Today, people committed to a brighter future will gather in cities around the country and sound a united cry to save the Arctic Ocean and our climate from reckless drilling.
The risk is all too real — and so is our response.
President Obama needs to stand up to Big Oil and put a stop to Arctic drilling before it’s too late. That’s what we’ll be gathering to say during Saturday’s Day of Action, with events in places across the nation, from Boston to San Francisco, from Fort Myers, Florida, to Chicago, from Washington DC and elsewhere.
As early as next week, the Royal Dutch Shell oil company could begin exploratory drilling in the Arctic, exposing these waters to the risk of devastating oil spills and ensuring more carbon pollution, which would undermine the gains our country is now making in the fight against climate change.
One of the last pristine oceans on earth, these waters support a rich web of marine and animal life, from tiny phytoplankton to majestic bowhead whales. Eiders, snowy owls and caribou live along the coast. And the ocean hosts some of the most productive fisheries anywhere in the world.
Why would we put all that at risk, when our own government tells us there’s a 75 percent chance of a major oil spill if the Arctic leases in the Chukchi Sea are fully developed?
It was just three years ago this summer, in fact, that another Shell Arctic expedition ended in a record of debacle. An underwater containment vessel — which Shell claimed could bottle up a spill — collapsed like a beer can during testing. Hours after arriving at the drill site, the crew had to scramble to move its giant drill ship out of the path of an ice floe 30 miles long and 10 miles wide that threatened to collide with the rig.
Then, within months, Shell lost control of two drilling rigs. One, the Kulluk, drifted free, foundered on rocks, and had to be rescued in a massive salvage operation authorized by the U.S. Coast Guard. Last year, it was chopped up for scrap in a Chinese shipyard.
You’d think the message was loud and clear: The oil industry is no match for the Arctic. No one should be rolling the dice on this special place and all it supports for the sake of oil profits. Offshore oil and gas development is inherently risky.
We got a glimpse of just how hazardous it is five years ago, when the Deepwater Horizon drill vessel exploded, killing 11 workers and dumping millions of barrels of toxic crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. It took 87 days to plug the gusher and two more months to seal it.
Now imagine a similar disaster in the Arctic, a place where pack ice makes sea travel all but impossible eight months out of the year for any craft other than the sturdiest icebreakers; where gale force winds can kick up waves as high as a three-story building; and where winters that begin in September with wind-chill factors that make temperatures feel like 10 degrees below zero.
Want to talk about capping a blowout under those conditions? Or cleaning up massive clots of frigid oil in seas where an iceberg can peel open the hull of a ship like a paring knife through a potato skin? Or how long it might take for coldwater habitat to recover from an oil spill?
In the Gulf, by the way, BP had at its disposal thousands of commercial and U.S. Navy vessels. The epicenter of the global offshore oil industry, the region is home to its most sophisticated experts and equipment.
That’s a far cry from what’s available in the far frozen north. The Arctic waters are more than 1,000 miles from the nearest Coast Guard station. Drilling there is wholly irresponsible. It’s nothing short of reckless.
The risk of an oil disaster is only part of the threat. The risk to our climate is equally severe.
The best available science makes it clear that we simply cannot afford to keep going to the ends of the earth to squeeze out every last drop of dirty crude oil if we have a hope of fulfilling our moral obligation to protect future generations from climate change.
In fact, the world has already discovered four times as much fossil fuel as can be burned if we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate disruption — and that is without opening new reserves like the Arctic Ocean. Sinking new fossil-fuel infrastructure into the region threatens to lock in decades of the carbon pollution that drives climate change, which triggers more asthma attacks and respiratory disease, worsens air quality, and contributes to more frequent, destructive, costly, and deadly extreme weather events.
The fossil-fuel industry wants us to believe we’re stuck with oil and all the damage, danger, and destruction it brings. That we have no choice but to accept that 30 years from now we might need Arctic oil — based on demand assumptions, which the International Energy Agency says would result in an average global temperature increase of at least six degrees Celsius — three times what science states the planet can sustain.
Well, we’re not stuck with oil. We can do better than assume climate failure.
We’ve already cut our oil consumption in this country 21 percent as a share of our real economic output over just the past decade. Imagine what we can do in the decades to come if we put our minds to building on that success.
We’re going to double the gas mileage of the cars we drive between now and 2025. Just think of what we can accomplish by setting a goal to even further improve on that. And we’re building, right here in this country, some of the best all-electric and hybrid cars anywhere in the world. We’ll replace gasoline as a motor fuel, gallon for gallon, by getting more power for these cars from the wind and sun.
We can choose to believe in innovation, American ingenuity, and our commitment to protect this and future generations from dangerous climate change.
That’s what global leadership looks like, and I hope you’ll join us this Saturday — either in person or via social media — in one great Day of Action calling on President Obama to save the Arctic and save our climate.
It’s time to say no to reckless drilling that puts irreplaceable wildlife and habitat at risk. Time to say no to locking our kids, and our grandkids, into more carbon pollution and the harm it is doing to our environment and our health.
Time to move beyond the dirty fossil fuels of the past and embrace the clean energy solutions of the future. Time to stand up and protect precious Arctic waters and all they support.
Time to strike a blow against climate change, for the sake of our future and for the sake of our children.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
- 29 Wildfires Blaze Across the West, Fueled by Drought and Wind ... ›
- Large Wildfires Scorch Forests in Drought-Stricken Southwest ... ›
Accessibility to quality health care has dropped for millions of Americans who lost their health insurance due to unemployment. mixetto / E+ / Getty Images
Accessibility to quality health care has dropped for millions of Americans who lost their health insurance due to unemployment. New research has found that 5.4 million Americans were dropped from their insurance between February and May of this year. In that three-month stretch more Americans lost their coverage than have lost coverage in any entire year, according to The New York Times.
- Trump Plans to End Federal Funding for COVID-19 Testing Sites ... ›
- 'Unfathomable Cruelty': Trump Admin Asks Supreme Court to ... ›
On hot days in New York City, residents swelter when they're outside and in their homes. The heat is not just uncomfortable. It can be fatal.
- Extreme Heat-Stressed Locations Could Increase by 80% - EcoWatch ›
- African Americans Are Disproportionately Exposed to Extreme Heat ... ›
- Extreme Heat Is Killing Americans While Government Neglect ... ›
Fracking companies are going bankrupt at a rapid pace, often with taxpayer-funded bonuses for executives, leaving harm for communities, taxpayers, and workers, the New York Time reports.
- Plunging Oil Prices Trigger Economic Downturn in Fracking Boom ... ›
- Fracking Boom Bursts in Face of Low Oil Prices - EcoWatch ›
- As Fracking Companies Face Bankruptcy, U.S. Regulators Enable ... ›
A report scheduled for release later Tuesday by Congress' non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) finds that the Trump administration undervalues the costs of the climate crisis in order to push deregulation and rollbacks of environmental protections, according to The New York Times.
- Under Trump, EPA Workers Seek Bill of Rights to Allow Them to ... ›
- Trump Adds 'Tasteless Insult to Injury' by Pushing Fossil Fuel ... ›
By Kristen Fischer
It's going to be back-to-school time soon, but will children go into the classrooms?
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) thinks so, but only as long as safety measures are in place.
Keeping Schools Safe<p>What will safer schools look like?</p><p>In a <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766822" target="_blank">JAMA article</a> published last month, <a href="https://www.jhsph.edu/faculty/directory/profile/1781/joshua-m-sharfstein" target="_blank">Dr. Joshua Sharfstein</a>, a pediatrician and professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, outlined suggestions — many of which are similar to AAP's.</p><p>Remote learning protocols must stay in place, especially as some schools stagger home and in-building learning. If another shutdown needs to occur, children will rely on distance learning completely, so it must be easy to switch to, he said.</p><p>He suggested giving parents a daily checklist to document their child's health. Kids should be screened quickly on arrival and be given hygiene supplies. Maintenance staff should use appropriate PPE and have regular cleaning schedules. A notification system should be in place if a case is identified, Sharfstein recommended.</p><p><a href="https://www.albany.edu/rockefeller/faculty/erika-martin" target="_blank">Erika Martin</a>, PhD, an associate professor of public administration and policy at University at Albany, said nutrition assistance and health services should be included. She called for tutoring programs with virtual options as well as technology access.</p>
Supporting Staff<p>Teachers and staff will be affected by safeguarding measures, noted <a href="https://directory.sph.umn.edu/bio/sph-a-z/rachel-widome" target="_blank">Rachel Widome</a>, PhD, an associate professor of epidemiology and community health at University of Minnesota.</p><p>"In order for all of the in-school precautions to work well, we'll be asking a lot of teachers and staff," Widome told Healthline. In addition to their usual workload, they'll now be asked to monitor mask-wearing, ensure children are keeping distance, and be aware of any symptoms.</p><p>Along with Sharfstein, Widome called for an increase in financial support. More employees will likely be required so teachers and staff members can keep up with the added demands.</p>
Should Kids Go Back?<p>While these guidelines may help get some schools to reopen, many people don't think children should go back to school over fears they could contract the disease and spread it to other vulnerable family members like grandparents, infant siblings, or their parents.</p><p>In a <a href="https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2020/07/08/peds.2020-004879" target="_blank">Pediatrics</a> commentary, <a href="https://www.md.com/doctor/william-raszka-md" target="_blank">Dr. William V. Raszka, Jr.</a>, an infectious disease specialist at The University of Vermont Medical Center, argued that schools should open because school-aged children are far less important drivers of COVID-19 than adults.</p><p>But he says the risk and benefit is not equal among all students ages 5 to 18.</p><p>"Elementary schools are arguably higher priority for face-to-face schooling, since younger children are at lower risk for infection and transmission, and since parental supervision of younger children's distance learning may be particularly challenging," added Sorensen, who penned a <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/channels/health-forum/fullarticle/2767411" target="_blank">June article in JAMA</a> with reopening tips. "That means middle and high schools are more likely to emphasize distance learning."</p><p>Specific student populations, such as special education students and students with disabilities, would also benefit greatly from more time spent in face-to-face environments, Sorensen said.</p>
What Parents Can Do<p>Parents should ask for and receive frequent updates from schools about plans for the fall. They should also be informed about plans if and when COVID infections are identified, Sharfstein said.</p><p>"I'd like to see parents investing now, during the summer, in doing things that can slow and stop the spread of the virus in their communities," Widome said.</p><p>"Now is a good time for kids to practice wearing masks and get used to them as they may be wearing them for longer stretches if school starts up in person," Widome suggested.</p><p>She recommends parents try different mask designs and materials to see what children are more comfortable wearing.</p><p>"If you are using cloth face coverings, it's good to have extras on hand," Widome added.</p><p>Parents should model healthy behavior at home and while out in public — another thing that could affect how well children adapt to reopening practices, Sorensen said.</p><p>"Children may want to know more about face coverings," added <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leescott/" target="_blank">Lee Scott</a>, chairwoman of the Educational Advisory Board at <a href="https://www.goddardschool.com/" target="_blank">The Goddard School</a>. "Dramatic play, such as creating or wearing a face covering, may help some children adjust to this concept." Schools can also show children photos of what faculty members look like in their masks so the students are familiar with that appearance.</p><p>Johns Hopkins University recently released its eSchool+ Initiative, a slew of resources surrounding education during the pandemic. These include a <a href="https://equityschoolplus.jhu.edu/reopening-checklist/" target="_blank">checklist for administrators</a>, report on <a href="https://equityschoolplus.jhu.edu/ethics-of-reopening/" target="_blank">ethical considerations</a>, and a tracker of <a href="https://equityschoolplus.jhu.edu/reopening-policy-tracker/" target="_blank">state and local reopening plans</a>.</p>
- Trump Admin Rejects CDC Reopening Guidelines - EcoWatch ›
- How Do You Stay Safe Now That States Are Reopening? - EcoWatch ›
- Florida Breaks U.S. Daily Record With Over 15,000 New ... ›
By Eoin Higgins
Over 300 groups on Monday urged Senate leadership to reject a bill currently under consideration that would incentivize communities to sell off their public water supplies to private companies for pennies on the dollar.
<div id="fea63" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9a6f211c2bc5aedd34837944cb8eeedf"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1281000111481294849" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Water in Illinois is overwhelmingly public. Why is Tammy Duckworth sponsoring a bill that aims to change that? https://t.co/1V36Kkd99s</div> — The American Prospect (@The American Prospect)<a href="https://twitter.com/TheProspect/statuses/1281000111481294849">1594249201.0</a></blockquote></div>
- DNC Ignores Progressive Climate Activists - EcoWatch ›
- Who's a Climate Champion and Who's a Climate Disaster? - EcoWatch ›