Sunday, May 9, 2010

Who Knows How Much This Will Cost?


As BP continues to struggle to cap the leaking oil in the Gulf, one of the first things we learned is that they only have to pay $75 Million of consequential damages (losses affected people will have to their property and businesses) plus the cost of cleanup. This law, of course, was written and passed in 1990 after the Exxon Valdez spill.

After the oil hit the sea, Bill Nelson and others in Congress immediately said that we need to raise the limits of liability for consequential damages (loss of jobs for fishermen, for example) from oil spills from $75 Million to $10 Billion.

Both amounts are woefully inadequate.

Why limit it to $10 Billion when we don't even know the extent of the current disaster?

Maybe Big Oil will operate more safely if they don't have their liability limited.

Take a look at the chart on Page 3P of the May 9, 2010, St. Petersburg Times for a glimpse at the 2009 profits of the oil companies and you'll see that $10 Billion is a drop in one year's bucket of profits. (Exxon $45.2 Billion, BP $21.2 Billion, Shell $26.3 Billion, Chevron $23.9 Billion, Citgo $7.5 Billion....)

Who came up with the $10 Billion Dollar number that Bill Nelson is touting?

Until the Oil Companies can show they can cap the damn leak, we shouldn't even be talking about any caps on their liability. We don't have any idea yet what the extent of the damage from this one leak will be. Is this just another attempt to build in "too big to fail protections" in another form by capping damages?

Are the oil companies ever going to cap their prices that we pay at the pump? Then why should we allow them to act recklessly, without impunity?

Let Senator Nelson know that there should be no caps!

Sunday, May 2, 2010

A Love That Runs Deeper Than Those Damn Wells

Many people have wondered why my wife and I have been so angered by even the thought of offshore drilling off the coast of Florida. Even our kids have made comments about our many postings on Facebook, our frantic emails with emergency calls to action, and even our participation in Hands Across the Sand and the second protest demonstration a few weeks go at the Vinoy basin. Others may have thought the same, but were too polite to mention it.


So let me tell you why I feel so strongly about this issue.


You see, long before I met and fell in love with my wife, I fell in love with Florida's natural beauty. I was fortunate to be born here and had the opportunity to grow up along the west coast, first on the beaches of Pinellas County, and then north to Crystal River, which was a magical place in the early 1960's.


I have vivid memories of month-long stays every June on Indian Rocks Beach, playing with my siblings, cousins and friends from early morning to sunset. On full moons, we'd hunt for blue crabs along the shore line using a flashlight, a long-handled crab net, pulling a washtub behind us in which to throw our catch. We'd wear shoes to protect ourselves from stingrays buried in the sand.


It didn't matter that there was no TV at the cottage. We were never bored. Fishing, swimming, making sand castles, collecting shells, catching sand fleas and fiddler crabs for bait. The water and the sand were clean and beautiful. It was always sad to come back to Tampa after a month at the beach.


In 1960, my father and two of his friends invested in a vacation home in Crystal River that the three families shared. Our family would go to Crystal River nearly every third weekend and for several weeks during the summer when we were out of school. We had a couple of small boats that we would use to explore the incredible spring-fed river and the pristine Nature Coast and its crystal clear grass flats in the Gulf which serves as the nursery for most sea life in the Gulf.


It was there that I learned to water ski, scuba dive, discover a love of all sorts of water birds, get my mask knocked off by the tail of a Manatee when I got too close (before any regulations were in effect I might add), catch and clean scallops, and really develop a deep love for fishing and the outdoors.


Crystal River, circa 1960 had crystal clear water, no algae (from excessive fertilizer runoff, like exists today) or aquatic weed problems-- and very few residents. The nuclear power plant had not been constructed. Commercial fisherman (in their unique wooden boats with the outboard motor placed in a cut-through in the bow for running in shallow water) would set blue crab traps and gill net fish in the Gulf and in Salt River. Only a few people were diving in the springs. There was only one dive shop where you could get a scuba tank filled.


The river was wide, and water skiing was allowed nearly everywhere. There weren't any "No Wake" zones, Manatee Protection Areas, speed limits, or jet skis. There were no limits on the number of fish that you could catch and take home to eat, and no regulations on scallops, either.


The river is a seven mile trip to the Gulf of Mexico. At nearly the half-way mark, the river forks. Crystal River is the northern route to the Gulf and Salt River is the more southerly route. Salt River is laden with treacherous oyster bars and is a maze of mangrove islands and sawgrass islands that all look nearly the same. It is extremely easy to get lost or turned around in there. There was a time when I could navigate it well and knew exactly where to go to not destroy the lower end of the outboard motor. Now I don't know where all the oyster bed are, and I'm too reluctant to rely upon my decades' old knowledge out there.


Whether you choose Salt River or Crystal River, the scenery is like stepping back hundreds of years. Thankfully, these are places that man and his dredges and fill dirt have not yet found. For as far as your eyes can see, there are thousands of acres of marsh and sawgrass interspersed with upland areas populated with sabal palms. Every time I make the trip, I know that this part of Florida has remained the same since the Spanish explorers came. I like that. It is what makes me an environmentalist at heart. This is the Florida that stole my heart.


I've already alluded to some of the things that we had in the old days--before any regulations. There were no limits on harvesting fish. It was always "open season" for recreational fishermen and commercial boats. The only question was how big your ice chests were and how long you wanted to clean the fish.


I was always excited to get invited to go King Mackerel fishing with my father and his friends during the bi-annual kingfishing runs (that occur along the West coast when this migratory species makes its way along the coast in search of water in the 68-72 degree range). I vividly remember watching the sun rise while staring at the wake of a big "cabin cruiser" boat as we cruised out of Clearwater Pass early one morning. It was the annual kingfish run and it was going to be a good day. Not too rough. We had plenty of white bait and followed the diving birds to the large pods of bait offshore where there were no less than 100 boats forming circular patterns in the area where the fish had been found. Each of these boats were loaded with anglers and had multiple lines in the water. Everyone was catching lots of fish.


We proceeded to catch a normal day's catch of 200 fish, most of them in the 15 pound range, but several topping 25 pounds. It was the most amazing combination of adrenalin, testosterone and hops and barley that I had ever seen in my 9 years. There were times when all 5 anglers would have a fish on at the same time, dipping over and under each other to keep from crossing lines. As fish would be brought along side, they'd be gaffed and thrown into the cooler, being wary of their razor sharp teeth. The action was non-stop, all day long. When we came back to the dock, the men would clean the fish and I'd try to sell some to tourists or locals looking for fresh fish. Little thought was given to the pressure being put on the fish stocks. We always had fish left over after giving some to friends and neighbors. Our freezer would be packed with the rest.


Guess what, the commercial fisherman were even worse stewards of the resource than the recreational anglers. As a result, the king mackerel fishery nearly died completely by the mid 1970's. However, in 1976, the Federal Government passed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and for the first time set limits on the harvesting of these fish. Today, the fishery of king mackerel has been rejuvenated, but with modest bag limits to protect the fish from man's greed.


Today I open the paper and read the headline from the tragic oil spill: "GLOOM DEEPENS."


Yesterday, my son, said--we'll, I guess you and mom were right about that offshore drilling. I guess it isn't as safe as they claimed it was.


There is no consolation in being right. There is no "I told you so moment" that makes any of this good, in any way. The hundreds of hours that I've spent scalloping on the crystal clear grass flats off of Crystal River and Homosassa may soon be only a memory. The damage to the fragile mangrove island and sawgrass areas that I described above will be irreparable. I've feared that all along. It's why I've been obsessed, some might say.


We have an obligation to preserve this state and to pass it on to future generations in a better condition than we found it. Excessive development that began in the 1960's and has continued unabated ever since, has dug us a huge hole. As the saying goes, when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.


The absence of regulation or deregulation of things previously regulated is the issue with environmental protection. For those preaching for less government, this is one area where we have to say--you are wrong--we must insist upon more regulation. I've been there and done it. I've over fished. Now I don't--because it's regulated. It's even worse when the motivation for violating environmental laws is for greed and profit. Time and time again we see a blind eye turned toward regulation, because it will cost too much.


Well, in light of the current disaster, how are the economics looking this week?


That's why we've been speaking out against drilling and will continue to do so. It's about the beauty of this state and about the economics. We are too dependent upon the sales tax revenue from tourism and the jobs that our coasts provide (nearly 950,000 people's jobs in Florida relate to the coast in some way). Fishing is already being curtailed in the Panhandle. Jobs have been impacted and the oil hasn't hit Florida yet.


That's where regulation must come into play, in a big way. This week we learned that BP was not required to have a $500,000 shut off valve on its rig because deregulation of the industry in the US made that possible. In Norway, they make BP spend the money for the valve. We let greed rule and we get a spill of unmatched proportion. We also learned that the oil companies initially lied about whether or not the rig was even leaking, and hoped it could be another non-news event for them. We also learned that BP has had other spills that have not been reported in the news and that they have no competent plans for dealing with a spill of this type.


We didn't regulate fishing in the 1970's and nearly wiped out king mackerel. None of us on the boats would regulate ourselves. Sad, but true.


The citizens of Florida banned gill netting by a constitutional amendment (when the legislature refused to act), and fish stocks around the state are again healthy and growing.


Left alone to his own devices (especially for profit), man will not control himself. Look anywhere there has been no regulation or deregulation. Throw in greed and lots of money, and that's something that we just have to rein in. (Enron and later Wall Street taking us to the brink of financial disaster are other examples of what happens when deregulation and less governmental controls are the mantra.)


Not only do we need to clean up this spill, but we need to require rigid frequent inspections of the thousands of rigs already in the Gulf and ensure that they have working shut off valves. And, unlike the lax regulations of coal mines, we need to shut them down if they violate the laws.


And, mind you, this will be a very tall order, because, mechanical things and salt water don't work well together.


It's just a matter of time before anything on the Gulf fails. Anyone who has owned a boat operated in salt water will testify that performance of that boat is only temporary. We simply must have a much higher regulatory standard for polluting oil wells in the Gulf. It is no surprise that a valve under 5,000 feet of salt water failed to close. Surely we all know this.


So, why are the American people so gullible in believing the oil industry's sound bites that drilling technology is safe? Common sense tells us otherwise.


Today, I'm glad to slow down in Manatee areas because I still grin with amazement whenever one pops his or her head above the water to take a breath, especially the baby that doesn't have prop scars on its back like its mother.


I love the fact that I had to throw back nearly 30 fish last Friday because we had already caught our limit, and that many of the trout that we threw back into the waters of Charlotte Harbor were more breeders of than 20 inches long--a rarity when gill netting was still allowed.


It didn't bother me that we had to throw back the snook that we caught because the season on snook is closed. Record freezes killed a lot of fish this year and we need to help restore the stock before taking more.


I just hope and pray that the oil slick can be harnessed and recovered before it does irreparable damage to the Florida coast that I love so much.


I want to regulate all of this so that we pass this beautiful place on to future generations in a much better condition. It's the very least we can do.


The Iroquois Tribal leaders were much wiser than we are. They said that when making decisions, we should consider the affects of those decisions on the next seven generations.


"Drill Baby Drill," isn't exactly that type of tribal wisdom.


It's past time for green renewable energy. Windmills and solar panels won't pollute our grass flats or kill our fish.


Get angry and make this happen!

Saturday, May 1, 2010

Hey, Dems--Don't Be Impulsive With Your Vote


I was perplexed this week to hear several Florida teachers calling into radio shows saying that they are Democrats who are seriously thinking about voting for Charlie Crist in the three-way Senate race because of his "courageous veto of SB 6". They seemed convinced that-- all of a sudden-- Charlie Crist had become a principled advocate for them.

Let's not fool ourselves.

Charlie Crist, is first, foremost--and always--a political chameleon in the worst way--in the "which-way-is-the-wind-blowing-today sense."

Don't be quick to anoint him as a political maverick who somehow now--miraculously-- speaks for you.

Know this--Charlie is always going to do what is best for Charlie, while wrapping it in a big bouquet to make it smell lovely and look appealing.

That's all that Charlie's veto of SB 6 ever was--a purely political decision made by him to do what he felt to be in his best political interest.

Think I'm wrong? Ok. Ask yourself this question.

Do you think Charlie would have vetoed SB 6 if he had been ahead of Rubio in the polls at the time of that veto? Do you think Charlie would have dared jeopardize his lead (and the current ostracizing and expulsion from the Republican party) by voting against the GOP establishment (and with the teachers' union)? No way.

Only after Charlie's popularity dropped in the GOP polls and only after he became a political outcast in the Republican party did he "discover" his newly-found so-called independent streak.

It amazes me that Charlie is being praised so highly for simply doing what he is supposed to do as Governor-- it's part of his job as the head of the third branch of government to veto a really poorly drafted bill (SB 6) that was hurriedly passed without any input or amendments and simply wasn't in an acceptable form to justify its approval. Nothing more, nothing less.

Do you remember that just 4 years ago, when Charlie was running for Governor, he labeled himself "a Jeb Bush Republican." Charlie didn't say that because he truly follows all of Jeb's ideology or even because he even likes Jeb--in fact it's now increasingly clear that Charlie and Jeb don't really care much for each other, especially lately.

But, when running for Governor, Charlie simply did the politically expedient thing that would be best for Charlie--he held his nose and embraced all things "Jeb!" just to get votes.

Four years later, he's cozying up to the teachers simply because it's politically expedient again--just to get votes. Ask yourselves where Charlie has been during the last four years in Leading on educational issues? What did he do to advance the interests of teachers-- as an advocate-- when he was still in good stead with the GOP?

The last time I checked, he was in lock step with them while he was popular in his own Party. Charlie supported the Republican-controlled legislature's annual spending cuts for education every year since he has been in office.

Where was Charlie when he had a chance to really support teachers during the last 4 years?

Where was Charlie when it came to fulfilling any of his other campaign promises?

Didn't Charlie promise to make our homeowner's insurance premiums and property taxes drop like a rock? (Psst....Charlie, we wanted our property taxes to drop, not our property values to drop....)

He has flip-flopped on drilling off the coast. Until this week when he had to retreat and rethink his position on offshore drilling because there is a deadly oil slick about to hit the coast, Charlie had supported the GOP lie that "it's necessary and I'm for it because its safer now..."

Charlie has also labeled himself a "Ronald Reagan Republican" and a Disciple of Connie Mack. Now that the "AmEx Money Changers" have thrown Charlie from "the temple," so to speak, has he disavowed these principles?

If Charlie does or does not disavow them, it tells you all that you need to know about why you should not vote for Charlie Crist if you are a Democrat.

If you are a Democrat, what makes you think that Charlie will be a torch carrier for your values in the U.S. Senate? Has he announced that he will caucus with the Democrats? Of course not, that will alienate moderate Republicans. If he won't caucus with the Democrats, why would you vote for him? If he won't tell you now who he will caucus with, why should you trust him? And if he tells you something this week, why should you trust him 6 months from now?

Will Charlie be a Bernie Sanders type of independent or a Joe Liberman type of "independent" in the Senate? I submit that Charlie is a Joe Liberman "independent." They both love John McCain.

Charlie's an independent politician this week because a filing deadline came up this week and he's a career politician and he just has to run. He loves running for office. He has all this campaign money that he's been raising for the last 2 years (instead of really being our Governor) and just doesn't know what else to do other than spend that money on a campaign.

Hey, Floridians let's not fall for Charlie's charade this time. Let's show Charlie how bad the economy really is in Florida. Let's force him to have to look for a new non-elective job in this lousy economy that he's had a hand in creating.

Sorry Charlie! I've been paying attention. Wake up Floridians.....

P.S. As for those who say they are considering voting for Charlie out of fear that otherwise, Marco Rubio will get elected, don't fall for that ploy either. Vote for the Democrat, Kendrick Meek, and Rubio will lose. There are more registered Democratic party voters in Florida.