Environmental News

U.S. Proposal Would Allow Oil Drilling Off Virginia
Five-Year Plan Would Also Open Alaskan, Gulf Waters
By Steven Mufson and David A. Fahrenthold Saturday, April 28, 2007;
The Interior Department will announce a proposal Monday to allow oil and gas drilling in federal waters near Virginia that are currently off-limits and permit new exploration in Alaska's Bristol Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, according to people who have seen or been told about drafts of the plan.
The department issued a news release yesterday that was lacking details but said that it had finished a five-year plan that will include a "major proposal for expanded oil and natural gas development on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf." Department officials declined to describe the plan.
Congress would still have to agree to open areas currently off-limits before any drilling could take place off Virginia's coast. Every year since 1982, after an oil spill off Santa Barbara, Calif., Congress has reaffirmed a moratorium on drilling off the nation's Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Last year, after a vigorous push by drilling advocates, Congress opened new waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Interior Department might still go ahead with environmental and geological seismic studies off Virginia, but the plan does not envision drilling there before 2011, according to a congressional source whosaw an earlier version of the proposal. The sources who described the plan spoke on the condition of anonymity because they didn't want to compromise relationships with people who showed them drafts.
Environmental groups said yesterday that they were troubled by the idea of oil exploration and drilling so near the wildlife refuge on Assateague Island and in an area closely linked to the Chesapeake Bay. Some of the bay's best-known species, such as blue crabs and rockfish, migrate to the ocean.
Activists said that simply looking for oil and gas could cause environmental harm if waste products used to lubricate or cool drill bits are cast overboard. Such materials are often toxic, and could threaten marine life in the area, said Richard Charter of Defenders of Wildlife.
Richard Ayers of the environmental group Virginia Eastern Shorekeeper said he was concerned about development along the state's lightly populated Atlantic shoreline. He said he was worried that oil drilling would create boomtowns, a new influx of people and pollution.
The Virginia shore is dotted with barrier islands and lagoons, most of them largely unspoiled. The Virginia coast has been designated a World Biosphere Reserve by the United Nations, and a National Natural Landmark by the Interior Department.
"This is one of the few places on the East Coast that just never got developed," Ayers said. "A disturbance of any magnitude would be something the place hasn't seen since the '30s," when a hurricane hit the area.
Many drilling advocates say that the oil industry has had a good environmental record in the Gulf of Mexico and that the nation needs to develop domestic oil and gas reserves to bring down prices and reduce reliance on foreign oil.
Advocates of increased drilling have campaigned in several states, many of which are attracted to the prospect of negotiating shares of federal royalties. Bills endorsing more drilling have twice passed the Virginia legislature.
Kevin Hall, a spokesman for Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D), said Kaine was "supportive of exploration to see what, if anything, is out there." But Hall said Kaine had received "assurances" from federal officials that the proposed exploration would not violate state law. Last year, the General Assembly and Kaine agreed on a bill to prohibit drilling within 50 miles of Virginia's shoreline.
One place that doesn't need approval from Congress is the area north of the Alaska Peninsula near the Aleutian Islands, known as Bristol Bay. Home to one of the world's largest salmon runs, according to the Sierra Club, Bristol Bay was not covered by the same ban on drilling.
President Bush used his executive power to lift the ban in January. Congress has 60 days to reimpose it, or else drilling preparations could start in Bristol Bay as soon as July 1.
Athan Manuel, offshore drilling expert at the Sierra Club, said, "We need to do more to drill in Detroit by finding more oil efficiency in our cars and trucks rather than drilling off of some of our most sensitive coasts that are important environmentally, but also economically in driving billion-dollar fishing and tourist industries.
_______________________________________

Poll Finds Majority See Threat in Global Warming
By JOHN M. BRODER and MARJORIE CONNELLY
Americans in large bipartisan numbers say the heating of the earth’s atmosphere is having serious effects on the environment now or will soon and think that it is necessary to take immediate steps to reduce its effects, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll finds.
Ninety percent of Democrats, 80 percent of independents and 60 percent of Republicans said immediate action was required to curb the warming of the atmosphere and deal with its effects on the global climate. Nineteen percent said it was not necessary to act now, and 1 percent said no steps were needed.
Several recent international reports have concluded with near certainty that human activities are the main cause of global warming since 1950. The poll found that 84 percent of Americans see human activity as at least contributing to warming.
The poll also found that Americans want the United States to support conservation and to be a global leader in addressing environmental problems and developing alternative energy sources to reduce reliance on fossil fuels like oil and coal.
But when it comes to specific steps to foster conservation or produce more energy, the public is deeply torn, the poll found. Respondents said they would support higher gasoline prices to reduce dependence on foreign oil but would oppose higher prices to combat global warming.
By large margins, respondents opposed an increase in pump prices of $2 a gallon, or even $1, to deal with environmental and energy-supply concerns. Three-quarters said they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources like solar or wind energy.
The negative view of new gasoline taxes may reflect the wide expectation that pump prices will continue to increase regardless of government action. More than 80 percent foresee higher gasoline prices in coming months, with many citing the Iraq war as a primary cause. Most respondents said they did not expect that any withdrawal of American troops from Iraq would cause prices to fall.
Nearly half of those polled also said they did not believe that their fellow Americans would be willing to change driving habits to save gasoline or reduce the production of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide, which most scientists say contribute to the warming.
Respondents expressed little confidence in President Bush’s handling of environmental or energy issues, and a majority of those polled, including many Republicans, said Democrats were more likely than Republicans to protect the environment and foster energy independence.
One-third approved Mr. Bush’s handling of the environment and 27 percent approved his approach to energy questions. Democrats have criticized Mr. Bush’s policies on energy and the environment almost from the day he took office. Those policies have also cost him some Republican support, the poll showed.
"I think the Republicans have slashed the funds for cleanup of the environment, and if it comes down to whether or not it will cost big business, forget about the cleanup," said Ron Gellerman, 65, a respondent from Maple Grove, Minn., who said he was a Republican.
"The Democrats are more willing to spend dollars on pure research," Mr. Gellerman added in a follow-up interview after the poll was completed. "They’re open to alternative sources of energy, like wind. We could save more energy by increasing the efficiency of our electrical system and our automobiles. And the Democrats would be more willing to look at that sort of thing because they’re not so beholden to Big Oil."
Many governors, members of Congress and presidential hopefuls from both parties have been more outspoken than Mr. Bush on the need to take immediate steps to combat global warming and reduce oil imports.
Private citizens tend to agree with them, the poll found, but they are also somewhat bewildered about the issues. Asked whether discussions of energy and the environment by political leaders were helpful or confusing, nearly three-quarters said the details were confusing.
Asked how they would respond to a presidential candidate who said all Americans would have to pay more for fuel or use less of it to protect the environment, one-third said they would be more likely to vote for that person and 15 percent said they would be less likely. Almost half said it would make no difference.
Americans broadly support using renewable energy sources like solar and wind power and say fueling vehicles with ethanol, which is now made largely from corn, is a good idea, the survey found.
They also are nearly evenly split on building nuclear power plants to reduce reliance on imported energy sources. When asked whether they would accept a nuclear plan in their community, they said no, 59 percent to 36 percent.
The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Friday to Tuesday with 1,052 adults. The margin-of-sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.
Nearly four of five of those polled said they believed that the condition of the air, water, land and wildlife around the world was fair or poor. One percent rated global environmental quality as excellent, and 19 percent called it good. But 56 percent said the environmental condition in their communities was excellent or good.
Despite general optimism about their children’s future found in other surveys, respondents in this poll said by 57 percent to 11 percent that the condition of the environment would be worse for the next generation.
Fifty-two percent said that generally speaking they would support protecting the environment over stimulating the economy. Thirty-six percent chose the economy. But respondents also said, 62 percent to 21 percent, that developing new energy sources was more important than protecting the environment.
Yet they also expressed the belief that the government should encourage conservation over increasing development of additional energy sources. By a substantial margin, Americans continue to oppose drilling for oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, as they have for the last six years.
Although respondents split almost evenly on whether Washington can effectively address global warming, they almost unanimously (92 percent to 6 percent) supported requiring automobile manufacturers to make more fuel-efficient cars.
There is more opposition to using fossil fuels among Democrats than Republicans. Fifty-four percent of Democrats consider using coal to generate electricity to be a bad idea, compared with 39 percent of Republicans. Sixty-one percent of Republicans favor using natural gas to generate power, while Democrats divided, with 42 percent saying it is a good idea and 45 percent opposing it.
Americans almost universally support developing alternative energy sources like wind or solar power and biofuels, with 87 percent expressing approval. But fewer than 10 percent of those polled said they used any alternative energy source at home.
A big majority, 75 percent, said recent weather had been stranger than usual, an increase of almost 10 percentage points from 1997. Of those who said the weather had turned weird, 43 percent attributed it to global warming and 15 percent to pollution or other environmental damage. Four percent cited the coming end of the world or biblical prophecy, and 2 percent blamed space junk.
Ten years ago, 5 percent of respondents blamed global warming for changes in the weather.
_______________________________________