As long as environmentalists (or any other interest group) demand a candidate that is 100% in line with their views, they will be stuck with Kucinich, Nader and irrelevance.

In reality, environmentalists should be celebrating since this is the first time in my memory that both parties will actually field candidates that at least have positions on paper sympathetic to the environmentalist concerns.

In reality I suspect there is a hard core segment of the environmental movement that is more leftist than green.

The requirements of the Oil Prevention Act (OPA 1990, love the title) were much more than just double-skinned petroleum tank ships and barges.  However, it did not apply retroactively to to the Valdez incident.  I am not sure why Senator John McCain voted against that other than he can be a belligerent [bad words deleted] when he doesn't get his way - a troubling sign if elected as President.

Tell the local fishermen in the sounds and bays where the destruction was the worst, as they simply do not have any fish anymore.  The fish that are left have lesions and are stunted and are not edible.  They have been waiting for decades for resolution on a settlement but Exxon keeps dragging it through the court system.  This is not about inordinate tort claims ... this is about fairness to the families and businesses that were shut down by a drunk captain and a rookie mate who hit a rock with total disregard for proper navigation and seamanship.

Every presidential candidate has a vote they'd love to take back.  I wonder if John McCain would take back his vote against OPA 90.  If not, screw him.

Onward through the fog

Double hulls would be great on all tankers, but the question is should government regulate this.  Imagine instead a system where businesses were encouraged toward green activities by government and incentivized by harsh (costly), fast and decisive rulings in the event that they pollute and are sued.  I believe that this is less of a fantasy than dreaming about a bloated government efficiently and impartially regulating industry in the U.S. and this industry remaining competitive.  Read the journalism of David Heath out of Washington State to get an idea of how effectively your "representatives" use your tax dollars.

Ideally a CFO would see that it was worth paying for the double hulls now and avoiding costly rulings in the future.  This philosophy has the added benefit of minimizing government and keeping tax dollars in the pockets of hardworking Americans (many of whom care about green issues).

True, I am not one in favor of draconian, top-down regulations. But the situation with tanker ships and barges is that even small spills and releases can have a horrendous impact on the environment, and there is no "acceptable level" of discharge. It's not all about requiring double hulls and handling legal claims but prevention, training, and spill response.

Further, this is not just a "silly American law" but is part of an international set of regulations for all tanker ships, where single-hull tankers are to be converted or scrapped by 2026 (MARPOL 73/78). It should be acknowledged that many lobbyists from the tanker operators participated in the rulemaking and supported it.

Onward through the fog

"Exxon is the only oil company that doesn't use double-hulled tankers to ship oil in and out of Alaska."

Then why is the exxonmob still allowed to ship that oil?  Make them hire responsible shipping companies.  The exxonmob personnel should be arrested when they arrive in Alaska and held until the fine is payed too.

The exxonmob is pure evil, pure fundamentalist krazy, korpoRAT, kristian evil.  McCain ought to be stuck with oil spill footage ads against him in the campaign.  

There is good news on oil spills though.  An inventor right here in northern Wisconsin discovered that powdered recycled glass separates oil from water, it clumps up soaking into the glass powder.  With heat the powder can be filtered from the oil.

Since we have an oily administration now, and had an oily congress up until recently, it's understandable that exxonmob has not been forced to go to double hulls or pay it's Valdeze fine.  Remember this, Condi had an exxonmob tanker named after her, first time that ever happened!

Now will these steps be taken by the Barack administration?  Will the powdered glass cleanup process be mandated for emergency ships, with tons of the stuff available wherever spill danger exists, like the Valdeze area?  Making this guy rich off the patent and funding further invention?

Doubtfull.  But that is what should happen.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

That was not a true statement that Exxon was the only company to not have double-hulled tanker bottoms.  It is one of the few US companies left that hasn't converted what's left of the US coastal fleet under the Jones Act.  Jones required that deliveries between two US ports - such as Valdez for crude and refineries in the lower 48 - had to be American ships manned by American crews. Basically, Exxon made a business decision to use the old tankers with single hull as long as possible.  Other domestic tanker lines such as Alaska Tankers have gone "green" with double hulls, clean emissions, and state of the art technology.  

My impression was that Exxon was getting out of the shipping business buy using contract carriers these days, but still runs a few monthly shipments on the West Coast.  

Onward through the fog

The bipartisan League of Conservation Voters <www.lcv.org> notes that he missed 15 important environmental votes in a row for a score of zero in 2007.  His career score is in the 20 percent range and never rose above 50 percent.  REP is kidding itself and so are you.  John McCain has a lousy environmental record.  Moreover, he has promised to appoint right wing, Scalia-type justices, and one more of those could be a disaster for our nation's environmental laws.  

No, LCV has NOT given John McCain a fair rating.  They gave him a ZERO for 2007 and his best years are barely over 50 percent, with a career score in the 20s.  

No, LCV has NOT given John McCain a fair rating.  They gave him a ZERO for 2007 and his best years are barely over 50 percent, with a career score in the 20s.

Given the average score of the typical Republican (which is less than 10), and the fact that several of the legislative pieces that he did support were large in scope and almost unanimously opposed by all other Republicans, the LCV considered his voting record to be fair.

  The fact that Exxon-Mobile contracts out its shipments is merely a cop-out.  They do this because it creates a firewall to protect them.  What they SHOULD do is require that the companies they contract with use double-hulls.  But, nOOOOOOOOOO, that would be..... I dunno.  Something they don't want to do any way.

  McCain was at one time perhaps and independent thinker.  But, really, he has pandered so far to the extreme right to win the nomination, that even if he won the election, he would be their prisoner.

  The only reason the LCV or anyone speaks highly of him is so that they can preserve the fiction of "bi-partisanship".  But it is alas a fiction.  And not one worth preserving.

  With any luck, Obama will wipe the Rethugs off the face of America, and once there is only one center right party standing, maybe we can make the next one "I'll try the lean to the left" flavor (please!).

patrick in Beijing