and especially oil companies have no credibility what so ever when they make statements regarding their concern for and ability to protect the environment.
Their history of pollution and degradation speaks for itself. They predicted essentially a zero chance of a blow out of the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf, until it happened.
And the amount of oil they are hoping to find off the coast is miniscule when you look at the big energy picture. According to the USGS they have a 50% chance of finding up to 25 billion barrels of crude oil up there, which maybe sounds like a lot until you realize that the US currently consumes 7 billion barres every year.
That doesn't begin to satisfy our long term energy needs. And it helps insure 4-8 degrees F of planetary warming, which will be a catastrophe. A major leak or blowout is inevitable at some point, which will devastate a pristine and inaccessible ecosystem.
What's wrong with our gov. Subsidize green renewables like solar and geothermal and set the planet up properly for our kids and theirs.
Their history of pollution and degradation speaks for itself. They predicted essentially a zero chance of a blow out of the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf, until it happened.
And the amount of oil they are hoping to find off the coast is miniscule when you look at the big energy picture. According to the USGS they have a 50% chance of finding up to 25 billion barrels of crude oil up there, which maybe sounds like a lot until you realize that the US currently consumes 7 billion barres every year.
That doesn't begin to satisfy our long term energy needs. And it helps insure 4-8 degrees F of planetary warming, which will be a catastrophe. A major leak or blowout is inevitable at some point, which will devastate a pristine and inaccessible ecosystem.
What's wrong with our gov. Subsidize green renewables like solar and geothermal and set the planet up properly for our kids and theirs.
7
The President is being told what to do by the FED. He has no real power. The people who run America and most of the economies in the world want to profit off the planet and it's resources. It's still the cheapest way for them to create profits and control political interests. If everyone had alternative energy...they would have no leverage in certain parts of the world. The middle east would be just like Africa...for the most part, we wouldn't care. We don't care what they do (Africa) to each other, or other neighboring countries. If they discover precious resources watch how much we care. The Middle East just has resources that they want.
Don't blame Obama. He really doesn't count for much.
Don't blame Obama. He really doesn't count for much.
3
So we shouldn't blame Bush either?
1
Since when does the U.S. have the authority to allow anyone to drill in the Arctic Ocean? I was pretty sure U.S. property ended at the Canadian border. There is a gigantic lake under Nebraska and the Dakotas. Trillions of barrels, why are they drilling (and most likely polluting) in the Arctic Ocean?
2
Alaska borders the Arctic Ocean
The Russians want to drill in the Arctic. Canada wants to drill n the Arctic. So where do you think this is going to lead to?
4
Why am I not surprised that he once again caves to Republican wishes, and takes the advice of Palin's chant of "Drill, baby, Drill." The guy will go down in history as an inexplicable underachieving enigma , despised, unfairly, by Republicans, and abandoned, justifiably, by Democrats. He has truly earned his anemic legacy.
13
A disappointing decision from President Obama. He promised he would lead the fight against climate change. With this decision, he breaks again that promise. I am not a citizen of the U.S. neither I live in it, but I am worried about a environmental decisions that affect all the Planet, and this drilling permit in the Arctic means that I will not trust anymore on Obama’s words.
12
When it comes to energy and the environment, the Obama administration has been a major disappointment. This decision will likely come back to haunt them and us.
3
I just do not understand why President Obama would give an OK, conditional or not, to drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic. It seems to go against much of what he has been working for in protecting the environment. Can anyone explain to me the reasoning behind this?
2
Good luck on finding one. As far as I can comprehend we are being led by a president who runs on a bloated ego,
I apologize for sending yet another comment following my
"The answer is always a number” lesson learned here, but another truism I have learned here in the developing world is...
“They key to life is sincerity, and once you have figured how to fake that, the rest is easy”
Boys and girls, now you know, we have been had, yet again. Like a famous clown once stated....
Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice....don’t get fooled again.
"The answer is always a number” lesson learned here, but another truism I have learned here in the developing world is...
“They key to life is sincerity, and once you have figured how to fake that, the rest is easy”
Boys and girls, now you know, we have been had, yet again. Like a famous clown once stated....
Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice....don’t get fooled again.
3
He talks like an environmentalist and acts like corporate shill.
10
How can he face his daughters? They are the ones who will suffer the consequences of his ignorant insularity.
9
Somehow, I think Obama's daughters will do just fine.
I wonder if his daughters even care, they may be out of touch as well, they are basking on their present lifestyle while their father is still in office.
I must say that this is one time where I raise a toast to Obama's serial mendacity. He obviously doesn't believe the words he's been mouthing about global warming. Good thing, too. But I must ask the liberals: How does it feel to have it done to you?
2
Now it's over to Mother Nature to wreak havoc on Shell and their greed. Nature won last time and I'm betting a couple of monster North Atlantic storms will do what President Obama didn't have the courage to do this time.
3
This is a tragedy waiting to happen. Planet Earth weeps.
8
No mention in the article was made of the inhabitants of the area in which the drilling will occur. Does the reporter not have in interest in their opinion? Without their support the oil rigs would not be there. As in any other location--Norway, Scotland, North Dakota-- locals face the benefits and risks. It seems they generally take the risks. Norway did and is able now, for example, to provide free college for all who wish to attend. The country is now one of the wealthiest in the world. The revenues from this lease will bring improved health, education, income to those who live in this portion of Alaska. The article made it clear there were protests in Seattle against this, but what was the position of the indigenous people of the area? Isn't that more important or at least as important?
3
You cannot hope to significantly curb climate change and allow oil companies to drill for oil in the Arctic. You're on one side of the fence, or the other. You can't have both.
8
It's too late to curb climate change. Two degrees will be a disaster and we're headed for 3 by 2100.
he will not be president for much longer and he has nothing to lose so everything is on the table. environmental groups have not seen the crazy start yet.he was always been out of control but now what does he have to lose so let the real Obama come forth.
for all of you that vote for him not once but twice enjoy it because he is about to do what ever he can to destroy this country.....so go ahead & vote Hillary & not for the right reasons just because you want the first female president you better think about it because voting for the first black president didn't go so well.So sit back & see what else will come down the pipe line.
for all of you that vote for him not once but twice enjoy it because he is about to do what ever he can to destroy this country.....so go ahead & vote Hillary & not for the right reasons just because you want the first female president you better think about it because voting for the first black president didn't go so well.So sit back & see what else will come down the pipe line.
1
I doubt that many of the liberals railing against Royal Dutch Shell today will be selling their direct or indirect holdings of its stock tomorrow.
3
The fragile Arctic is already deeply endangered. The ice cap is melting. The ocean is rising. The decision to allow Shell, with or without conditions, is dangerous, reckless, and in direct violation of the President's stated climate agenda. How can this benefit anyone other than Shell Oil? what about that investment in clean energy? And don't tell me it's about jobs. Have we learned nothing from Deepwater Horizon? the Valdez spill?
5
"Irresponsible, reckless decision which ruins Obama's environmental record". Abel,
What environmental record??
Laissez Faire on Oil Sands & Fracking.
So far, a very timid approach on climate change, when we should be leading the world.
He opened up the Gulf to more deep oil extraction just two weeks before the BP disaster.
Laissez Faire on wealth disparity, too; and that's an environmental issue, also.
What environmental record??
Laissez Faire on Oil Sands & Fracking.
So far, a very timid approach on climate change, when we should be leading the world.
He opened up the Gulf to more deep oil extraction just two weeks before the BP disaster.
Laissez Faire on wealth disparity, too; and that's an environmental issue, also.
4
A great example of why we do not want President Obama negotiating the TPP on our behalf. Full disclosure. Declassify and debate.
5
Will the NYTimes be following up to see how many Interior Department employees involved in this end up with lucrative positions working at or for Shell or one of their many subsidiaries?
3
I sure hope they will keep an eye on this!
After watching this article's author on PBS News, I understand that it was the Bush administration that opened up this Federal area to leasing by oil and gas companies. The lease was sold at that time , leaving the current administration with very limited choices.
My purpose in writing, however , has more to do with the PBS interview of Coral, herself. The interview was almost painful to listen to. Ms Davenport resorted to "uh" four to five times within each sentence. Many of her sentences were begun with "Uh". If public speaking is going to be a part of one's job, one should be trained and prepared to do so.
My purpose in writing, however , has more to do with the PBS interview of Coral, herself. The interview was almost painful to listen to. Ms Davenport resorted to "uh" four to five times within each sentence. Many of her sentences were begun with "Uh". If public speaking is going to be a part of one's job, one should be trained and prepared to do so.
2
Why would Obama do this? Where's the quid pro quo? For starters every ocean oil well should have two (BOP's) blowout preventers. And I think it should be noted that it was the installing of a second BOP that stopped the Deepwater Horizon spill. It only took countless experts and Gov. officials two months to install a second BOP.
"The Obama administration has also issued new drilling safety regulations intended to prevent future accidents like the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig on April 20, 2010. Last month, the Interior Department proposed new rules to tighten safety requirements on blowout preventers, the industry-standard devices that are the last line of protection against explosions in undersea oil and gas wells".
How comforting, like any of this invest the people directly involved with an attitude of care and responsibility. And help is a thousand miles away!
"The Obama administration has also issued new drilling safety regulations intended to prevent future accidents like the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig on April 20, 2010. Last month, the Interior Department proposed new rules to tighten safety requirements on blowout preventers, the industry-standard devices that are the last line of protection against explosions in undersea oil and gas wells".
How comforting, like any of this invest the people directly involved with an attitude of care and responsibility. And help is a thousand miles away!
I think we were all hoping that, with just a couple of years left, Obama would let his Progressive side run wild.
Now we're finding to our disappointment, with rulings like this and his BFF, the TPP, that his inner Republican is shining through
Now we're finding to our disappointment, with rulings like this and his BFF, the TPP, that his inner Republican is shining through
3
This decision shows how big industries can play russian roulette with our most delicate ecosystem and it is deeply troubling that Pres. Obama allowed this to happen.
5
Obama appeared to be Bush-Lite. With this conditional approval for Arctic drilling, he has shown us he is actually Bush-Forte.
I thought he promised to heal the planet, not hurt it.
Short-Changed.
I thought he promised to heal the planet, not hurt it.
Short-Changed.
5
Mr. Obama is the best Republican president yet since Ronald Reagan. Picking fight with Russia and China, spying on neutral European "allies" and American. Stand firm behind Egypt, Saudi Arabia and modern day mujaheddin against secular government. Approve secret prisons, data collection, target assassination, drone strike. Prosecuting whistleblowers and journalist. Expending military industrial complex's presence to South East Asia, Central Asia, West Asia and Western Africa. And free black gold for everyone!!! Correction, free black gold for the 1% and shield them from prosecution for bringing down the economy in 2008.
4
The only way to have zero human impact on the global ecosystem is to have zero humans. Period.
Everything else is a sliding scale, and a pretty simple formula based on the number of people on the planet, and the average life style and associated impact it generates, will suffice.
So how many people are viable, and at what standard of living?
Everything else is a sliding scale, and a pretty simple formula based on the number of people on the planet, and the average life style and associated impact it generates, will suffice.
So how many people are viable, and at what standard of living?
Very disappointing that the president would do this, it is a disaster on a time clock, not if it will create environmental hazard, but when. No one will able to use any of the oil or money from it when we are all dead; and we are killing the planet surely.
1
We are we surprised? Since the 80's, perhaps earlier, when the entire issue of energy began receiving popular attention, we have not created any programs for significant, long term, investments in renewable energy sources. Industries like this don't just pop up, ready for use. It's called long range planning and infrastructure development. The approach that made America great. From what I can tell, other than defense, this concept has withered on the vine. Politicians do not seem interested in any legislation which will not bear fruit during their term so they can be re elected. Oh, and the oil industry owns congress, so why would they create a viable alternative ? Sad, because if we had begin development of a sustainable alternate to oil during the 80's, we might have a thriving energy industry employing many workers ... Is it too late ?
1
Is there a provision in this venture with Shell, stating that they are liable for all disaster that will occur in the future? It is not a question of IF accidents will happen, it is a matter of WHEN.
Our 'need' for energy from oil and gas has not diminished, so the eventual use of this new source was only a matter of time ... Why are we surprised? The oil industry has been showering money on congress forever. During the 80's when the issue began to have popular attention, did we begin developing a program for solar, wind, hydro ... any other renewable sources? A program that would, over time, create sustainable energy to replace oil? No! This type of industry does't just 'arrive', ready for user It's the type of long term development that built this country but has ceased to exist. In fact, the last time was of other terms, so they can be re elected
Something else to apologize to my grandchildren about.
8
Not sure what the Presidents agenda is these days but everyday there is some new and different ..even a little bizarre going on...Like Obama's new nuclear deal with China...?????And everything is being quietly negotiated......
2
I am always incredulous at those who decry any type of oil exploration, yet have no problem consuming the products made from petroleum. Shell Oil is not the problem. WE are the problem. Me, you, including many of the most vocal critics of oil drilling. we drive cars - even to protests. We heat our homes with oil or other carbon based fuel. We daily consume thousands of products made from petroleum, such as: CDs and DVDs, credit cards, paint, tooth brushes, sweaters, computers, phones, tires, and anything - anything- made from plastic.
I would suggest that the most outspoken critics of oil drilling set the example for the rest of us. Use only public transportation, or at least carpool. Lower your thermostat to 65 degrees ( but you can't wear polyester sweaters !). Stop using the products derived from oil.
Unless and until we are all willing to take such measures, there is no point in opposing oil development. The oil companies are simply doing what we want them to do.
I would suggest that the most outspoken critics of oil drilling set the example for the rest of us. Use only public transportation, or at least carpool. Lower your thermostat to 65 degrees ( but you can't wear polyester sweaters !). Stop using the products derived from oil.
Unless and until we are all willing to take such measures, there is no point in opposing oil development. The oil companies are simply doing what we want them to do.
3
I believe the opposite is true: we are doing what the oil companies (and other transnational corporations) want us to do. How many real choices do we have? If we don't go "off the grid", get rid of our cars (most of us do not have "public transportation" as an option), don't consume anything containing plastic/petroleum products, etc., yet still participate in "society" (have jobs, send our kids to public schools, pay taxes, etc.), there are really very few options. WE are not the problem, it's the transnational corporations that care nothing for consumers, but only for ROI. They control most of the media, food production and distribution, and control and exploitation of the planet's natural resources, which they extract freely, but sell to us at fantastic profits. We no longer live in a "representative republic", but rather a corporate "security state", with all three branches of our government owned by the corporate and banking oligarchy.
There's much more, but.......
There's much more, but.......
All the talks of vigorous safety standards is cold comfort, if at all. All it takes is one oversight, one accident, one major oil spill to ruin the area. It's one more reasons why I'm edged towards renewables like solar and battery storage. Apparently, to expect Washington to do the right thing and not kowtow to Big Oil and other Big Biz is too much to ask for.
8
This and the NYT's recent article on two previous near-disastrous attempts by Shell to float huge drilling rigs into north Alaskan waters only underscores the climatic instability of the region along with an obvious lack of preparedness of the oil industry to cope with it. How on earth does Shell think they can avoid environmental catastrophe on a scale that will dwarf the Valdez tragedy (an accident from which the Alaskan coastline has still not recovered)? A well head blow-out of a similar nature to BP's accident in the Gulf might NEVER be capped. Our ocean ecosphere, already threatened by climate change, is being assaulted from all quarters - by overfishing, agricultural run-off, industrial litter and pollution, radioactive contamination, and oil spills from shipping accidents and well-head blowouts. When its ability to sustain or recover from all of these man-made insults reaches a certain limit, a cascade of events may well take place that will be shocking in its suddenness and reach, giving humanity barely enough time to reflect on its own greed and stupidity before heading for a rather undignified extinction.
9
For Obama, drilling for energy is no longer an environmental issue. As the Middle East is collapsing under the weigh of dictators, drilling is now synonymous with national security. Sadly, if we don't go to these desolate places, China will. And everyone knows about how environmental the Chinese are.
Obama again acts in direct opposition to hard science, this is an outrage!
What sad irony in so many ways, Obama awarded Warren M. Washington an important honor for his pioneering science in atmospheric research, climate modeling, and climate change. Washington works to expand awareness on the climate and advocates for a green energy policy.
Warren M. Washington is an black American atmospheric scientist, a former chair of the National Science Board, and currently senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado
What sad irony in so many ways, Obama awarded Warren M. Washington an important honor for his pioneering science in atmospheric research, climate modeling, and climate change. Washington works to expand awareness on the climate and advocates for a green energy policy.
Warren M. Washington is an black American atmospheric scientist, a former chair of the National Science Board, and currently senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado
1
The President needs to explain his decision , in the current environment it makes no sense, that's not how you fight climate change.
The Artic Region is the air-conditioning system for the planet. If you destroy this ecosystem, humans can place their heads between their legs and kiss their planet good-bye.
The Artic Region is the air-conditioning system for the planet. If you destroy this ecosystem, humans can place their heads between their legs and kiss their planet good-bye.
4
The elephant in the room is "Why?" What could be the motive behind such a decision for a President with no more campaigns to fight, no more fundraising to drive. My guess is to follow the money. What post-presidential boards will Obama sit on, what "foundations" will he work for? It's a nasty business on the part of a man who decried the revolving door between government and private enterprise.
5
With domestic oil production of one form or another at an all time high, "Drill, Baby, Drill," the Republican chant from the 2008 national convention, has been embraced by our current president.
4
I am getting more and more concerned about President Obama's decisions. Maybe playing golf with the 'Extreme Rich' in causing some of these bad decisions? This planet is all we have. Why destroy it with these bad decisions. You should be using your power to do the right thing for the people of the US and the world (were all in this whether we like it or not) and the planet. And I door belled and gave money for his two elections. maybe I should have done something else with my time and money $$$?
2
Clar, this "site" was sold to Shell by Bush 2.
It's the way our political system works... Stuff like keystone pipeline , fracking regs , refinery air quality are mere annoyances to big petro , what really matters is vast new supply in places like Arctic opened for business...bottom line, unlimited oil at reasonable price is really all the American people care about... heavy irony that climate change melts arctic ice provoking more drilling and oil consumption and more long term CO2 emissions that melt more ice... Hey eventually flooded out Floridians can move to Greenland when arctic real estate comes online . Walruses, polar bears ... Phooey !
5
This is a stupid decision, paid for by big oil.
6
Two main points here - first, this is a *conditional* approval, associated with tighter regulations. The drilling may never happen, if the permits are never issued. Second, since when are voters entitled to expect 100% agreement with a President? I am an ardent supporter of President Obama. While this decision is disappointing to me, it in no way overshadows all the positive efforts he is doing regarding the environment and CO2 emissions. And, when you take a long, hard look at the alternative GOP stances, handing over policy purely to oil and gas interests, I still stand with President Obama and Democrats! We cannot let the absolute, perfect expectations of environmentalists be the enemy of the good environmental progress we have seen under Democratic administrations, relative to the GOP alternative. We can express our disappointment, keep working on our issues, without walking away from the political party that best (not always completely) represents our interests.
Guess Obama doesn't care what kind of world he leaves to his daughters or our kids.
5
It took BP 87 days to cap the Deepwater Horizon well. And that was in a locale with a hospitable climate and cleanup resources comparatively nearby. How would that same scenario play out in one of the harshest climates on the planet where help is hundreds of miles away? It would be literally an unmitigated disaster. And this is with a company that has already run two rigs aground before they even got started.
I think the primary factor enabling this folly is simply ‘out of sight, out of mind.’ The Beaufort Sea isn’t the Gulf of Mexico and beachgoing vacationers aren’t going to see globs of oil on the sand when a spill fouls the Arctic. If there were similar deep sea oil and gas reserves off the east or west coast of the Lower 48 this proposal would be a non-starter.
I think the primary factor enabling this folly is simply ‘out of sight, out of mind.’ The Beaufort Sea isn’t the Gulf of Mexico and beachgoing vacationers aren’t going to see globs of oil on the sand when a spill fouls the Arctic. If there were similar deep sea oil and gas reserves off the east or west coast of the Lower 48 this proposal would be a non-starter.
4
I'm losing count of the number of times Obama, for whom I voted to become then remain president, has disappointed me.
19
Jim, don't be too hard on yourself. Obama fooled his entire constituency.
10
Jim and Paul: You said it for me..
1
After seeing Coral Davenport on PBS describe the area, I am doubly apprehensive. Someday we will ask how such a pristine region could have been put in harm's way.
5
This is absolutely horrifying. We know that burning fossil fuels, Oil & Coal, is killing the Planet, and thus ourselves. We know what happened happened to Alaskan Coast when the Exxon Valdize came apart. We know what happened in the Gulf of Mexico when the BP Rig blew up. NONE of those spills have been satisfactorily "cleaned up", nor could they ever be.
And now, this ?? And, after Shell's Arctic Offshore Drilling Rig washed ashore last year ??? As an American, I am appalled AND exhausted by a Government that likes to talk "Green", but definitely acts in the name of "Greed".
And who benefits from offshore drilling in the Arctic ? One more time, Big Oil goes to the head of the line, while the huge body of evidence against offshore drilling gets swept under the rug.
We need even more informed Citizens marching against this completely criminal activity. Waiting for a "decision" on Keystone XL seems moot, at this point. And, to think that most of us voted for this "Green" President.
Hang in there, People, and hang tough. What is left of this Planet is far too beautiful to be ruined in the name of greed, pillage, and obscene profit.
And now, this ?? And, after Shell's Arctic Offshore Drilling Rig washed ashore last year ??? As an American, I am appalled AND exhausted by a Government that likes to talk "Green", but definitely acts in the name of "Greed".
And who benefits from offshore drilling in the Arctic ? One more time, Big Oil goes to the head of the line, while the huge body of evidence against offshore drilling gets swept under the rug.
We need even more informed Citizens marching against this completely criminal activity. Waiting for a "decision" on Keystone XL seems moot, at this point. And, to think that most of us voted for this "Green" President.
Hang in there, People, and hang tough. What is left of this Planet is far too beautiful to be ruined in the name of greed, pillage, and obscene profit.
13
Wildlife is still suffering environmental effects from the 2010 BP disaster in the gulf of Mexico.
in order to avoid catastrophic effects from climate change (flooding of major cities and agricultural land, species extinction, the spread of disease, food and water shortages affecting millions of people, refugees, global social disorder, war) of ever-increasing severity in the coming century, we must leave most of our known oil reserves in the ground and start leveling off and then decreasing our greenhouse gas emission now.
If we want true energy independence, then we should be finding ways to reduce our dependence on oil and gas, not allowing oil companies to drill in the Arctic with foreseeable really bad results.
in order to avoid catastrophic effects from climate change (flooding of major cities and agricultural land, species extinction, the spread of disease, food and water shortages affecting millions of people, refugees, global social disorder, war) of ever-increasing severity in the coming century, we must leave most of our known oil reserves in the ground and start leveling off and then decreasing our greenhouse gas emission now.
If we want true energy independence, then we should be finding ways to reduce our dependence on oil and gas, not allowing oil companies to drill in the Arctic with foreseeable really bad results.
6
Obama is a city guy who fails to have feelings for the wilderness. He once signed legislation to allow guns into OUR national parks.
3
NY Times readers are a curious bunch: on the one hand, they are enjoying everything the modern society has to offer (by consuming a lot of energy by the way). On the other, they are against all sorts to efforts to improve human lives. Drilling oil is the necessary evil, just like the industrialization of agriculture. It brings prosperity and better life quality. The government's job is to regulate, what's more important is to ensure lowered consumption, not production of energy.
3
My sentiments exactly. Big Oil is such an easy target for Times Bloggers to vent their collective wrath upon as they pull into the local Shell station to fill up their tanks again. I doubt if even the most ecology minded blogger is going to surrender his or her car any time soon.
You are correct in some ways, K.H., but not everything new or sold under the guise of "progress" actually improves human lives. Things are more complex than that.
I am sorely disappointed but not surprised...Obama did this with the nuclear energy generators, first taking a stance opposed, then taking money from them for his campaign, then turning his stance 180 degrees and supporting them. His approval of off shore drilling off the East Coast similarly caves to the energy industry's demands. In my mind, energy policy was one of the drawbacks to Obama when he was first up for election, so I expect this of him. More environmentally friendly than George W Bush in some respects (aside from clean air) but a disappointment in many policy areas, where his compromises do not support a healthy planet for the next generation.
7
The decision the Obama administration made to allow Shell to start drilling for gas and oil in the Arctic only exposes just how hypocritical Obama really is. Why all the long faces? Are the commenters disappointed to discover Obama isn't perfect and all that big talk about hope and change is nothing but a sham? Obama was never an environmentalist--he just pretended to be one in exchange for votes. However, the unlikely winner emerging from this about face regarding drilling is Sarah Palin. I remember how Sarah Palin was mercilessly ridiculed by the holier than thou crowd when she led the Republican faithful at the 2008 GOP convention chanting "Drill Baby Drill." Now Obama has adopted "Drill Baby Drill" as his motto by deciding to give Shell permission to drill for fossil fuels in the Arctic. Don't pretend to be noble by denouncing this decision--Americans have a love affair with the internal combustion engine and there's no way anyone is giving up their car anytime soon. Somewhere in Wasilla, Alaska Sara Palin is laughing her head off knowing she's been vindicated at last.
8
Beautiful summary of facts.
Unfortunately, it seems our president is just as much a corporate (and big banks) tool as his predecessor. He makes vague statements about "working on climate change", but when it comes down to it he caves to the desires of transnational corporations, especially Big Oil) without fail (witness his tone-deaf advocacy of the TPP).
"Hoping for change" is just an empty wish by his (former) supporters.
There can be no change when a corporate and banking oligarchy has purchased our government.
"Hoping for change" is just an empty wish by his (former) supporters.
There can be no change when a corporate and banking oligarchy has purchased our government.
19
Dear President Obama, Yet ANOTHER disappointing decision from you that will adversely affect the fragile environment of the Arctic for decades and perhaps beyond. We do not need to go after this oil. We DO need to ramp up alternative, renewal sources of energy. The taxpayers are STILL subsidizing the oil industry and paying through the nose at the pump. You promised to end this use of taxpayer dollars and have not done it. WHY? We demand development of renewable resources NOW. Almost every other developed country is decades ahead of us in this regard. STOP subsidizing wasteful use of precious wild resources to satisfy the oil industry as well as the gas engine auto and truck industries.
29
@Paula,
I agree with you completely and your heart is in the right place- and President Obama, apart from ACA, which will become a footnote to his legacy, does not have a record of fighting for the little guy. He has always stood firmly with capital and protected them from justice. Who did he help in the 2008 meltdown? People swept away in the monthly hemorrhaging of jobs, losing their homes to foreclosures, depleted savings and retirement accounts? He nursed Capital back to health while turning his back on the working class. Despite his primary campaign rhetoric, he continued the Bush-Cheney wars of aggression on steroids, refused to hold anyone responsible for torture and authorized the blatantly illegal NSA domestic spying program. Now that the circuit court of appeals unanimously declared the NSA’s domestic spying illegal have we heard any word of pardoning the super patriot, Edward Snowden? Hang him high for violating his employment contract- a crime of passion- to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. History will not judge Obama favorably.
I agree with you completely and your heart is in the right place- and President Obama, apart from ACA, which will become a footnote to his legacy, does not have a record of fighting for the little guy. He has always stood firmly with capital and protected them from justice. Who did he help in the 2008 meltdown? People swept away in the monthly hemorrhaging of jobs, losing their homes to foreclosures, depleted savings and retirement accounts? He nursed Capital back to health while turning his back on the working class. Despite his primary campaign rhetoric, he continued the Bush-Cheney wars of aggression on steroids, refused to hold anyone responsible for torture and authorized the blatantly illegal NSA domestic spying program. Now that the circuit court of appeals unanimously declared the NSA’s domestic spying illegal have we heard any word of pardoning the super patriot, Edward Snowden? Hang him high for violating his employment contract- a crime of passion- to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. History will not judge Obama favorably.
4
I just *love* when I read all these whiny people about energy production. These same people fly in planes, drive their cars, heat their homes, power their internet so they comment on this NY Times article - and where do they think all that energy comes from? 36% is oil (OH - BUT NO MORE DRILLING ANYWHERE!). 27% is gas (OH - BUT NO MORE FRACKING ANYWHERE!). 18% is coal (OH - BUT NO MORE DIGGING ANYWHERE!). 8% is nuclear (OH - TOO DANGEROUS!). That's 89% of total energy usage in the U.S. Everything else added together - biomass, hydroelectric, wind, solar, and geothermal - is the other total 11%. Maybe the people whining and complain on this thread should just cut there own energy consumption by the offending 89% - and use 'clean' energy to produce the balance. Then there would be no more problems.
2
The idea is to CHANGE those proportions, so 'clean' energy gradually accounts for more and more of the nation's output over time. Where do you get the impression that those statistics are static, and thus that we must continue to depend on fossil fuel for energy needs in the future? The high-minded and sarcastic tone of your comment implies that you've pointed out some logical contradiction, when, in fact, you haven't.
Here's another idea from a 'whiner': we could ask our government to invest massively in renewables so that 89% proportion goes down--fast, while there's still time--instead of committing species suicide by bringing on the climate disaster. And don't kid yourself, it's coming, no matter how deeply in denial you may be.
I just pulled the Obama bumpersticker off my car (which I drive rarely, by the way, finding biking a solution to most of my transportation needs). I'm embarrassed to keep the sticker on after the President's actions on TPP and Shell's Arctic drilling. Other actions I'm taking: donating to Bernie Sanders campaign and participating in the Seattle protests this weekend. I've given up on trying to work within a broken system; it's time to take populist, nonviolent protest to the streets and to the seas.
13
While I do not support resource extraction in this fragile ecosystem and would prefer seeing further development of renewable, non-polluting energy sources, what is the possibility that Republicans will support, if not applaud, this decision by the Obama Administration, or will they just find something else to criticize the President for?
1
After so many years we are still left with the same question. Who is Obama? Does anyone have any idea what this man actually believes about anything?
5
What's become fairly clear is:
1. He's a poor negotiator.
2. He never fails to protect large transnational corporations from those that would oppose any of their objectives.
3. He has refused to exact any meaningful reforms from Wall Street/Big Banking when he had the "golden opportunity".
4. Either his grasp of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is mind-numbingly weak, or he sides with those who would dismantle their freedoms and protections.
1. He's a poor negotiator.
2. He never fails to protect large transnational corporations from those that would oppose any of their objectives.
3. He has refused to exact any meaningful reforms from Wall Street/Big Banking when he had the "golden opportunity".
4. Either his grasp of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is mind-numbingly weak, or he sides with those who would dismantle their freedoms and protections.
Without a lot of data points, I wonder if this decision by the Obama Administration has been forced somewhat by the concern that The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming, to Arctic oil and gas exploration.
The felt need to raise the flag could easily trump environmental concerns.
The felt need to raise the flag could easily trump environmental concerns.
3
WHY? Ration Gas already -- sorry you can't just do whatever you want to do -- go whereever you want to go whenever.
Imagine what our balance of trade deficit would be if we didn't need to export our cash for their oil and we kept all of that money in America in American pockets.
Drill away!
Drill away!
1
Yes... we need oil independence, and towards that end, President Obama is one of the best Republican presidents we've ever had.
But we will have oil spills, probably big ones, in the Arctic. Wishes will not prevent human error.
Now can we please start talking about replacing oil as an energy source? I know climate deniers like to come here and make fun of liberals, but the fact remains that this country needs to join the rest of the world in planning intelligently about retiring oil and moving to a renewable energy sources. When?
But we will have oil spills, probably big ones, in the Arctic. Wishes will not prevent human error.
Now can we please start talking about replacing oil as an energy source? I know climate deniers like to come here and make fun of liberals, but the fact remains that this country needs to join the rest of the world in planning intelligently about retiring oil and moving to a renewable energy sources. When?
6
Everything is not awesome. Cue the oil-drenched LEGO / Shell commercial.
What this outrageous decision shows -- once again, for those willing to confront the hard truth -- is that under the existing economic-political system (capitalism), the competitive drive for profits among blocs of capital, and the competitive drive for strategic position among great powers, will trump the needs of the environment (and humanity) every time.
That is true irrespective of who you elect, what speeches they give, what promises they make, or even whatever their inner intentions and feelings are. The immediate necessity to beat out your competitors, to grab before they do, is -- and must be -- more urgent to the custodians of this system than the long term, or even the medium term threat to the planet.
Want a different outcome? You need a different system.
That is true irrespective of who you elect, what speeches they give, what promises they make, or even whatever their inner intentions and feelings are. The immediate necessity to beat out your competitors, to grab before they do, is -- and must be -- more urgent to the custodians of this system than the long term, or even the medium term threat to the planet.
Want a different outcome? You need a different system.
1
So this is a "balanced" approach to climate change? Kinda like trying to put out a wildfire by dumping water and gasoline on it at the same time.
2
Well, what would one expect from a Republican Lite? Conservation?
There is no "conserve" in conservative...
There is no "conserve" in conservative...
2
Why is he doing this? He doesn't need Big Oil's money for his next campaign. There won't be one; he's a lame duck. Nor can it be a payoff for Shell's past support. There wasn't any (not that we know of, that is). Did Hillary ask him to do it so she can get Shell's money? If so, there'll be more Deep Sea dissters on the Horizon. No matter who wins in 2016.
President Disappointment. That, I think, will be his legacy.
President Disappointment. That, I think, will be his legacy.
4
I'm not happy with this 'conditional' approval but, no, it does not mean the two political parties are indistinguishable or across the board interchangeable. Not by a long shot. Suggesting that is as big a mistake as approving arctic drilling. Well, almost.
I understand that any president has to tread somewhat of a middle ground in a variety of areas, but I am deeply disappointed in Obama's stance on this issue. He has done a lot of good environmentally, but the potential hazards of this decision are monumental and terrifying. Shame on you Mr. President.
4
What a crying shame. If Obama will allow this to happen, God only knows what's in store for us in his fast track trade agreement. I am so bitterly disappointed in him. We will soon witness one stupid, heartbreaking disaster after another in the arctic and more environmental and financial disasters due to this bogus trade agreement.
6
What could possibly go wrong? I have always argued that this president is more republican than liberal but the racists still spew their hatred. I wonder if Fox News will excoriate him over this?
2
Any idea what it takes to grow the most simple plant in an ecosystem as harsh as the Arctic? How about a polar bear with its traditional ice-covered trails dwindling? It's a house of cards, and it's about to collapse with a stroke of a pen in Washington.
Wasn't POTUS saying virtuous things about the environment on Earth Day, just one month ago, in the Florida Everglades? Guess he was just pandering to his base and he had a different type of "green" on his mind.
Wasn't POTUS saying virtuous things about the environment on Earth Day, just one month ago, in the Florida Everglades? Guess he was just pandering to his base and he had a different type of "green" on his mind.
5
Well Gee if they meet the requirements they should have permission. Simple!!!
This "carefully thought out decision" is like sending a 3 year old child walking into a busy intersection and hoping for the best.
If we want to prevent catastrophic global warming most oil reserves can never be extracted. We shouldn't drill in the most environmentally dangerous places.
1
Yes, this administration is absolutely unwaveringly dedicated to protecting the American Worker and the Environment, to the extent that this protection does no harm to the Large Multinational Corporation, that is.
The lines must be drawn somewhere people, and this administration draws them straight across the American Public, in a Big X.
Just wait until the Republicans gain full control in 2016—the party is really on then!
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
The lines must be drawn somewhere people, and this administration draws them straight across the American Public, in a Big X.
Just wait until the Republicans gain full control in 2016—the party is really on then!
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
I guess oil isn't cheap enough. I guess this will bring 10s of thousands of good-paying jobs. I guess alternative energy is a pipe dream. I guess this is how we break our dependence on mid-east oil... Hey maybe this is why the Saudi king snubbed Obama? Ah big business ... keep crapping all over the biosphere for the good of your shareholders...such an ethic... Where is the cool logic in all of this President Obama? What did you get for giving into this big oil interest?
3
I think this is a terrible decision.
6
Has the President lost his mind? Drilling to be allowed in the Arctic Ocean? It's not safe, nor will it ever be! This now becomes a horrible accident waiting to happen!! Shell's track record is a dismal failure and this move would only compound that failure. Does anyone in authority care about our fragile environment?? Apparently not - disgusting!!
6
One thing can be counted on. There will be an accident. I don't know how or when, but it will happen. Everybody will be wringing their hands and making accusations of criminal behavior. The damage will be extensive and probably irreversible.
5
Well, why not? We have gas-hogs to feed and feed 'em we will, whatever the price in wars and damage to the air, water, and earth.
In my town in IN (replete with SUV’s and p/u trucks), we pour concrete and lay asphalt over every piece of wild land in order to build retail, fast food outlets, apartments, and office complexes. All will "steal" business and residents from downtown Indianapolis.
This is progress that will provide my town with more tax revenue. It will also create a desolate city-scape in Indianapolis, requiring taxes from the suburbs, like mine. Who says we don't think ahead...or at all?
In my town in IN (replete with SUV’s and p/u trucks), we pour concrete and lay asphalt over every piece of wild land in order to build retail, fast food outlets, apartments, and office complexes. All will "steal" business and residents from downtown Indianapolis.
This is progress that will provide my town with more tax revenue. It will also create a desolate city-scape in Indianapolis, requiring taxes from the suburbs, like mine. Who says we don't think ahead...or at all?
1
Shell has few resources to commit to this drilling site. If a spill does occur, even a small spill, "clean up" will not be done. Clean up, even with unlimited resources, would not be effective. This drilling signals the end of Arctic abundance. What a shame and waste of our natural fisheries!
3
I'm no economist, public policy expert, or lawyer, but if this isn't the best proof yet that our politicians are puppets of corporate interests, then what is?
8
Mr. President, if I had wanted the Arctic opened for drilling I would have voted for McCain/Palin. You have turned out to be a cynical turncoat and hypocrite and the worst Democrat ever to sit in the Oval Office.
4
For those of you who still believe the propaganda that our open-ended pre-emptive wars of aggression in the Muslim world is all about protecting the homeland from terrorist attacks- now do you get it? Our mighty military machine is the security and enforcement arm of corporate America.
Are the rumors true that when President Obama leaves office he will serve on the board of directors of Shell Oil, BP Plc, and ExxonMobil?
I’m holding my breath: Just 546 days, 6 hours and 19 seconds until the next presidential election- not that I’m counting.
http://www.270towin.com/2016-countdown-clock/
Are the rumors true that when President Obama leaves office he will serve on the board of directors of Shell Oil, BP Plc, and ExxonMobil?
I’m holding my breath: Just 546 days, 6 hours and 19 seconds until the next presidential election- not that I’m counting.
http://www.270towin.com/2016-countdown-clock/
4
The Arctic Ocean is about as far away from the Middle East as you can get. You really need to look at a map.
and your point is?
The idea that the Obama administration is letting oil companies into one of the most important fisheries in the world for a couple of generations of energy at best, which can be produced from other sources and at a time of such low great supply, is ridiculous, foolhardy, and treasonous.
98
There was a time when the navy of all nations was tied in to coal. It was paramount to maximize access to coal and locate depot filling stations across the globe. Then Winston Churchill led the charge to switch from coal to oil and everyone followed suit. Now the lifeblood of our might military machine is oil- without which our military machine would grind to a sudden halt. The current supply level of oil is irrelevant. Getting all you can while the finite resource is still available and is still the primary lifeblood of bullying the world also reduces the supply available to nascent growing super power rivals like China.
Hope Obama and Interior made the approval contingent upon Shell's posting a $10 billion bond, and due to the location's remoteness and weather, mandating the building and manning a first responder operation, which can adequately control any and all potentially conceivable emergencies. If not, he's not the sharpest too in the shed, notwithstanding his academic credentials and lack of common sense.
19
Extremely bad decision. We need to curb oil production; not increase it. Burning of fossil fuels is worse for our environment than nuclear power by a landslide. The damage from burning gas and oil is far, far worse than the risk of disposing of nuclear waste in an underground facility.
We are destroying the verdant planet we live on by burning gas and oil.
We are destroying the verdant planet we live on by burning gas and oil.
6
Why can't the Obama Administration consider the Arctic Ocean as it does the National Parks such as Yosemite or Yellow Stone? Would Obama allow the major oil companies to go drill for oil in these exceptional places and perhaps damage their natural beauty? I think not. Besides, we all learned as kids that the Arctic is the word's fresh water reservoir and with nearly 10 billion human beings on Earth needing to tap that source of drinking water, it would be immoral for our President to allow the oil companies to endanger this world treasure.
7
The parks are one thing, but the Arctic could change the balance of life as we know it. This is disasterous
This just reported in the Wall Street Journal:
"WASHINGTON—The Interior Department on Friday proposed the first-ever federal regulations for oil and natural-gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean requiring companies to prepare extensive contingency plans that could swiftly respond to and contain an oil spill in the region’s frigid, isolated waters."
"Prepare extensive contingency plans that can swiftly respond...region's frigid isolated waters." Look at what happened in the warm sunny Gulf of Mexico with an oil platform explosion! Now they have a "window" of perhaps May through July to "swiftly respond?" And what if they don't respond? Then what? A $250,000 fine? Or nothing--look at what Governor Christie did with Exxon's nine billion dollar case...REDUCED it on his own.
What legislator (besides Bernie Sanders) would vote against this behemoth called the oil industry?
Save our planet: Sanders/ Warren 2016 and vote OUT the GOP now. Our earth depends on it! In the meantime some brave kayakers are braving wintry conditions to keep Shell from bringing its oil tankers and other ships into Seattle harbor.
Isn't anyone else upset? Or is "deflategate" more important than our mother earth. We are such WIMPS! 41 years of "Earth Day." Crap.
"WASHINGTON—The Interior Department on Friday proposed the first-ever federal regulations for oil and natural-gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean requiring companies to prepare extensive contingency plans that could swiftly respond to and contain an oil spill in the region’s frigid, isolated waters."
"Prepare extensive contingency plans that can swiftly respond...region's frigid isolated waters." Look at what happened in the warm sunny Gulf of Mexico with an oil platform explosion! Now they have a "window" of perhaps May through July to "swiftly respond?" And what if they don't respond? Then what? A $250,000 fine? Or nothing--look at what Governor Christie did with Exxon's nine billion dollar case...REDUCED it on his own.
What legislator (besides Bernie Sanders) would vote against this behemoth called the oil industry?
Save our planet: Sanders/ Warren 2016 and vote OUT the GOP now. Our earth depends on it! In the meantime some brave kayakers are braving wintry conditions to keep Shell from bringing its oil tankers and other ships into Seattle harbor.
Isn't anyone else upset? Or is "deflategate" more important than our mother earth. We are such WIMPS! 41 years of "Earth Day." Crap.
12
Yes. I am extremely upset. This is a major move against the planet and its creatures. What is Obama thinking? Could lawsuits stop this?
There are over six thousand primary products used from petroleum that keep this country and all modern civilization going. If those that consider themselves environmentalists knew a fraction of what they are talking about, it would be significant. As it is, most of the screeds one reads seem to be stop this, stop that, etc. and always put GAIA ahead of anything man does. Kind of like fracuoppiers want CA to stop all HF, but when the Governor points out 380 billions miles were driven last year alone in CA and 98% of the energy to make that possible came from petroleum...they look dumbfounded. When it is pointed out all wars last century had blood and oil in them, there is that dumb look again. Maybe when the protestors decide to not use asphalt roads, most clothing they now wear, pharmaceuticals they take, rubber tires of all types, lipstick, fertilizers, ride trains, buses, airplanes, inks, solvents, cosmetics, app plastics, skis, surfboards, nylon rope, shampoo, heart valves, anesthetics, cold creams, refrigerators football helmets, gasoline, paint, aspirin and the list goes on and on...they will at least show that they do understand somewhat their subject of protest and not just repeating inanity. The true evil on this planet are activists like Bill McKibben, Steyer, Larry Rockefeller, Teresa Heinz, the Tides Group, NRDC, CBD, and a long list of agenda driven puppet masters desiring to eliminate cheap energy, cheap water, cheap food and cheap commerce.
5
great idea…keep products cheap until there is no clean air or water…brilliant!
You apparently have never heard of NEEM(pesticide/fertilizer) from the Neem tree. You apparently have never heard of all plant based organic shampoo, lotions, creams, and DANG....even shampoo. This is a hyperbolic "SCREED," if one has ever heard one. AS IF any environmentalist doesn't know about the oil/war link. "The true evil,".....thanks for setting us straight. Your phone just rang....Shell Oil calling.
The US could cut 50% of the oil it uses on personal transportation while losing perhaps 1-2% of the current functionality of its personal transportation system. There are plenty of other ways to live that don't require using fossil fuels so intensively. I recently bought a medicine cabinet that came from China, 8000 miles away. It could have been built 5 miles away from lumber that came 100 mile away from that. If fossil fuels were scarce and expensive, life would go on. Living and production and consumption patterns would differ. We don't have the only living and productions system that is possible; we have the one that cheap energy makes possible. Expensive energy would drive reuse such that perhaps 1/2 of industrial production could be eliminated.
Obama the liberal, my eye!
6
Consider the alternatives and work harder for campaign finance control.
1
No Polar, Go Solar! The energy industries would be best served investing in solar and wind. Change the tax incentives to favor alternative energy sources, and see which way the wind blows then!
9
As one of the demonstrators in the march shown in the photo, I am outraged both at President Obama, and the New York Times for printing this article, which doesn't even mention the primary reason many of us are protesting, namely the effect the burning the vast quantity of Arctic oil on climate change. The scientific consensus is that this will make it impossible for global warming to be kept to 2 degrees C.
12
Why do we have to drill oil from a virgin, pristine Chukchi Sea when the oil prices have hit rock bottom? After careful consideration and establishing high standards! Yeah Right! Have'nt we heard that one before. And how many spills have we had from which the affected eco-systems still trying to recover? Safety standards were in place then too.Oops! Sorry! That was an accident! We will settle with you, the Government for couple of billions which you could use towards the clean-up and maybe recompense people with a couple of thousands for their lost livelihood, destroyed life, forget about the lost flora and fauna. Once again " BIG" wins. Rigorous Standards - monitored by whom? The oil companies themselves? The fox protecting the hen coop!
12
In the real world, this might be the lesser of the evils. If the Obama administration denies Shell’s drilling rights, it will likely postpone the inevitable. A Republican president will certainly give the green light with far fewer safety/environmental requirements.
3
The more reason not to vote Republican.
No! Shell has ruined every sea it has ever drilled in. People of the UK riot at Shell regularly for it's practices. Nigeria, Angola, Malasia. Ruined people's land forever. No compensation- They've done enough in Alaska already. Use the Norwegian company which has never fowled the seas if we must. We have no control of Shell. As we have none with BP. Even with EXXON they just ruin lives as they did in Alaska and don't pay. Earth is getting hotter .1/3 Alaska is tundra melting methane. Let them try to capture that.
19
It seems like a fait accompli that some country will be responsible for the next fossil fuel drilling disaster akin to BP in the Gulf of Mexico or worse.
Given the unknown risks of Arctic drilling, assurances of "...rigorous safety standards" is very cold comfort indeed.
Given the unknown risks of Arctic drilling, assurances of "...rigorous safety standards" is very cold comfort indeed.
6
I'd like to take this opportunity to say goodbye.
7
I am opposed to this decision. That being said, I want to see a show of hands from every single one of the "sky is falling" commentators here on the exact steps they took since this decision was announced as to how they will immediately be reducing their own dependence on fossil fuels.
Did you turn an ignition key today? Did you heat your home this winter using oil? Did you buy groceries that were delivered to your local store by diesel-burning trucks? Put up or shut up. (For the record, I rode my bike eight miles to work this morning but my wife drove our car to work. )
Did you turn an ignition key today? Did you heat your home this winter using oil? Did you buy groceries that were delivered to your local store by diesel-burning trucks? Put up or shut up. (For the record, I rode my bike eight miles to work this morning but my wife drove our car to work. )
8
Dear Robert,
Sure, what I do is, I don't own a car, I walk for my commute every day, I rarely even take public transportation. I turn off all the lights when I leave the house, I only use the ones I need when I need them. I recycle everything that gets recycled in NYC; paper, cardboard, jars, metal, electronics, etc.. I buy groceries that get delivered by gasoline-burning trucks but I have absolutely no choice in the matter, it's impossible to forage in NYC. I haven't had kids to burden the planet further, nor do I intend to.
But that doesn't matter too much because individuals can do nothing about the real environmental damage being done. Add up all the energy I've consumed in 44 years of life, and it comes to the amount our military consumes in less than one second. Energy saving has to be done at the macro scale then working down to the individual, having all citizens doing their best would be a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be done.
And all we really have to do is develop non-fossil-fuel energy, which is quite possible, and that will take Republicans being completely powerless.
Sure, what I do is, I don't own a car, I walk for my commute every day, I rarely even take public transportation. I turn off all the lights when I leave the house, I only use the ones I need when I need them. I recycle everything that gets recycled in NYC; paper, cardboard, jars, metal, electronics, etc.. I buy groceries that get delivered by gasoline-burning trucks but I have absolutely no choice in the matter, it's impossible to forage in NYC. I haven't had kids to burden the planet further, nor do I intend to.
But that doesn't matter too much because individuals can do nothing about the real environmental damage being done. Add up all the energy I've consumed in 44 years of life, and it comes to the amount our military consumes in less than one second. Energy saving has to be done at the macro scale then working down to the individual, having all citizens doing their best would be a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be done.
And all we really have to do is develop non-fossil-fuel energy, which is quite possible, and that will take Republicans being completely powerless.
If I can afford to buy a hybrid car, that will be my contribution in reducing my dependence on fossil fuel. As for heating fuel for my home I am nowhere near the power of Energy companies like Duke, who will do anything to keep using coal to maximize their profit. As for riding a bike to work, there are no bike lanes from my house to my job destination, too risky. But I applaud you for your effort, but I would rather go further than just condemning those that cannot instantly contribute to saving our planet.
96% efficient boiler. 50+ mpg car. Live in area where primary means of transport is foot or bike or public. Buy locally as much as possible. Often go without due to excessive transport distance for various goods.
I would like to see an expose detailing all possible connections that the Department of the Interior has with Shell Oil (not to mention the State Department). NYtimes, a "follow-the-money" piece in regard to U.S. government approval of dangerous (and at times catastrophic) off-shore drilling projects is long overdue. Possible working title - "Shills for Shell"
13
Good idea, only such an expose might run longer than _War and Peace_.
Dangerous and stupid.
Just like the Trans Pacific Partnership which Mr. Obama and those around him is working to sign into law without americans knowing what is in it....
nafta on steroids, open borders, and the subversion of US law to transnational corporations.
Just like the Trans Pacific Partnership which Mr. Obama and those around him is working to sign into law without americans knowing what is in it....
nafta on steroids, open borders, and the subversion of US law to transnational corporations.
20
this the real Obama he doesn't have to answer to the American people (not that he ever did)it is over for him,he has nothing to gain or lose.
7 years & counting.
7 years & counting.
Don't forget to tell your kids, say goodbye to the polar bears, maybe take some pictures which will last longer, and let their kids see what we've lost.
17
President Obama on the BP disaster: "But a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk. After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean -- because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water. For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we’ve talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked -- not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor. The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America..." For full text, please see https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-nation-bp-...
11
I would like a refund of the money i donated to obama's 08 election campaign. Outright.lies/misrepresentation to get my donation. At least bush told the truth…he said outright: vote for me and i'll pander to the oil companies and trash the planet. Obama lied, then acts just like bush
The US has more oil than any other country in the world. It's just been cheaper to buy it elsewhere. For example, the Bakken shale in North Dakota has nearly 20 billion barrels of oil. The US has more oil and natural gas then we know what to do with. But, the tree-hugger alarmists like Gore hired a sympathetic media to drown out the facts.
So much for Obama's environmental legacy
44
Even a cursory look at modern history, commencing with the industrial revolution, illustrates that when it comes to development v. environmental protection, the latter very seldom ever wins. And so now it is also true for the Arctic.
Our land, our fresh water and seas, and our air are polluted with substances which we will not or cannot control. First world countries -- now joined enthusiastically by developing ones -- are utterly dedicated to soiling their own and others' nests on Planet Earth in the name of money. What a legacy we're leaving our children and their children.
Our land, our fresh water and seas, and our air are polluted with substances which we will not or cannot control. First world countries -- now joined enthusiastically by developing ones -- are utterly dedicated to soiling their own and others' nests on Planet Earth in the name of money. What a legacy we're leaving our children and their children.
39
It is sad, and infuriating that oil corporations are allowed to rob these pristine, untouched wilderness areas from the people of America. When we truly get a politician who is committed to alternative energy sources? I regret having voted for Obama, but no no doubt Hillary would have done the same thing. And if Hillary is elected she will continue the drilling despite what she may or may not promise during the campaign. It's very depressing.
30
It's all about the $$$$. Besides, if The Rapture is coming soon the future is up in the air anyway. Isn't it?
OPEC, which is swimming in our gas money, (think ski resorts in their deserts, personal 747's, super cars, gold-plated cars, see below), is on the ropes. Maybe this deals them a knockout blow.
Drive a hybrid!
https://www.google.com/search?q=indoor+ski+resort+saudi+arabia&biw=1...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4T2W4nRGe0
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2725175/First-cargo-watch-car-Ar...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxgUaeUj4so
Drive a hybrid!
https://www.google.com/search?q=indoor+ski+resort+saudi+arabia&biw=1...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4T2W4nRGe0
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2725175/First-cargo-watch-car-Ar...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxgUaeUj4so
2
Why now? Don't we have an oil glut?
Why ever? Climate change - fragile territory - poor safety record.
I am so disappointed in Sally Jewell and President Obama. He has needlessly and heedlessly besmirched his climate change and environmental legacy.
Why ever? Climate change - fragile territory - poor safety record.
I am so disappointed in Sally Jewell and President Obama. He has needlessly and heedlessly besmirched his climate change and environmental legacy.
5
In 1995 there was a movie called 'The American President', in that movie the presidential paramour was a lobbyist fighting for urgent climate change legislation. What have we seen since then? Nada. Drill the Arctic, destroy the Arctic, Obama has been such a total disappointment, no wait he is the epitome of the age we live in, nobody has any convictions. Nobody cares about standards, just whether they poll well. I'm so glad I"m old, but at this point in our history, if I had it to do over again I wouldn't have children. I do have children and I'm embarrassed that we are leaving this mess and still muddling around in the Middle East.
8
This is ridiculous! Living in Alaska and seeing 2 Shell rigs disabled, partially crushed, and having to be towed out of the Arctic Ocean due to the normal conditions we have up here. It is absurd to give Shell "conditional approval" for drilling. Everyone wanted to save ANWR - a spill in ANWR would be nothing compared to a spill and clean up needed in the Arctic Ocean. BP has proven that there are not effective clean-up measures for catastrophic spills. No one remembers the Exxon Valdez, either? How many years has the show "Deadliest Catch" been on showing the oceanic conditions up here? What could be better than having the next Presidential dinner or lobbyist brunch with Alaskan King Crab served with a side of warmed Shell Oil? Sounds delicious!
7
Oil! Oil! Oil! For my whole lifetime that three-letter word has caused more of the earth's woes than anything else. And now, when I thought we would not be needing so much of it, Shell will drill in the Arctic. What a sad day for all.
5
Yet another reason to vote for Bernie Sanders.
11
President Obama's mother must be rolling in her grave.
1
I have very deep environmental concerns about Arctic Drilling. However, the President can't just push a button that says Yay or Nay. Permits must be evaluated based on the current law of the land. That is the way our government is supposed to work. The permitting process has been developed over time based on a body of laws conceived and passed by Congress then signed into law by various Presidents. Once laws went into effect, it was up to the Executive Branch to formulate the regulations that govern the permitting process. If Shell did everything required of it under current law then the President and his administration have no choice but to approve the permits. If there is a problem with what the permits authorize then it is up to Congress to pass clarifying laws to correct any apparent shortcomings. Like it or not, Climate Change, brought about in part by extensive use of fossil fuels is causing the ice in the far north to seasonally disappear. Which means a whole range of activities will ensue in the area. We had better think through how to regulate it and control it now. If you are disappointed, let your Congressional representatives and Senators know. Don't just express displeasure with the President. There are limits to what he can do in this matter.
1
Say it isn't so, Mr. President! I supported you through everything; I fought, debated and pledged on your behalf, but drill in the arctic? Why would you debase your legacy with oil when've done so much to help all of us? I believed in you. I still do, but there can't be a balanced response to the oil industry in the face of our terrible carbon toll. Have we forgotten Shell's Kulluk debacle? Deepwater Horizon? EXXON Valdez? Please Mr. President, don't do this.
7
am I too cynical or does this somehow figure in the coming election?
3
While I recognize that our petroleum needs can't be reduced rapidly enough to avoid our temporarily continued dependence on Middle East oil, I have two major problems with allowing drilling, exploratory or otherwise, in the Chukchi Sea region.
First: the Straits are home to some of the worst sea states on the planet, with 40 foot seas being a common occurrence. That makes any sort of drilling operation so high-risk that severe accidents are almost a foregone conclusion. At the very least, such an accident could easily involve loss of human lives and billions in equipment... at worst, we could add a continuous rupture such as was experienced in the Gulf fiasco, with essentially NO hope of being able to cap it.... it would spew oil until the deposit ran out... end of story.
Second: finding another source of oil to reduce our M.E. dependence would simply reduce the urgency of developing alternative energy sources to a scalable level. My cynicism leads me to believe that the LAST thing we should want is to lessen pressure on Congress and the White House. Without a sense of urgency, we can be assured of no meaningful action.
First: the Straits are home to some of the worst sea states on the planet, with 40 foot seas being a common occurrence. That makes any sort of drilling operation so high-risk that severe accidents are almost a foregone conclusion. At the very least, such an accident could easily involve loss of human lives and billions in equipment... at worst, we could add a continuous rupture such as was experienced in the Gulf fiasco, with essentially NO hope of being able to cap it.... it would spew oil until the deposit ran out... end of story.
Second: finding another source of oil to reduce our M.E. dependence would simply reduce the urgency of developing alternative energy sources to a scalable level. My cynicism leads me to believe that the LAST thing we should want is to lessen pressure on Congress and the White House. Without a sense of urgency, we can be assured of no meaningful action.
6
More lack of care for Planet Earth is assuring me that Capitalism shall be the major factor in the extinction of the human species, and a lot of other life forms on this planet.
We have to take more care of our planet, and the habitats that other creatures live in. We have to prevent global climate change, and the first oil spill in the Arctic shall mean more of the frozen north will not freeze again, because the darkness of the oil on the surface will not reflect heat back into space as well as white ice.
It will be too late for all of us when the powers that be and the multi-national corporations realize that there is no Plan(et) B when it comes to our life on Earth.
We have to take more care of our planet, and the habitats that other creatures live in. We have to prevent global climate change, and the first oil spill in the Arctic shall mean more of the frozen north will not freeze again, because the darkness of the oil on the surface will not reflect heat back into space as well as white ice.
It will be too late for all of us when the powers that be and the multi-national corporations realize that there is no Plan(et) B when it comes to our life on Earth.
7
We need to decrease our dependence upon fossil fuels, period. Alaska is perhaps the last frontier. We should all be committed to preserving every last inch of it. We cannot endanger remaining wilderness areas or remaining (are there any?) clean bodies of water and shoreline.
I vote a resounding 'no' on this.
We know from repeated abuses, that industry cannot police itself, and is NOT interested in anything but their bottom line. We are fast reaching the end of the world, or perhaps we already have.
How sad.
I vote a resounding 'no' on this.
We know from repeated abuses, that industry cannot police itself, and is NOT interested in anything but their bottom line. We are fast reaching the end of the world, or perhaps we already have.
How sad.
5
Various marine life are disappearing and now is the time for an "experiment" (not commonsense) in the Arctic area(s)?
Obama's decision is so fraught with historical and present day error that it will prove to be an embarrassing legacy to him, his children, but more importantly, the global population not our insular economic-modeled societal members who mostly do not live on shorelines. In the end, all us depend on the earth's oceanic systems for the sustenance and regeneration of all life, land, sea, and air.
What an ignoble announcement timed with contraception. What spin. What non-savoir faire.
Obama's decision is so fraught with historical and present day error that it will prove to be an embarrassing legacy to him, his children, but more importantly, the global population not our insular economic-modeled societal members who mostly do not live on shorelines. In the end, all us depend on the earth's oceanic systems for the sustenance and regeneration of all life, land, sea, and air.
What an ignoble announcement timed with contraception. What spin. What non-savoir faire.
7
As an aside, if this foolhardy activity is to be allowed, I think there are two critical add-ons to the requirements for any exploration:
1. Close to the bottom of every site, before any drilling goes beyond say, 60 feet beneath the sea floor, a fail-safe shutoff should be installed, so that in the event of a breakaway, it will shut itself off.
2. Any drilling company should be required to have two specialty vessels on hand, within 50 nautical miles of any active drilling, equipped to handle large scaled spills.
1. Close to the bottom of every site, before any drilling goes beyond say, 60 feet beneath the sea floor, a fail-safe shutoff should be installed, so that in the event of a breakaway, it will shut itself off.
2. Any drilling company should be required to have two specialty vessels on hand, within 50 nautical miles of any active drilling, equipped to handle large scaled spills.
5
I am heartbroken! Oh no!
Right now the USA drills for more oil than ALL other countries...Yes more than Saudi Arabia, Russia, and other OPEC countries.
I must say that I am shocked. The idea of drill baby drill in the Arctic seems unfathomable! How the hell did this happen? All we have heard is "We HAVE to take climate change seriously" and "We are stewards of the earth for generations to come."
I will remember May 11, 2015 as the date we all hit rock bottom in our lust for black gold, Texas tea.
I am really heart broken.
Right now the USA drills for more oil than ALL other countries...Yes more than Saudi Arabia, Russia, and other OPEC countries.
I must say that I am shocked. The idea of drill baby drill in the Arctic seems unfathomable! How the hell did this happen? All we have heard is "We HAVE to take climate change seriously" and "We are stewards of the earth for generations to come."
I will remember May 11, 2015 as the date we all hit rock bottom in our lust for black gold, Texas tea.
I am really heart broken.
7
Its not the end of the world, but you can see it from here
6
President Obama has, at different turns as a leader, supported so-called "clean coal" and reusable energy, like wind and solar, because he knew that the status quo of burning oil is untenable - yet this move puts the country back on what he must know is a wrong-way track.
6
This action is unspeakable. The Artic is being transformed into a "swimming pool," because of climate change. This in turn will cause and is caused by devastating unnatural feedback loops that will devastate life as we know it.
91 companies are contributing to over 60% of climate change gases. Shell is in the top ten. Instead of sending a clear message placing safety and sanity above profits. Obama has prioritized the later at the expense of the former.
The global corporatacracy may have a short lived victory, and the repercussions may be severe, but the climate is unforgiving. The helplessness Obama felt during the Gulf disaster, is nothing compared to the ramifications of this decision.
91 companies are contributing to over 60% of climate change gases. Shell is in the top ten. Instead of sending a clear message placing safety and sanity above profits. Obama has prioritized the later at the expense of the former.
The global corporatacracy may have a short lived victory, and the repercussions may be severe, but the climate is unforgiving. The helplessness Obama felt during the Gulf disaster, is nothing compared to the ramifications of this decision.
4
Having lived there, let me reassure you the forces of nature will destroy Shells's pitiful attempts to harvest oil. Pity those seas don't blow in Washington.
5
That's it, I've had it!
I'm not going to vote for Obama anymore!
Ooops! A bit too late for that....
I'm not going to vote for Obama anymore!
Ooops! A bit too late for that....
6
Another long time supporter DISGUSTED!!!! I know your job is difficult and you probably think it a geopolitical imperative, Mr. President, but this really is too much. When Cornell West starts riffing on the environment as well as the poor, your legacy is going to be in real jeopardy.
6
I just wrote the President to encourage him to reverse this decision - I encourage everyone to do the same:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
4
Fast Track for the Trans-Pacific Partnership and now Arctic Drilling. It is as if the Obama we elected has left the White House and the Clintons have moved back in. The are the ones smiling at the door and accepting donations to a foundation of their choice, and no it isn't appropriate to divulge the names of the donors.
5
It is about time. It is always a good sign when the green people lose as they are little more than luddites who have no idea about any of the things they are protesting.
1
Privatize the profits and socialize the losses when the inevitable environmental damage happens.
Obama is better than any of the clowns in the K0CH Taliban car but he is a supreme disappointment.
Obama is better than any of the clowns in the K0CH Taliban car but he is a supreme disappointment.
7
Gas is how much in CA ! ? Its 2.09 at Costco in Arcadia and around 2.45 most other places. CA has additional TAXES for the Environment. How's that working out ??? The whole State of CA is in chaos because of Tree huggers and Global warming fanatics. There is not a Good and cheap way to fuel our cars. Even with electric being more popular. If Al Gore is so worried about the environment why is he coating the sky's with PETRO??? I look at the State of CA and shake my head. Once the USA's most richest State now has 3 cities that have filed BK. Great liberal policies !!! Killing jobs killing pensions Insane. So its ok to have a British company drilling our oil but not Shell to out people to work at high paying jobs? And god forbid if the price of OIL stays low people can gravel and go on vacation affordably. New York and California have driven out "normal" people with high taxes and liberal policies. Welcome says Florida and Texas.... can't fix stupid.
1
Developing oil production in the arctic means less dependence on oil from the Middle East where all the trouble is.
The president is trying to protect our way of life.
The real problem is our environmentally destructive way of life and the president who feels compelled to enable it.
The president is trying to protect our way of life.
The real problem is our environmentally destructive way of life and the president who feels compelled to enable it.
1
Still buying that old saw? You need to do a bit of research as things have been different for a number years. Protect our way of life? Not in a heartbeat. We no longer have privacy nor real freedom, just non-stop warring. Wait til the "enemy" (whomever that might be), bring warring to our shores. The stuff will hit the fan, too late "a140" !!!
Democrat or Republican, it don't matter, they're ruled by Wall Street, the oligarchy, energy companies, the money talks people. And the rest of us are either tuned out, turned off or are just plain not listened to.
6
My disappointment is almost unmeasurable. One accident and the president's
legacy will be covered in oil...He can rationalize it all he wants, but it is still shameful.
legacy will be covered in oil...He can rationalize it all he wants, but it is still shameful.
7
A terrible move that benefits no one but Big Oil. A major disappointment.
6
why is the President going against all his promises to save the world for our children and grandchildren. At the rate we re destroying our wonderful world there won't be one for our grandchildren to enjoy. Then, when they are adults they will look back at us and say why did we not do more???? Because of the greed of oil companies and the Republicans to make more money. It will then be too late
6
I support the Administration on this issue.
14
Of course you do. You'll be dead long before the dire consequences.
1
I don’t.
Then maybe you wouldn't mind if Shell drilled off of Cape Cod.
Obama the "radical environmentalist," calculates thus: What's the big deal? Don't we have that other pole?
9
Please, Jim, full disclosure for Mr. Obama to read. For how many miles last month were you an operator or passenger in a vehicle which uses petroleum products as fuel, lubricant or in the manufacture of interior plastic parts?
What? Why would regulators have confidence in Shell's new plan after its recent spectacular failures?
see
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/magazine/the-wreck-of-the-kulluk.html
see
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/magazine/the-wreck-of-the-kulluk.html
31
Regulators have confidence because they are members of the industry.
1
Oh, as long as the Coast Guard are handy to bail'em out (probably quite literally), no problem!
Yes this is terrible, this will create additional supply of oil and drive down the cost of oil.....the oil companies probably will not pas the on the lower cost and the only ones who will benefit will be the millions of stockholders who own stock in the oil companies. Can you believe the president would take such an action were only millions of people would benefit....
5
Millions of wealthy stockholders benefit while billions and countless future billions suffer the effects of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. Talk about benefiting the one percent at the expense of the 99 percent.
1
Who benefits if there's a massive spill. Prince William Sound never really recovered from the Valdez.
I guess you never has a single course in economics did you? Have you ever heard of sup[ply and demand? I think most NY Times readers are like you in that way.
This is yet another instance in which Barack has proven that he is no friend of America. He has double-crossed and betrayed any and all of us who voted for him the first time around and learned the error of our ways. He has continually sold Americans and America down the river. He has no loyalty to anyone or anything except himself. He has betrayed his party, his base, his race and his country. He is singularly isolated in his own world and cares nothing for the citizens of America. 2016 cannot come soon enough. We have seen since the 2014 elections that Barack is in some kind of "take it all out on America" mode. If we need a definition of domestic terrorist, it can be found in the dictionary under Barack H. Obama.
7
Why can't we just burn through Iran's oil. Oh, that's right - we have sanctions on them. Absolutely ridiculous in my opinion.
5
Well this comes as disheartening news at a time when Obama should be using his remaining time in office to push his most progressive and far-reaching initiatives. As he has stated previously; he has no more elections to run.
Whatever happened to sincere investment and confidence in driving sustainable energy development. It's disappointing to see private companies like Tesla making bigger stride towards this future than our own government who has the capacity to make much more far-reaching programs and applications.
Creates jobs, cuts dependence on foreign oil + energy, contributes to bettering air/water quality, has potential for incredibly lucrative and self-sustaining profit models...what's the problem here?
Whatever happened to sincere investment and confidence in driving sustainable energy development. It's disappointing to see private companies like Tesla making bigger stride towards this future than our own government who has the capacity to make much more far-reaching programs and applications.
Creates jobs, cuts dependence on foreign oil + energy, contributes to bettering air/water quality, has potential for incredibly lucrative and self-sustaining profit models...what's the problem here?
16
Agree. This is totally foreign to anyone believing in energy conservation and protecting our environment. I am so disappointed in President Obama between this and his stance for TPP. What is happening?
Obama is truly a disappointment he should have not given into big oil.
12
Our president has been more complicit in tbe corporate takeover of this country than I would have expected.
Oh well. At least he got folks health insurance.
Oh well. At least he got folks health insurance.
7
Feels like we've seen this movie before -- including this pro forma bit: Shell still needs to pass "a final set of permit reviews [before] it can proceed to drill this summer."
6
"Change Shell Can Believe In."
10
I assume that the BOEM decision will be challenged in court. If the challenge fails, then this move will inevitably be remembered some day as a tragedy and a failure to acknowledge at least two realities: we need to cut back on oil exploration and use and we can't do any of it in the perilous and fragile waters of the Arctic.
The administration is taking a big risk here. The ecological viability of polar waters is at stake. So is the taxpayer, since any spill would require a huge investment of public money to clean up. That is, if it could be cleaned up at all in the turbulent waters of the Arctic.
The administration is taking a big risk here. The ecological viability of polar waters is at stake. So is the taxpayer, since any spill would require a huge investment of public money to clean up. That is, if it could be cleaned up at all in the turbulent waters of the Arctic.
21
Just what are you doing to cut back on your oil use? You drive, use stuff that is delivered by truck and boat. How foolish!!!
This morning's NYT edition carried a story about closing down oil rigs on the USA mainland due to low current oil prices. So now we are to believe that it will be cheaper to pump oil from the Artic than it is from South Dakota?
34
Well Gee oil won't be coming for many years, not tomorrow.
Good question. I wonder if it occurred to Obama.
Even though I deplore the idea of drilling in the Arctic, the logic of it is clear. It takes years to explore and develop substantial production capacity. The current low in oil prices is a temporary lull. There will be a time in the foreseeable future when oil is $150+ per barrel, the fracking boom is played out, and Shell needs new reserves to exploit. When that day comes, Shell will be ready to bring Arctic oil to market.
Likewise, oil company valuations are based in part on ‘proven reserves’. If Shell can demonstrate that it can extract oil from the Arctic then those reserves look a lot more real to investors and that is worth a LOT of money for Shell. It makes all the sense in the world if you think about how much money is at stake and ignore all the things that could go wrong.
Likewise, oil company valuations are based in part on ‘proven reserves’. If Shell can demonstrate that it can extract oil from the Arctic then those reserves look a lot more real to investors and that is worth a LOT of money for Shell. It makes all the sense in the world if you think about how much money is at stake and ignore all the things that could go wrong.
Everyone that drives a car, sleeps in a home with heat or uses electricity should be happy. These valuble resources are for us to us for our necessities. To leave them in the ground serves no purpose.
7
No purpose except protecting the habitable climates we all live in.
3
what is wrong with solar power and our most important resourse is water not oil and the artic is the only place remaining with clean air and water better be looking for water not oil we have plenty of oil in reserve and it is a fact that we don't NEED oil for power I would like to leave behind air that my children can breathe and water they can drink you must work for an oil company since they are the ones that block the production of solar cars and tried for years to keep elecric cars off of the road.
3
It serves the purpose of stopping the unabated dumping of extreme amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which is causing the unprecedented rise in average global temperatures, sea levels and ocean acidification. And nobody will have to do without cars or heat or electricity with sound planning and committed development of renewable energy generation from solar, wind, geo-thermal and hydro sources and re-investment into a smarter distributed energy grid.
Renewable energy generation at utility scales have reached price parity with fossil-fuel generation methods including natural gas. Stop living in the past.
Renewable energy generation at utility scales have reached price parity with fossil-fuel generation methods including natural gas. Stop living in the past.
1
This is insane! President Obama has been SUCH a disappointment.
I agree with the others here who say that there's little or no difference between democrats and republican. Either way, they're all owned by the corporate lobbyists.
I agree with the others here who say that there's little or no difference between democrats and republican. Either way, they're all owned by the corporate lobbyists.
52
Obama like Clinton have been the best Republican Presidents ever.
The oil industry has had disasters in every setting it put its drilling platforms, starting with Santa Barbara in the late 60's. The specter of an environmental disaster in the last untouched regions of the Earth is too ghastly to contemplate. It will be uncleanable. This decision doesnt even take into account the current glut of crude oil or the undesirablity of adding more carbon to the atmosphere when this oil is burned. It is a filthy industry from beginning to end, whose product is altering the livability planet.
I am guessing Obama will veto the XL pipeline shortly before he leaves office, but this will be cold comfort if drilling actually takes place in the Chukchi Sea or off the the East Coast and the inevitable occurs.
I am guessing Obama will veto the XL pipeline shortly before he leaves office, but this will be cold comfort if drilling actually takes place in the Chukchi Sea or off the the East Coast and the inevitable occurs.
16
And just what legal reason would he have for not approving the pipeline? Actually none but somehow in the pipeline being illegal does not bother him.
Wait wait wait.......
Shell couldn't cap an undersea well in the Gulf of Mexico
There are still issues with clean up from that spill along the Confederate states.
Move that to the Arctic? Major staging areas hundreds of miles away.
Barrow not having enough paper towels?
What could POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
Shell couldn't cap an undersea well in the Gulf of Mexico
There are still issues with clean up from that spill along the Confederate states.
Move that to the Arctic? Major staging areas hundreds of miles away.
Barrow not having enough paper towels?
What could POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
21
Um, that was BP.
The only thing sinking faster than the Huckabee presidential bid is my once deep respect and admiration for President Obama. I defended his Health Care Initiative as flawed but the best he could do. I initially defended his drone war(s) as the lesser of two evils, the second being boots on the ground. But now, he and his administration are selling out to the most criminally negligent industry on earth. Overreaching you say? Let's not forget the disaster in The Gulf. I can only imagine the list of "donors" for the Obama Presidential Library......Shell Oil, BP Oil, Schumberger, Exxon-Mobil, Koch Industries to name a few.
I never thought I'd say this but 2016 can't come fast enough. Hopefully it will welcome a honest steward of the environment. This is despicable.
I never thought I'd say this but 2016 can't come fast enough. Hopefully it will welcome a honest steward of the environment. This is despicable.
62
Despicable, yes.
Heartbreaking, too.
Heartbreaking, too.
1
Yes, despicable is the right word. But don't count on an honest steward of the environment. No one is coming to save us from global climate action. The previous sentence is the momentous statement by Naomi Klein in her book; This Changes Everything. Please read it.
She reviews the entire picture of our horrendous energy nightmare now unfolding before us; with politicians frightened silly, an apathetic public and the continual "free market economy" nightmare still fixed in the pathological minds of oil companies, oil investors, and all such things surrounding that filthy fuel.
Worse of course, is the on-going climate change that will really give our children and grandchildren very scary changes in their lives and hopes.
And now, with the best plan being to "leave it in the ground," the president is grandly assisting the industry-hoped-for plan" to remove itl from the ground.
Despicable might not be the right word.
She reviews the entire picture of our horrendous energy nightmare now unfolding before us; with politicians frightened silly, an apathetic public and the continual "free market economy" nightmare still fixed in the pathological minds of oil companies, oil investors, and all such things surrounding that filthy fuel.
Worse of course, is the on-going climate change that will really give our children and grandchildren very scary changes in their lives and hopes.
And now, with the best plan being to "leave it in the ground," the president is grandly assisting the industry-hoped-for plan" to remove itl from the ground.
Despicable might not be the right word.
Of course--we voted for a Republican Lite president.
18
Why should we have any confidence Big Oil will protect this critical ecosystem? Big Oil is interested in one thing: Big Profits. The environment is a distant second thought. Proof: The Historical Record. Just a very bad and potentially disastrous move by the Obama administration.
43
and big profits won't result from sloppy work. Shell will get it right.
I am so disappointed with the president and his administration concerning this issue. I believed that when the CO2 accord was struck with China earlier this year that maybe, just maybe, the tide had turned. I guess not. At the very least we will be putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. It could be much worst, a disaster rivaling BP Horizon.
I have been reading election polls since the 80"s. When people are asked "What is the most important issue for you in this election?" The answer is almost always the economy, fair enough, it is an important issue. The environment usually is at the bottom with 1%. Without a healthy environment nothing else will matter. If the air, water, and soil are contaminated or poisoned it will not matter what the economy is doing. As with many things, life and nature itself is about balance. We, as a global civilization, have been continuously moving away from that basic tenant. Why are we allowing ourselves to disconnect from the only planet we have? The risk is enormous. We literally have the ability to wipe out all life on this planet. We consider the bottom line first and always first. It's a sad legacy. anyway I'm just disappointed, but not surprised, and I will continue to raise my child to have respect for the earth.
I have been reading election polls since the 80"s. When people are asked "What is the most important issue for you in this election?" The answer is almost always the economy, fair enough, it is an important issue. The environment usually is at the bottom with 1%. Without a healthy environment nothing else will matter. If the air, water, and soil are contaminated or poisoned it will not matter what the economy is doing. As with many things, life and nature itself is about balance. We, as a global civilization, have been continuously moving away from that basic tenant. Why are we allowing ourselves to disconnect from the only planet we have? The risk is enormous. We literally have the ability to wipe out all life on this planet. We consider the bottom line first and always first. It's a sad legacy. anyway I'm just disappointed, but not surprised, and I will continue to raise my child to have respect for the earth.
194
" As with many things, life and nature itself is about balance. "
An overpopulated planet is not in balance, this is the primary problem.
An overpopulated planet is not in balance, this is the primary problem.
1
On the bright side, this should energize liberals to get out and vote.
8
One would think with the current oil glut, this wasn't even a decision that needed to be made now. Further, with all the big oil companies cutting capital expenditures, how much can Shell actually allocate to safety and control systems because the costs are going to be enormous -- if the right technology even exists and has been tested.
The timing is wrong. The decision is wrong. The economics are wrong.
So the agenda has to be to pander to big oil -- perhaps to deflect Republican presidential hopefuls from more criticism. One wonders what their response will be.
The timing is wrong. The decision is wrong. The economics are wrong.
So the agenda has to be to pander to big oil -- perhaps to deflect Republican presidential hopefuls from more criticism. One wonders what their response will be.
11
All those who oppose drilling in the Arctic region conveniently ignore all the costs associated with our energy dependence on the Middle East(i.e., American lives lost in Beirut, 9/11, the Gulf War, the Iraq War, ISIS; the loss of integrity by having to bed down with the likes of Saudi and other rogue regimes; the cost of maintaining diplomatic and intelligence-gathering infrastructures there, etc). Is even one American life really worth saving some caribou the inconvenience of choosing a different migration path?
As for climate change, humans may or may not be the cause but Mother Nature can change it on a whim in a way that will be completely be beyond our comprehension and/or control. It's presumptuous for us to think otherwise. Just ask the dinosaurs or the Vikings who were farming on Greenland in 900 AD.
As for climate change, humans may or may not be the cause but Mother Nature can change it on a whim in a way that will be completely be beyond our comprehension and/or control. It's presumptuous for us to think otherwise. Just ask the dinosaurs or the Vikings who were farming on Greenland in 900 AD.
27
So just because Mother Nature can change the environment do we have the right to change it on our own... There are people that depend on those arctic oceans to survive there are no grocery stores there just the environment so if I agree with you then I guess those civilizations don't matter sorry but I just dont think we have the right to play
God it hasnt worked out well in the past
God it hasnt worked out well in the past
2
Climate change is real. Climate change is man made. To state it in any less certain terms is simply denial delusion or fossil fuel industry propaganda.
Energy independence can be achieved through a transition to 100 percent renewable sources including solar, wind, geo-thermal and hydro and reinvestment in a smarter distributed energy grid. Any further investment into oil exploration and extraction is throwing more bad money after already bad money. Putting more stranded assets onto your books is not a sound business model.
Energy independence can be achieved through a transition to 100 percent renewable sources including solar, wind, geo-thermal and hydro and reinvestment in a smarter distributed energy grid. Any further investment into oil exploration and extraction is throwing more bad money after already bad money. Putting more stranded assets onto your books is not a sound business model.
8
And you Pete ignore the fact that there is a glut of oil on the market, driving prices down (been to the gas station lately?), and that the Arctic won't replace other sources, only one of the top five of which is actually in the Middle East (if you look at those pesky things that get in the way of broad overreaching statements).
Canada (28%)
Saudi Arabia (13%)
Mexico (10%)
Venezuela (9%)
Russia (5%)
In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, to state: "As for climate change, humans may or may not be the cause but Mother Nature can change it on a whim in a way that will be completely be beyond our comprehension and/or control," you must have been wearing especially thick ideological glasses when you wrote this.
Canada (28%)
Saudi Arabia (13%)
Mexico (10%)
Venezuela (9%)
Russia (5%)
In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, to state: "As for climate change, humans may or may not be the cause but Mother Nature can change it on a whim in a way that will be completely be beyond our comprehension and/or control," you must have been wearing especially thick ideological glasses when you wrote this.
3
Is there any rational world in which it makes sense to work at curbing global warming on the one hand and to open new and vulnerable off-shore areas to oil drilling on the other? If anyone out there still lives in Obama world, could he or she explain it to the rest of us?
32
Yep. Called pragmatism?
Sure is forget the Global Warming foolishness. Adapt and make economic based improvements only. Anything else is economic suicide. Simple!!!
More evidence that the power brokers of the Democratic Party have been captured by the petroleum industry. They bought the Republican Party decades ago. The only hope the nation has to effectively combat climate change is to elect as president one of the few remaining real Democrats - Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Sherrod Brown. We probably should abandon hope.
23
Putin said we should should be afraid of climate change and has Kim Jung Un. maybe we should elect them !!!
What is the reasoning behind this decision? Balance? If "balance" requires that one request must be granted when others are refused (Keystone not now, Arctic yes) it's like a ratchet. Make lots of requests. One is granted. Repeat. Unfortunately, serious accidents cannot be reversed. The BP spilled oil is no longer visible, so a new drilling permit has been granted near it. No worries, there's a new requirement to prevent the exact same accident from happening again. Well, you can write off the Gulf as a sensitive region, it's been well oiled.
The Arctic is another matter. Mitigation of a large spill will be difficult and unlikely to succeed. Even assuming Shell doesn't have an official spill, lots of oil is spilled but not considered a reportable spill, just an inevitable part of operations. All the non-spills add up to lots of oil spilled into the environment, quietly and steadily over time. From the EPA website: "The requirement for reporting oil spills stems from the Discharge of Oil Regulation, known as the "sheen rule." Under this regulation, oil spill reporting does not depend on the specific amount of oil spilled, but on the presence of a visible sheen created by the spilled oil. Reporting an oil discharges may also be required under the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule."
Here are some exemptions from reporting, notice the 3d bullet and the MARPOL part.
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/reporting/oilexem.htm
The Arctic is another matter. Mitigation of a large spill will be difficult and unlikely to succeed. Even assuming Shell doesn't have an official spill, lots of oil is spilled but not considered a reportable spill, just an inevitable part of operations. All the non-spills add up to lots of oil spilled into the environment, quietly and steadily over time. From the EPA website: "The requirement for reporting oil spills stems from the Discharge of Oil Regulation, known as the "sheen rule." Under this regulation, oil spill reporting does not depend on the specific amount of oil spilled, but on the presence of a visible sheen created by the spilled oil. Reporting an oil discharges may also be required under the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule."
Here are some exemptions from reporting, notice the 3d bullet and the MARPOL part.
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/reporting/oilexem.htm
12
And the Republicans call the President a socialist/marxist. In what universe? They would have lost their minds if he was actually even progressive
24
Every time Obama proves himself to be more of a Republican, I think that he can't get worse. And then he does.
33
Every time the president does something democrats don't like, he's called a "republican". He is not a republican, never has been and is not even close to ever becoming a republican.
4
AACNY: You say that like it's a demerit -- when it's a huge compliment. And true -- because the two parties, while sharing the corporatist bent, couldn't be less alike. A damned good thing, too.
Does President Obama's memory stretch back to the BP oil spill, whose consequences he acknowledged were beyond what technology could correct? How can he allow our natural resources and citizens to be endangered?
23
ALarm! Alarm! Alarm! The Sky is Falling! Finally a common sense approach and government approval to an commercial request to sensible environmentally safe drilling. The environmentalist / progressive agenda would not have be appeased unless the administration simply responded to this and any request with an outright denial of the request.
"No Drilling, no where and at no time" is the green agenda. And at what cost? An environmental accident: One that might not happen; or the loss of jobs and continued prosperity? We CAN do both responsibly and it is finally nice to see rational thought and action by this administration that suggests that we can.
"No Drilling, no where and at no time" is the green agenda. And at what cost? An environmental accident: One that might not happen; or the loss of jobs and continued prosperity? We CAN do both responsibly and it is finally nice to see rational thought and action by this administration that suggests that we can.
6
Regrettably, we've already seen too many examples of the industry's "sensible, enviromentally safe" drilling. And we're about to see another.
The technology just isn't there yet ... and relying on luck rather than technology hasn't worked in the past ... but what does the industry care ? Their management don't live in the area.
The technology just isn't there yet ... and relying on luck rather than technology hasn't worked in the past ... but what does the industry care ? Their management don't live in the area.
4
oxymoron: environmentally safe drilling
1
There is nothing responsible about drilling in this area. It is isolated, and filled with natural abundance. Any spill will signal a disaster. How very short sighted! No one has the technical skill or resources, not Shell or the U.S government, to clean up and support this drilling. It is a shot in the dark, and a risky one. I would rather see them drilling off Cape Cod. At least then, were there a spill, someone might notice the damage done.
1
How very sad that this President continues to so easily accede to the desires of the Oil and gas industry. It seems that there is no one point which Obama will just say NO to. It continues to be NO; We are reviewing it; We give it another 60 days; OK go ahead and do what you choose!
The odd thing is that this President could have left office with dignity by simply exercising a middle ground. Yet, in almost every area of governing, he proceeded to give back twofold every positive gain made. What a lame legacy!
The odd thing is that this President could have left office with dignity by simply exercising a middle ground. Yet, in almost every area of governing, he proceeded to give back twofold every positive gain made. What a lame legacy!
8
After President Obama held his ground about Keystone, reached an environmental agreement with China, he regresses to the "drill, baby drill!" cry? Very disappointing.
7
This decision also sets a precedent that will make it harder for the 2016 Democratic candidate to oppose fracking and pipeline development, I fear, as it makes environmental concerns a negligible cost of doing business.
7
This will be the major blemish in Obama's legacy. Not just inexplicable, it is unforgivable. It seems to be contrary to everything I thought he stood for. It's a stereophonic mortgaging of our children's futures. Not only are we jeopardizing a massive and pristine piece of American real estate, we are doubling down on our oil reliance. So, it's two extremely wrong messages being sent to the world. Why is Obama allowing this to happen? This is a major slap in the face to all his supporters. It's exactly the wrong direction.
25
I am very disappointed -- a) that this is happening, and b) that it can't be blamed on Republicans. I think I'll Google "Green Party Candidate" and see who's in the running for this next election.
8
Aside from the risk of spills in the arctic there is the question of climate change. We have a very limited amount of time to prevent warming even more catastrophic than what is already dialed in. With this in mind does it make sense to be developing more oil production?
12
The answer is always a number, usually a big one.
4
Obama is now showing his true corporate colors between his aggressive pursuit of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement and now this invitation to the oil companies to destroy an arctic environment that will not absorb the damage incurred by the BP disaster.
Now that Obama is not seeking re-election, maybe we are just beginning to see where his campaign funding and support really came from....and its not the average citizen. Obama has betrayed us.
Now that Obama is not seeking re-election, maybe we are just beginning to see where his campaign funding and support really came from....and its not the average citizen. Obama has betrayed us.
24
More "just awful" news. Obama proves the point that intelligence does not mean the capacity to do good work.
The Chinese move South, we move North, the Russians stay put, and not one whit of what we know to be true - not one whit of the hope so many of us have, is given voice. The natural world is being laid bare by the brass knuckles of greed, our best and brightest individuals and institutions laid bare by the corruption that greed purchases.
There is no shame, no concern, no concience - maximum extraction, for maximum profits, as fast as can be done with today's technology.
The Chinese move South, we move North, the Russians stay put, and not one whit of what we know to be true - not one whit of the hope so many of us have, is given voice. The natural world is being laid bare by the brass knuckles of greed, our best and brightest individuals and institutions laid bare by the corruption that greed purchases.
There is no shame, no concern, no concience - maximum extraction, for maximum profits, as fast as can be done with today's technology.
12
Surprise, surprise! Now that Obama is trying to strong-arm TPP through Congress, is it any wonder he gave his thumbs up to drilling in the Arctic? Another gift to rich and powerful corporations courtesy of the "people's president." Anybody wanna wager that Obama will now approve the Keystone Pipeline, even though the new government in Alberta is now expected to stop pressuring the USA to accept the pipeline? Barack Obama, we hardly knew ye!
13
“As we move forward, any offshore exploratory activities will continue to be subject to rigorous safety standards.”
In your dreams.
In your dreams.
12
This is just NOT a good idea. Afterwards, when it's too late, it won't make any difference who's to blame. And Shell, of course, will deny any wrong doing. Disgusting!
11
This is dismaying. If the Obama administration won't hold the line on actions that have the potential to despoil this relatively pristine part of our planet, we have no hope.
19
Nooooooooo!
10
Obama has a mixed track record on the environment. I realize now that a lot of his pro-environment moves are far too little and too far down the road. Meanwhile we've become major coal, oil, and gas exporters, while Obama has made a show of delaying the Keystone Pipeline to keep the environmentalists happy. Now he's approved drilling in the Arctic. It seems to me that the action of allowing all this fossil fuel to leave the ground now will not balance out a slight tightening of the belt later. He wants to appear pro-environment while doling out goodies to his fossil fuel corporate buddies.
13
Shell Oil has demonstrated that they cannot operate safely in the Arctic, so why are they being permitted to go ahead?
If they are allowed to go ahead, they should be required to pay for a Coast Guard station prepared to respond to a spill that is close, not 1000 miles away.
When ( not if) Shell Oil has spills in the Arctic, the effect on the marine environment will probably last for years, if not decades, because of the slow natural cleanup processes, and because conditions do not allow effective human cleanup. The global warming impact from burning this fossil fuel will be around for centuries, if not millenia.
"The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge," David Archer writes. "Longer than time capsules, longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far."
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html
If they are allowed to go ahead, they should be required to pay for a Coast Guard station prepared to respond to a spill that is close, not 1000 miles away.
When ( not if) Shell Oil has spills in the Arctic, the effect on the marine environment will probably last for years, if not decades, because of the slow natural cleanup processes, and because conditions do not allow effective human cleanup. The global warming impact from burning this fossil fuel will be around for centuries, if not millenia.
"The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge," David Archer writes. "Longer than time capsules, longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far."
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html
12
I think this underlines one of the problems that the progressive left has had with Obama. He has been terrific at giving speeches, but when it comes down to action, he has been downright disappointing. Ranging from his refusal to prosecute Wall Street to healthcare reform to "free trade" to such environmental decisions, he has unfortunately shown himself to be no less beholden to his corporate donors.
While many rational voters always point to how far worse it would have been with McCain/Romney, which is of course true, a large part of the Obama legacy will be one of the failure to bring about real change.
While many rational voters always point to how far worse it would have been with McCain/Romney, which is of course true, a large part of the Obama legacy will be one of the failure to bring about real change.
9
and yet he is worried about the environment problems that the keystone could bring, what happens if this has an accident?
1
Obama seems to be pro-environment in setting long term policies that future administrations can renege on, like the carbon power plant rules but wants to approve fossil fuel mining when he thinks he can withstand the political fallout.
3
I wonder how many of the protesters in that picture drove their eeeevil petrol-burning cars to that event?
Even the so-called "clean" electric cars require a lot of petrol to construct. Oh, and of course, the plugin-only types all consume electricity - the vast majority of which is generated from that eeeeevil coal.
Even the so-called "clean" electric cars require a lot of petrol to construct. Oh, and of course, the plugin-only types all consume electricity - the vast majority of which is generated from that eeeeevil coal.
4
First of all, it's Seattle. A lot of those people probably walked/biked/public transportation. Secondly, whatever happened to "Yankee ingenuity???" With the moral and healthful imperative of clean, affordable, sustainable energy, there could be new jobs, new technology, new industry! Don't keep us in the dark ages. We do not want our nation to continue to be dependent on an eeeeeeevil polluting, climate-changing extraction industry.
What a horrible decision, and yet another disappointment form President Obama. I've had enough from this administration.
13
No no no no no. How about a "major victory" for ordinary humans and the biosphere for a change?
Why are corporations allowed to exploit natural resources and amass untold wealth while the rest of us are just trying to make a decent living? When are we going to try solving the problem of how ALL of us can live within our means in the world? I'm sick of resources being diverted to enrich those already at the top. I'm sick of not counting. I'm sick of decisions based on short-term profit instead of a sweeping vision for a sustainable future.
Why are corporations allowed to exploit natural resources and amass untold wealth while the rest of us are just trying to make a decent living? When are we going to try solving the problem of how ALL of us can live within our means in the world? I'm sick of resources being diverted to enrich those already at the top. I'm sick of not counting. I'm sick of decisions based on short-term profit instead of a sweeping vision for a sustainable future.
9
Try buying some oil stocks and share in the wealth. It's not difficult and most of these companies are public. Many are strong dividend payers, a real plus in a low interest rate environment.
Please stop with the ludicrous "us versus them" dichotomy -- each of us uses products from these companies every day. Most of us also invest in them, if only indirectly, because just about every pension plan on earth, including 401(k)s, holds Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Shell, etc.
Please stop with the ludicrous "us versus them" dichotomy -- each of us uses products from these companies every day. Most of us also invest in them, if only indirectly, because just about every pension plan on earth, including 401(k)s, holds Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Shell, etc.
Here's the answer to the people who naively believed that a second-term Obama would do all the wonderful things that he promised in his election time oratory. This is the "real Obama": a shill for the big business interests who chose him as their front-man president in the first place.
It is fashionable these days to criticize Obama while giving a pass to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. After all, Obama will be gone soon and new saviors are making new speeches to get votes. The base problem remains, that this country has two political parties that both represent the interests of big business, just in different ways and appealing to different constituencies. Until enough people wake up to the need for a new party (and yes, it would take years of struggle before it could win elections) the cycle of wishful thinking and ultimate disappointments will continue.
It is fashionable these days to criticize Obama while giving a pass to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. After all, Obama will be gone soon and new saviors are making new speeches to get votes. The base problem remains, that this country has two political parties that both represent the interests of big business, just in different ways and appealing to different constituencies. Until enough people wake up to the need for a new party (and yes, it would take years of struggle before it could win elections) the cycle of wishful thinking and ultimate disappointments will continue.
205
So, Dinesh D'Souza was on to something, it's just that his vision required inversion? Got it, chief.
You know, I doubt Obama is, was, or ever will be a "shill" (the most overused word in wordland) for anyone or anything. He seems like a pretty swell lad. But if you say so, I take it back. Perhaps the shilling shill shilled.
How dare he! If there's one thing I shan't tolerate, it's shilling.
You know, I doubt Obama is, was, or ever will be a "shill" (the most overused word in wordland) for anyone or anything. He seems like a pretty swell lad. But if you say so, I take it back. Perhaps the shilling shill shilled.
How dare he! If there's one thing I shan't tolerate, it's shilling.
David,
Noam Chomsky could not have stated it any better. The reason why this country has historically had low voter turnout in presidential elections is there is no difference between either party. And even if there was another party offering a very different vision for the nation- remember when Ralph Nader was registered in every state in the 2000 election and he was not allowed to participate in any of the televised debates.
Noam Chomsky could not have stated it any better. The reason why this country has historically had low voter turnout in presidential elections is there is no difference between either party. And even if there was another party offering a very different vision for the nation- remember when Ralph Nader was registered in every state in the 2000 election and he was not allowed to participate in any of the televised debates.
1
Amen, David. As long as people keep voting for Democrats as the lesser of two evils, this is what the country will get: a few good decisions and a bunch of bad ones, perhaps delayed a few years compared to what would have happened under Republicans, but in the long run pretty much as bad. Only a third party-- or, maybe, Senator Sanders or someone else willing to stand up to money -- can stop the madness. I grieve for my children.
4
The United States should not own the Arctic Sea. It will destroy it and everything around it. It's all for money and does not need to be drilled and polluted. The world has all the oil it needs and will stay that way without drilling for more.
9
This is very good news. We, as humanity, have among us 1.5 billion people without electricity. It’s a moral imperative to get the out of their predicament in the decades ahead. The only way to do that is just the way we first-worlders have: with fossil fuels. For the sake of those souls who are still behind, drill baby, drill!
2
The 1.5 billion people without electricity will not benefit from this oil. Spare us your immoral "moral imperative". Centralized power generating stations, with long power lines, will never serve these people, because they do not provide enough of a market to justify these dinosaurs. Instead, decentralized solar power, plus batteries and LEDs, is bringing electricity to these people, one household at a time.
I am basically a Tea Partier on most things, but this is STUPID. I would much rather pay Saudi Arabia than risk this.
7
Another reason NOT to vote in 2016. It doesn't matter who's in the White House; the environment always loses.
9
Sure don't vote so we can potentially add another Scalia, Thomas, etc. to the SCOTUS, then more the just the environment will lose.
1
Not true. At least President Obama and his administration have negotiated higher MPG standards for cars, and are working on better CO2 standards for electrical generating plants. A Republican administration would be much more "Drill Baby Drill! Skip the paperwork and delaying environmental process! Drill!"
Give it a rest will you environmentalists? Are you aware of the the volume of oil discharged to the world's oceans during World War II? Oil is organic. It naturally dissipates and organisms break the oil constituents down. There are what, 380? 400 million souls living in the US alone? We're beyond the terrible twos. Besides, try going over to Russia and protest against their exploration of their part of the Chukchi Sea. Do you believe the will respect the environment any more than they did at Chernobyl?
4
No.
So how much have the Koch Brothers secretly pledged to the Obama Library?
20
Environmentalists would be better off channeling their energies into figuring out how to make drilling safe for the enviroment. Fighting to stop it completely is like banging their heads against the wall and expecting the wall to move.
Drilling is going to proceed. Make it as safe as possible. Developing a core competence in safe drilling would be the best thing to happen to the US.
Drilling is going to proceed. Make it as safe as possible. Developing a core competence in safe drilling would be the best thing to happen to the US.
4
That would be the job of the OIL COMPANIES!
1
That's it for me, between this and fast track TPP, I'm finished with this administration. Next he'll let them do Keystone.
17
Well this is certainly disheartening news.
11
Look at all the spills right here in the country now, with little coverage from major media!! Imagine the artic!
13
Why? We have an oil glut at the moment. So WHY take chances with a delicate environment.
24
President Obama wants all A’s for his legacy with Palin's crowd, such as Drill Baby Drill, but these folks will never love him. But Obamas record on economic and police brutality issues for AA’s isn’t A+, more like D+. Barely passing.
5
I couldn't be more disgusted with Obama. Between this and the TPP it is clear that It doesn't matter who you vote for, the results are all the same. Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Banks, etc., etc., etc.
42
I'm guessing you don't drive a car or us any transportation that uses oil, have only solar power to power your house and never take any medicine, right? Just asking.
Bernie Sanders for President!
Congratulations, Mr. President! There is your legacy. When there is an environmental disaster in the Arctic, and there will be one, everyone will remember you for it.
37
I guess this is trumping Putin, or anyone else who wants to exploit the Poles......that's a vision for humanity!!
12
There are two problems here. One is that Shell can not guarantee that drilling in the Arctic is safe by normal standards. Two is that the oil in the Arctic should be left in the ground to help stop global warming. This is a disgraceful decision on both fronts.
55
Of course the globe hasn't warmed in 15+ years despite the fact that more CO2 has been released into the atmosphere than ever before. A real scientist goers back to the drawing board but politicians and those who slavishly follow them simply double down.
Seems the only concern president Obama has of Nature is the quality of the lawns where he plays golf.
16
Drilling in the arctic regions is really untested and potentially disastrous for the environment, but if we don't do it some other countries will, and probably with less safeguards. I invite all those who oppose this to not only pressure our government to be more cautious, but to also pressure the other countries that have territory in the Arctic to to do likewise. I also invite them to reduce their carbon footprint, and pressure their neighbors to do the same.
9
I'm pretty sure they have been drilling on the North Shore for quite a while. That sounds tested to me.
So you're arguing that by drilling in Arctic waters first, the US will prevent other countries from doing so. How exactly?? If you're going to make an argument, at least make it coherent.
Here, let me do it for you: it's a race to the bottom, and we're gonna win it baby! USA! USA! USA!
Here, let me do it for you: it's a race to the bottom, and we're gonna win it baby! USA! USA! USA!
1
The story of the Kulluk is a real living view into how Shell and their contractors operate: Unrealistic deadlines and cutting corners all in the name of protecting an investment and maximizing profit.
This guy is the pits man.
This guy is the pits man.
8
We might as well cry all the rest of our lives....nothing good will come of this race to exploit all the natural resources of the world!
14
No matter what Shell says there is no way to be completely prepared. The ocean currents are not that predictable. Weather influences where oil slicks and food go. The time of year influences things like breeding, mating, etc. There's human error which can range from minor to disaster level. Last of all there's the cheap factor: under protecting and using the cheapest materials rather than preparing for the worst and using the proper materials, taking the proper precautions, and not economizing when it comes to the safety of the people and environments involved. I'd rather see people working jobs that are safe and keep the environment safe than see people's homes and hunting grounds destroyed. This is the only planet we have. We ought to take care of it.
10
Gee, this decision is a real boon to the environment. Do these folks have their heads on the right way?
10
Sometimes I think Obama secretly shares my values. Then he does things like this, unnecessarily and without prompting, when he should be trolling the Republicans and erecting a stone wall against fossil fuels, evil trade pacts, and drone assassination.
It makes me so sad.
It makes me so sad.
8
Drill baby drill! Than we can let the middle east burn.
5
Bernie has no chance and unfortunately no one is going to give up oil or even can. It's harsh reality. Obama should save ANWR, though.
2
So that coming 5 years ago! In the near future, there will be an oil rig atop the heads of Mt. Rushmore or a large fracking drill next to Old Faithful in Yellowstone. Our senate is bought and paid for by big Oil, Ag and Pharma. These entities are powerful, wealthy and patient- waiting to cultivate the next malleable senator elect to do their bidding. What a shame!
9
So much, so little to say. As a psychotherapist and imperfect human, I'm very familiar with denial. It's the only explanation for those who support the ongoing, violent attacks upon our planet, removing it's lifeblood, without anticipating disastrous consequences. Sad to say, denial is a powerful state which I fear will not be overcome before the demise of our species. What a long strange trip it's been.
25
looks like US is the always the leader to use and consume the earth but never take lead to protect our planet. so no wondering why the second biggest consumer China follows US' steps to do the same thing.
9
Royal Dutch Shell is not an American Corporation, in any sense of the word. They are bankrolled by "international banking interests". If I mention names, I get my comment censored.
Mr President,
Why are we doing this? Shell's track record is abysmal. This country is awash with surplus oil already. But I suspect that any oil discovered and improved will be sold somewhere else. The arctic is no place for any sane company and when a catastrophe occurs and it will we are the long time losers. Just look at the Gulf of Mexico - it still has not recovered and likely never will in my lifetime. Sad that you are not interested in the public's interest.
Why are we doing this? Shell's track record is abysmal. This country is awash with surplus oil already. But I suspect that any oil discovered and improved will be sold somewhere else. The arctic is no place for any sane company and when a catastrophe occurs and it will we are the long time losers. Just look at the Gulf of Mexico - it still has not recovered and likely never will in my lifetime. Sad that you are not interested in the public's interest.
51
Well here you go America! Nice job making good decisions with your hard earned dollars. All of those huge gas guzzlers you've been buying over the years and in general your wasteful practices have led to this. Let see... how much oil is used annually in the manufacture of single use plastic water bottles and plastic bags that you use once then throw away? Good work! you should be proud of yourselves! Forget the fact that solar technology means clean free energy... Lets drill in the last most pristine place on earth. So before you go pointing fingers at Obama... look in the mirror.
16
Absolutely agree with you, Greg! Spot on! We are wasteful beyond reason, and our great grandchildren will pay for it. If the planet even lasts that long!
Another disappointment served up by the Obama administration. We will survive with less oil. All one has to do is fly over the US at night to see the trillions of dollars in wasted consumption. We will not survive with a crippled environment. Wake up America.
50
This apparently poses worse risks to local environments than would Keystone XL. And it comes with relaxed regulation compared to the disastrous last time Shell tried this. I wonder if the Obama administration took the points in this Lois Epstein article into account: https://www.adn.com/article/20150508/shell-hasnt-earned-enough-trust-dri...
9
Bad show………….
10
We give the oil companies permission to drill in extremely risky ways, and yet the average price of gas in California today is still $3.75 and we still have to care what the king of Saudi Arabia thinks of us. What exactly are we getting in exchange for this huge environmental gamble? At what point does the public see a return on its investment?
10
The Twelfth of Never.
Buy an EV and solar power on your roof, drive on sunlight!
What could possibly go wrong? Oh right, despite Shell "being unprepared for the problems it encountered operating in the unforgiving Arctic environment", I'm sure they have it all figured out by now. Well, maybe Shell will make us forget about BP in a few years.
We just keep making the same mistakes. God forbid we find an alternative to oil and natural gas.
We just keep making the same mistakes. God forbid we find an alternative to oil and natural gas.
10
I am so disenchanted with Obama and I enthusiastically voted for him twice. But for the Iran negotiations I wish he was truly a lame duck for the duration of his term.
16
Obama makes me sick. I expect this from a Republican administration. It's not supposed to be happening under a "Democratic" one.
36
Keep the oil where it is. We need to find alternative fuels..if we burn everything that is in the ground will will kill our poor sick planet and all the creatures on it..except maybe cockroaches.
13
As the Artic ice recedes and melts, my biggest concern about protecting the Artic is the Wild West atmosphere that seems to be pervading the current approch to exploiting its resources. I note the lack of a firm international agreement amoung the countries who claim soverignty over even a portion of the Artic that offers even a modicum of protection to the animal and marine species that currently inhabit it's shores and waters. Without such an agreement we may, within our lifetimes, witness the reduction or even extinction of species the like of which has not been seen since the end of the dinasaurs.
13
There is an awful amount of hyperbole in your paragraph. The extinction event you refer to wiped out 3/4 of the earth's species. Only someone who has no scientific background could make such a statement. You know the misuse of science by people who espouse your world view makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously.
You do realize that the Artic Cap is actually GROWING don't you?? You Environmentalist Extremists never cease to amaze me.
Well, isn't that a surprise? Not! On this site I predicted he will approve the Keystone Pipeline.
7
I fear the same, he's no guardian of the environment, he's proven that.
Reading this, tears welled up in my eyes and I got a lump in my throat. Humans are unforgivably rapacious. Shame on you, Mr. Obama.
56
Irresponsible, reckless decision which ruins Obama's environmental record.
Aside of the fragile Arctic environment, the local weather conditions are such that risks of accidents are high and containing these accidents will be extremely difficult.
Tis is aggravated by the fact that the relevant Federal agencies, such as the US Coast Guard and the EPA, are poorly equipped to work efficiently in the Arctic, by their own admissions, which makes the Obama's Administration decision even stranger.
This is another example of predatory environmental behavior for the sole sake of corporate profits, with no consideration at all to the long term disastrous consequences. Future generations will pay a very, very high price for this, unless many citizens fight teeth and nails to prevent that disaster.
Aside of the fragile Arctic environment, the local weather conditions are such that risks of accidents are high and containing these accidents will be extremely difficult.
Tis is aggravated by the fact that the relevant Federal agencies, such as the US Coast Guard and the EPA, are poorly equipped to work efficiently in the Arctic, by their own admissions, which makes the Obama's Administration decision even stranger.
This is another example of predatory environmental behavior for the sole sake of corporate profits, with no consideration at all to the long term disastrous consequences. Future generations will pay a very, very high price for this, unless many citizens fight teeth and nails to prevent that disaster.
277
unfortunately not unexpected, but still disappointing. in contrast with all the posing, Obama still caters to the corporate interests.
7
Perhaps this decision can be tied in to the TPP. It sounds like it. I can think of no other reason for this decision.
1
Obamas environmental record and FISA stopped many of us voting for him a second time. Now he is an environmental pariah
1
What a disgrace. I may has well have voted for Rick Santorum.
54
When hyperbole starts to actually make sense, I get nervous...very nervous.
4
Yet another example how the Dems are the same as the Repubs.
104
@ScottW, it sometimes seems that way, and the decision is disappointing. But the Democrats are not driven by our evangelical Taliban. The Fascist right insists on no infringement on anyone acquiring an arsenal, but total infringement on a woman's right to control her own body.
I wish there could be provisions written into the agreement that the Shell CEO and board would be held personally and criminally responsible in the event of a major spill. Not likely. The leader of the coal company in WV, who apparently permitted safety equipment to be disengaged, resulting in many deaths, is still a free man.
I wish there could be provisions written into the agreement that the Shell CEO and board would be held personally and criminally responsible in the event of a major spill. Not likely. The leader of the coal company in WV, who apparently permitted safety equipment to be disengaged, resulting in many deaths, is still a free man.
Concern trolling, no doubt. Despite the shortcomings of the Dems, they don't begin to plumb the depths of the current Republican party.
However, I'm not sure I wouldn't take Eisenhower over the whole bunch. This, of course, is about guns but would take very little alteration to make it about oil exploitation. And, of course, Putin will likely be gung ho to start a shooting war up there too.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
Dwight D. Eisenhower, From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953
However, I'm not sure I wouldn't take Eisenhower over the whole bunch. This, of course, is about guns but would take very little alteration to make it about oil exploitation. And, of course, Putin will likely be gung ho to start a shooting war up there too.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
Dwight D. Eisenhower, From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953
One needs only to look at the history of spills and accidents from drilling in the North Sea to sea what is likely to occur with drilling in the Arctic Ocean.
153
Another sell-out by the Obama administration to the big-money special interests?
And another environmental-disaster-waiting-to-happen time-bomb for the poor environment?
And another environmental-disaster-waiting-to-happen time-bomb for the poor environment?
59
The Obama administration does not need special interests to reach this decision. It looks from here like the President considered all those who supported him through the past six years, and, after careful consideration, decided to do the opposite of what they elected him to do and not do.
I thought the XL pipeline made far more economic and ecological sense than drilling in the Chukchi Sea.
So, XL no. Chukchi, yes. Maybe we can transfer all of the Arctic oil and gas by train. What could happen?
I thought the XL pipeline made far more economic and ecological sense than drilling in the Chukchi Sea.
So, XL no. Chukchi, yes. Maybe we can transfer all of the Arctic oil and gas by train. What could happen?
1
Does anybody know if Shell's "safety plans" (in case of a blowout) will work in Arctic conditions? Have any of their plans been tested?
23
I don't know and don't care. When gays and environmenatalists are fighting our wars then maybe I will take a moment to ponder such ideas.
1
Addendum...everyone write today to your congressional representatives I am going to do so right now.
10
Are you kidding???
For this and the TPP, the President will be excoriated--and rightly so.
This is a giant step backwards, when we have barely tiptoed forward in addressing climate change.
Shameful.
This is a giant step backwards, when we have barely tiptoed forward in addressing climate change.
Shameful.
278
President Obama’s lame-duck period has been a bizarre kick in the face to his most ardent supporters. First, we have his demand for fast tracking TPP, despite the positions of labor leaders and working families. Now, a give-away to Shell, which is an environmental catastrophe in the making.
This action makes no sense from a President who has spoken so passionately about climate change. I guess telling our grandchildren “we did all that we could” pales in comparison to the consideration of future "speaking fees".
I’m frankly shocked that President Obama would approve Arctic drilling, given that the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster took place on his watch. He has apparently learned nothing, and we will now have video footage of oil-drenched whales and polar bears to look forward to in the near future. My stomach turns at his indifference. Disgraceful.
This action makes no sense from a President who has spoken so passionately about climate change. I guess telling our grandchildren “we did all that we could” pales in comparison to the consideration of future "speaking fees".
I’m frankly shocked that President Obama would approve Arctic drilling, given that the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster took place on his watch. He has apparently learned nothing, and we will now have video footage of oil-drenched whales and polar bears to look forward to in the near future. My stomach turns at his indifference. Disgraceful.
301
"This action makes no sense from a President who has spoken so passionately about ...."
Wake up for crying out loud! The guy's an actor, always has been.
Wake up for crying out loud! The guy's an actor, always has been.
32
It was clear that this man was a Republican, or an actor, or an agent for corporate interests, or all of the above, since before he took office.
10
Actually he is the leader of all Americans.
With global warming, the Arctic was a promising refuge for many species. Not any more..
59
I might be suggested that, with the understanding that at some point, all the fossil fuels on the planet will be needed, eventually, that environmentalists have succeeded magnificently at creating the safest possible conditions for it's extraction. I trust the President. It does not appear to me that he is "in the pocket of Big Oil." A corporation's mission is to maximize prophets without consideration for anything else. The government, with this understanding, has the power to legislate the playing field such that good corporate citizenship becomes the best profit making strategy...
6
Good corporate citizenship? YOU can run along and be a good corporate citizen and support your good corporate senator and good corporate President. I vote no confidence.
12
The government has no power to curb the profits of corporations. Maybe if we had more environmental prophets speaking up, they might change their attitude. Not likely, but possible.
"profits"
Such bad news. Disappointed in Obama--he knows better.
95
He might know better, yet hard facts seem no longer to enter into the equation.
In 2008, the oligarchs decided to change strategy and back a progressive-talking, smart, and incredibly charasmatic candidate. The best business decision they ever made.
In 2008, the oligarchs decided to change strategy and back a progressive-talking, smart, and incredibly charasmatic candidate. The best business decision they ever made.
10
I know...Bush, you knew he didn't get it, he had Cheney....but Obama, touting the environment and completely caving to the corporations! Shame on him for not realizing when he was elected that he was elected to change the status quo, his policies are worse, the corporations have never had it so good...
6
Why does the President seem to think that each move in support of the environment needs to be "balanced" by a move against the environment?
220
Because he's on the take of big oil. This is the big kahuna. Everything else just doesn't matter. When the spill of the century to really put this earth on the path toward rapid extinction occurs, he'll be long gone planning the Obama memorial library and collecting hefty speaking fees. It's a disgrace.
9
Yes! Well said. It's akin to the "grand bargain" he sought with the far right, that would have punished the most vulnerable of our citizens, including seniors who've worked hard for decades.
In other words, it is unconscionable.
On certain issues, balance is a bad idea and so is compromise.
In other words, it is unconscionable.
On certain issues, balance is a bad idea and so is compromise.
2
What part of Ms. Warrens' arguments about your administration's policy are "WRONG", President Obama?
97
Shame on the President, and his administration, for once again caving in to Big Oil and its extraordinary pressure tactics, mainly based on how much money they care to spend, but also how many lies they care to spread.
167
CLATHRATE ... However other global warming moots/mutes this addition by cleaner carbon reduced fuels substitution. In fact, in about 14 years after significant clathrate releases, there is warm enough water and plant life renewal to create a major carbon sink. Make it safe & add a Coast Guard Station.
2
It's cold water that absorbs more CO2, not warm water. And plants are only taking up a fraction of today's CO2 emissions (about 28%).
A clathrate release could potentially increase change climate change very signficant ways. But most scientists seem to think it's very unlikely one would occur this century.
A clathrate release could potentially increase change climate change very signficant ways. But most scientists seem to think it's very unlikely one would occur this century.
The corporations control everything, because of "Citizen's United" The worst ruling, I believe ever. We no longer consider the outcome or consequences of what this will mean for the future of nature or humanity...Money trumps everything, how do any of them sleep at night??
194
They controlled everything well before that ruling and you're incredibly naive if you believe otherwise.
Citizens United obviously wasn't good, but if you want to see really awful rulings, check out Bowers v. Hardwick, Korematsu v. US and Plessy v. Ferguson, among others.
Citizens United obviously wasn't good, but if you want to see really awful rulings, check out Bowers v. Hardwick, Korematsu v. US and Plessy v. Ferguson, among others.
1
I assume you are using the editorial 'we' Because i certainly don't include myself in your generalization.
2
Kim, If you think the oil corporations are going to be of great benefit from this ruling you should purchase stock in the oil companies that drill in the artic. You could then pass on the appreciation of the stock value on to poorer people so that the money will go to humanity and therefore you perceived problem will be solved.
"Balanc[ing] those moves" means no net gains against climate change. And, "The closest Coast Guard station with equipment for responding to a spill is over 1,000 miles away. The weather is extreme, with major storms, icy waters, and waves up to 50 feet high. The sea is also a major migration route and feeding area for marine mammals, including bowhead whales and walruses." These facts support the likelihood that any little accident will quickly become a major environmental disaster. Way to go, Administration, thanks for looking out for the planet and the humans on it.
187
We are having water shortages and spoilages from natural and unnatural causes, and yet water bottlers are still pulling from the California aquifer, and fracking continues although it turns fresh water into poison.
We are facing a global emergency of climate change, with sea levels rising, fossil fuels are known to exacerbate the process, yet we are drilling and using what will lead to the demise of most life on this planet. The planet will survive, in its new form, but can we make the transition? Why do decisions that enrich the few allow them to do things that destroy the future? Is this a justifiable risk to take?
Other countries are actually investing in renewable energy instead of talking about how it can;t be down... and guess what? It is working out better than expected.. how come we can't do this?
Holland put solar cells in a roadway!! It beat expectations! We can do this!
http://www.sciencealert.com/solar-roads-in-the-netherlands-are-working-e...
We are facing a global emergency of climate change, with sea levels rising, fossil fuels are known to exacerbate the process, yet we are drilling and using what will lead to the demise of most life on this planet. The planet will survive, in its new form, but can we make the transition? Why do decisions that enrich the few allow them to do things that destroy the future? Is this a justifiable risk to take?
Other countries are actually investing in renewable energy instead of talking about how it can;t be down... and guess what? It is working out better than expected.. how come we can't do this?
Holland put solar cells in a roadway!! It beat expectations! We can do this!
http://www.sciencealert.com/solar-roads-in-the-netherlands-are-working-e...
128
Korea did it too - different style and one that could easily be adapted to our existing roads and highways..
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/bike-lane-down-center-korean-highway-cov...
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/bike-lane-down-center-korean-highway-cov...
21
These darned rich people.
What we absolutely need to do is to elect a Democratic President that has enriched herself wildly by taking huge sums of money from these same darned rich people ... including rich oil barons and Russians looking to corner the uranium market.
Yeah, that's what we need.
What we absolutely need to do is to elect a Democratic President that has enriched herself wildly by taking huge sums of money from these same darned rich people ... including rich oil barons and Russians looking to corner the uranium market.
Yeah, that's what we need.
10
Sorry, the technology may exist, and other countries may use it, but sadly there's absolutely nothing that "we" (i.e. the US) "can" or will do anything as smart as what you suggest!
This is a decision that conflicts with President Obama's expressed concerns about the climate. It's as if he believes he truly can please everyone, and ultimately ends up pleasing no one. More importantly, his conflicting decisions send a signal to the rest of the world that the US is concerned about the climate, in name only.
Shell couldn't begin earlier because of problems it had trying to set up a drilling operation. There's nothing to lead us to believe it has really fixed the problems. When you consider that an oil spill in the Arctic would have permanent, negative impacts, it's unconscionable to even take the risk.
President Obama has little affinity for the natural world, as we've sadly discovered over the last several years. But one would think his promises related to the climate would at least force him to make token efforts to curtain oil exploration.
Shell couldn't begin earlier because of problems it had trying to set up a drilling operation. There's nothing to lead us to believe it has really fixed the problems. When you consider that an oil spill in the Arctic would have permanent, negative impacts, it's unconscionable to even take the risk.
President Obama has little affinity for the natural world, as we've sadly discovered over the last several years. But one would think his promises related to the climate would at least force him to make token efforts to curtain oil exploration.
317
Shelly,
Other than ACA, which will become a tiny footnote to his legacy, Obama has always stood squarely with Corporate America.
Other than ACA, which will become a tiny footnote to his legacy, Obama has always stood squarely with Corporate America.
2
Alas, for once the Obama administration went with science rather than eco gobble goop. This obviously disturbs the "activists" who prefer emotions any day over objective science.
For once I get to applaud the administration.
For once I get to applaud the administration.
When Obama was elected, the opportunity for universal health care was enormous. Doctors were finally on board, tired of big insurance dictates, the public most certainly was, nurses were vocally supportive. Obama then took his stand with Corporate America and worked hard to save the no value added insurance companies and the big pharma.
2
This is an atrocious development. Arctic drilling is always going to be extremely dangerous to wildlife and people:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/arct...
and we heard similar claims of safety for the Gulf and Bristol Bay.
This, from a Democratic president, whose likely successor, Mrs. Clinton, is also pro drilling and hearts natural gas. At least she admits the planet is warming. As for the Republicans, they are a subsidiary of the oil companies and the banks, and champion fracking, pipelines, and all the rest of it, the pollution, the greenhouse gases, and the funneling of wealth to greed crazed banksters and cowboy oligarchs.
Many of us Democrats will support any primary candidate for President who stands up to the oil companies. Whether that person emerges, and is not immediately vilified by the corporate media, remains to be seen.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/arct...
and we heard similar claims of safety for the Gulf and Bristol Bay.
This, from a Democratic president, whose likely successor, Mrs. Clinton, is also pro drilling and hearts natural gas. At least she admits the planet is warming. As for the Republicans, they are a subsidiary of the oil companies and the banks, and champion fracking, pipelines, and all the rest of it, the pollution, the greenhouse gases, and the funneling of wealth to greed crazed banksters and cowboy oligarchs.
Many of us Democrats will support any primary candidate for President who stands up to the oil companies. Whether that person emerges, and is not immediately vilified by the corporate media, remains to be seen.
52
I'm unaware of Hillary announcing a policy re drilling. To date, I believe that she has only spoken to her determination to find a path to citizenship for undocumented aliens now in the US. She's always been an environmentalist and she certainly does not have the track record of lying to her constituents that Obama has developed lo these many years.
1
Jhis is just wrong...plain and simple. How many jobs do think this will create? I'm sure the president hopes to be out of office when the inevitable oil spill occurs. Of course, this is only "conditional" which means what??? It is very upsetting to see the wrong decisions constantly being made whether it is on the economy, the environment or international policy, but that is what happens when the democratic institutions are captured by economic interests as foretold by both Adam Smith and James Madison. BTW...Obama is lying about the TPP as well.
108
So the BP disaster IS Obama's Hurricane Katrina. He has earned it.
30
There is a good reason to drill way far far far away from civilization-that is to cover up any major disaster.
15
Did you ever wonder why such decisions are made against all good sense? Try this on for size: mega corporations control the government any way they can, and by that I don't only mean mega money and swarms of D. C. influence peddlers. I mean that through saturating the media with a capitalist myth they make sure most Americans can't think clearly about decisions made in our name. So what if the odds favor disasters in the Arctic which because of the environment will be virtually uncontrollable? As long as profits remain healthy, who cares about the health of anything else, the myriad life form which will die? In the long run, we're being led over a cliff. You may think you have your parachute ready but at most that will save you in the short run from financial ruin. Meanwhile, our brother and sister life forms will perish. Maybe prayer will work to keep this monstrous irresponsibility from happening. If so, I suggest getting down on your knees. Now.
55
The blind cruelty of this action is shocking. Not just for the fragile arctic (and we know how dependable the oil companies are) but for climate change and life on this planet. This action must be stopped.
9
It's hard for an Obama supporter from early on to accept something like this. If it is part of a strategy to disentangle American interests from the bloody mess that is today's Middle East, it sure is a risky one.
Massive clean energy infrastructure investment: zero risk.
Massive clean energy infrastructure investment: zero risk.
354
It's true, in the end, all I can say for Pres. Obama is that he wasn't as bad as every Republican.
4
There is no rational excuse for this move.
8
Zero risk for highly risky investment on clean energy infrastructure? I hope you are being sarcastic, together with 100+ commentators who voted up... Otherwise I'm not even sure if I'm reading Fox News or Times reader comments.
Our energy policy is being dictated by Big Oil - Obama is simply their PR person.
94
Our government under Obama, or anyone, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the oil industry.
2
Obama, you are a disappointment here. And I am usually a big.fan.
92
Can't we leave some part of this planet sacred and unspoiled?!
171
There is no where to hide anymore, it is going to all be touched by our warming planet, because of actions just like this. Mother Earth (which includes all of humanity) is the big loser here!!
2
7 billion of us, soon to be 8 then 9. So, no.
2
What we human species need is population control. The planet, including the third world populations who haven't a clue about birth control, simply needs to stop having more than 1 or 2 babies, or stop altogether for 5 years, then in t years after that, have another 5 year stop. We are like ants on a muffin, eating ourselves out of house and home.
3
Obama is the best Republican president in many years!
103
I don't remember the GOP nominating him.
1
This administration is so remarkably short sighted. One day Obama is giving speeches about the great importance of restraining global warming, the next giving a green light to oil and gas concerns, who are more then willing to 'drill frack drill'.
A nice statement is always issued saying how much care the drilling company will take, how cognizant of environmental concerns they are, and how they also don't wish to infringe on the rights of Native American people. No matter that when it comes to the business of pumping oil, these companies put as little money as possible into precautions for the environment.
The Arctic is a treacherously fluctuating area, with the unpredictable coming and going of ice masses and churning seas. And what happens with the integrity of these deep wells in the event of a major earthquake, which in time will come. It is about getting as much money out of the ground and out from under the ocean as possible, then like a plague of locusts moving on to the next location to exploit it.
A nice statement is always issued saying how much care the drilling company will take, how cognizant of environmental concerns they are, and how they also don't wish to infringe on the rights of Native American people. No matter that when it comes to the business of pumping oil, these companies put as little money as possible into precautions for the environment.
The Arctic is a treacherously fluctuating area, with the unpredictable coming and going of ice masses and churning seas. And what happens with the integrity of these deep wells in the event of a major earthquake, which in time will come. It is about getting as much money out of the ground and out from under the ocean as possible, then like a plague of locusts moving on to the next location to exploit it.
237
You are much too eloquent to use the word "then" in place of "than." Please help me end the then/than atrocity.
3
Thank you for your fine compliment and also noticing the then/than dilemma. There are certainly times I wish that Times comments could be edited by the poster, or deleted and re-posted with corrections.
2
Any offshore exploratory activities will continue to be subject to rigorous safety standards? The same safety standards used by BP to drill in the Gulf?
128
Obama
- let BP off the hook too easily;
- refused to adopt European methods of ocean oil spill cleanup;
- allowed industry to control the ‘cleanup’ which was just more toxic spread, out of sight dispersal.
Tragically, the model for BP told industry what the model for the Arctic would be. We can kiss the Arctic goodbye.
Just like the large banks, BP should not have been saved from bankruptcy. Bankruptcy, or something similar for banks, is a well established procedure. It was probably Larry Summers who sold Obama with the scare tactic that reorganizing the banks would cause too much disruption, weaken the recovery, and lose Congress for Obama. Obama listened to Summers – and all the bad things still happened.
Obama has been getting the same kind of bad advice on the energy industry, on the environment, and on the trade agreements. What he should know without being told is that after ten years of negotiation for the Alaskan pipeline, ExxonMobil violated the agreements. When a scientific agency reported the facts, instead of listening to the scientists, the Republicans in Congress tried to come after NOAA with a meat axe. Where is the record that industry, Wall Street, or the nation’s now majority Party can be trusted?
- let BP off the hook too easily;
- refused to adopt European methods of ocean oil spill cleanup;
- allowed industry to control the ‘cleanup’ which was just more toxic spread, out of sight dispersal.
Tragically, the model for BP told industry what the model for the Arctic would be. We can kiss the Arctic goodbye.
Just like the large banks, BP should not have been saved from bankruptcy. Bankruptcy, or something similar for banks, is a well established procedure. It was probably Larry Summers who sold Obama with the scare tactic that reorganizing the banks would cause too much disruption, weaken the recovery, and lose Congress for Obama. Obama listened to Summers – and all the bad things still happened.
Obama has been getting the same kind of bad advice on the energy industry, on the environment, and on the trade agreements. What he should know without being told is that after ten years of negotiation for the Alaskan pipeline, ExxonMobil violated the agreements. When a scientific agency reported the facts, instead of listening to the scientists, the Republicans in Congress tried to come after NOAA with a meat axe. Where is the record that industry, Wall Street, or the nation’s now majority Party can be trusted?
1
Jim Hansen gave a TED Talk three years ago on need to address climate change now:
Why I Must Speak Out About Climate Change
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate...
“Imagine a giant asteroid on a direct collision course with Earth. That is the equivalent of what we face now. Yet, we dither, taking no action to divert the asteroid, even though the longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive it becomes. If we had started in 2005 it would have required emission reductions of three percent per year to restore planetary energy balance and stabilize climate this century. If we start next year, it is six percent per year. If we wait 10 years, it is 15 percent per year – extremely difficult and expensive, perhaps impossible. But we aren't even starting.”
President Obama has had an all-of-the-above approach on energy. Not a good idea.
Hillary Clinton promoted fracking in other countries and was ready to approve the Keystone Pipeline when she was Secretary of State.
The planetary crisis of climate change will be front and center if Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders becomes president. Go Bernie!
Why I Must Speak Out About Climate Change
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate...
“Imagine a giant asteroid on a direct collision course with Earth. That is the equivalent of what we face now. Yet, we dither, taking no action to divert the asteroid, even though the longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive it becomes. If we had started in 2005 it would have required emission reductions of three percent per year to restore planetary energy balance and stabilize climate this century. If we start next year, it is six percent per year. If we wait 10 years, it is 15 percent per year – extremely difficult and expensive, perhaps impossible. But we aren't even starting.”
President Obama has had an all-of-the-above approach on energy. Not a good idea.
Hillary Clinton promoted fracking in other countries and was ready to approve the Keystone Pipeline when she was Secretary of State.
The planetary crisis of climate change will be front and center if Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders becomes president. Go Bernie!
380
This a wonderful opportunity for us to get more oil. More oil means that we will be able to heat our homes and be comfortable. It is what God in His infinite wisdom intended to happen. The whales and walrus will just have to adapt. Not that we care. We haven't needed whale oil for centuries!
3
What difference does make where the oil comes from. No more blood and treasure for middle east oil.
5
If it was coming from your backyard, it would make a difference now wouldn't it. But somewhere remote? Who cares, right?
4