NOOZHAWK: What experiences from your professional or personal life make you uniquely qualified to be an Assembly member?

SUSAN JORDAN: My decision to run for public office for the first time is the culmination of more than 40 years in the workforce in different capacities.

My dedication to community activism began in college and my early career was dedicated to fighting for reproductive choice and women’s rights. Later, as a senior partner in a national business research and consulting firm, I forged a strong 14-year career in the private sector. And for the past 15 years, as the founder and director of the California Coastal Protection Network, I have worked with grassroots communities up and down the state to defeat large-scale destructive and illegal projects that threaten the health and safety of neighborhoods and residents.

I believe my diverse professional and personal life experience is one of the greatest strengths that I will bring to public office. I have been a single working mother, raised a family, saved for college, and I know just how hard it is to juggle work, family and community activism. I have had a successful business career and I know what it’s like to start and manage a business and meet a payroll week after week. When I came up in the business world, the glass ceiling was a reality and not a metaphor — breaking through that ceiling taught me perseverance in the face of obstacles. My success in the private sector analyzing business problems and devising successful solutions and strategies for national and international companies is what qualifies me to craft successful strategies for California. As a chairwoman and member of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission, I bring local government experience to the table as well, and I understand how decisions at all levels affect the lives of people in the 35th Assembly District and throughout California.

I do not fit the typical profile of most politicians running for office; at 59 years of age, I view elective office as public service and not a career. I have a proven record of standing up to special interests and taking strong stands, even if there is a political consequence to doing so. I believe my integrity and independence will enable me to make a difference in Sacramento.

NOOZHAWK: With all of California’s fiscal challenges, why are you running now?

SJ: I am running because I know we can do better, and that the residents of this district and California deserve better from the career politicians who dominate Sacramento. From my beginning as a social worker, I have worked my entire life to make this a better world to live in.

I am running now because I believe my breadth of experience, 40 years of business leadership, environmental advocacy and women’s rights activism qualifies me to address the difficult fiscal and other challenges California faces today. We desperately need legislators who understand the challenges of keeping a business afloat, who can assess the impact of regulations and taxes on our economy while holding a firm commitment to caring for the most vulnerable in our society — the elderly, the sick, the disabled and the poor.

I am also running because I am deeply concerned about the lack of women in elective office. In the Assembly, out of 80 sitting Assembly members, only 20 are women and five are termed out. In Congress, it is worse; only 17 percent of all members are women. The scarcity of women in the Legislature has a direct impact on the choices that are made on the budget and the legislation that is carried. Women need to be on an equal footing to fight for the priorities that we and our fellow Californians hold paramount.

NOOZHAWK: What is California’s most pressing issue?

SJ: The most important issue to address is the economy and job creation.

People have been hit hard during this recession and the double whammy of the housing crisis and the Wall Street meltdown have left them reeling. It seems that most if not all of the solutions that were crafted went to help Wall Street and not Main Street, and the result is a staggering unemployment rate and shuttered storefronts. People who have never sought benefits before are applying for food stamps, MediCal and unemployment insurance.

To address this issue, I believe we need to sit down, roll up our sleeves and listen to all viewpoints — including those with whom we may not always agree. This is the ONLY way we are going to dig California out of this mess.

I have met with stakeholders on all sides — those who represent business and manufacturing interests, those who are dedicated to maintaining social safety-net programs for the most vulnerable in our society, those who believe government is too big, and those who believe government is not doing enough.

And as we work to craft solutions, we have to be careful that we do not make a difficult situation worse. Balancing a budget solely through cuts to safety-net programs and education is shortsighted. For every program cut, a job is lost and a vulnerable population is shifted to more expensive alternatives. Cuts to higher education mean that we are cheating California out of a skilled workforce in the future. Overburdening business means that the backbone of our economy — 93 percent of all businesses in California are small businesses — will make recovery and getting people back to work even more difficult.

One of the first things we need to consider is re-instituting an Economic Development Agency where the director serves as a member of the (governor’s) Cabinet. We need an agency that focuses solely on bringing and maintaining business in California.

We also need to look at the creation of a revolving loan fund to help small and midsize businesses weather the recession. Tight credit markets where banks are refusing to loan money to smaller businesses, where equity lines are being closed, and where credit-card interest rates are being unilaterally increased have significantly worsened California’s chances for recovery. We need to correct this situation as quickly as possible.

Tax credits for manufacturing and new hires can also help jump-start the economy. And closing unnecessary corporate tax loopholes that benefit just a few large corporations but do not create jobs have to be rescinded.

Finally, we have to make sure that the budget gets done on time, and it is already late … again. Every day the budget is late is another dollar out the door, another shovel-ready project delayed.

I am deeply committed to supporting job creation in our state because I believe that a vibrant economy brings prosperity to many and allows us to provide high-quality affordable education to our children and enables us to care for the most vulnerable in our society who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

NOOZHAWK: Is the partisan divide in Sacramento insurmountable? How would you overcome it?

SJ: I am not a career politician and I don’t believe in adhering to the party line when there are solutions that need to be crafted. To bridge this divide, we need to elect more representatives who will think and act in an independent fashion and not be directed by the special interests that fund their campaigns.

I have decades of experience fighting for what I believe is right — and this transcends partisan politics. I have successfully worked with people on both sides of the political aisle to devise policies on the environment and energy — because I always keep foremost in mind — what’s best for the people.

During my tenure on the county Planning Commission, I proved I could listen to all sides and make fair and balanced decisions.

However, on matters of key principles and values, I am not afraid to stand my ground and do what is right even when I am under extraordinary pressure to do otherwise — even from my own political party.

NOOZHAWK: Many financial experts call California’s state government employee pension levels unsustainable. Do you agree? How would you resolve the situation?

SJ: I don’t think there is any one answer to this question and I believe the response to the pension issue has been over-simplified and over-politicized with little reasonable discourse in the middle.

Hard-working people who made choices years ago to sacrifice Social Security benefits and salary advancement for some certainty in their retirement are not the problem here. Most government employees’ pensions are modest, with a median in the $30,000-a-year range.

I would like to see the whole tenor of the discussion changed and an independent analysis that is devoid of party politics and that carefully and methodically parses through the issue put in place.

It is always important to keep an open mind on where a problem exists and what the individual, carefully crafted solutions might be.

The first problem I think needs to be tackled immediately is the corruption within the CalPERS system itself and the lack of regulatory control over “placement agents” who steer CalPERS to investments, seal deals to invest billions dollars of CalPERS funds, and reap unconscionable and exorbitant fees in exchange. One such placement agent, Alfred A. Villalobos, a former CalPERS board member, received more than $47 million in fees for acting as a go-between for investment firms looking to do business with CalPERS. The state Attorney General’s Office has filed a lawsuit alleging that Villalobos improperly provided gifts and gratuities to pension fund officials in the case.

Legislation that would require placement agents to be registered as lobbyists and would prohibit them from receiving commissions based on the total amount of the investment deals they work on is under consideration in the Legislature right now.

NOOZHAWK: What three things should Sacramento do to get California’s economy moving? If you’re elected, how will you help implement them?

SJ: I addressed this in a previous question about the most pressing issue California faces, but to reiterate:

» Re-institute an Economic Development Agency with the head as a Cabinet-level position. We used to have one but it was eliminated by Gov. Gray Davis. State Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, is carrying legislation to authorize this.

» Establish a revolving loan fund to help out small and midsize businesses. The California Manufacturers & Technology Association is working with state Treasurer Bill Lockyer to set up such a structure.

» Expand investment incentives, including a manufacturing investment tax credit with a 10-year sunset to help jump-start things. Also, a tax credit for companies that hire new employees. Any tax credit should be geared to real job creation or retention, or cost savings through energy/conservation, and new equipment that can reduce costs without displacing workers.

NOOZHAWK: Do you support offshore oil drilling in California? Why or why not?

SJ: I have been a consistent opponent to the expansion of offshore oil drilling in California.

The tragic accident in the Gulf of Mexico highlights just how vulnerable our local coastal communities would be to another oil spill. Our ocean is at the heart of much of our local economy — from tourism, to fishing, to our wonderful quality of life and retirement ambiance. Even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has seen the economic devastation that an offshore oil-drilling accident can cause and has withdrawn his prior support for the controversial PXP project.

I am the only Assembly candidate who has consistently opposed new offshore oil drilling — both the PXP proposal to drill the first new offshore oil lease in state waters in more than 40 years, Venoco’s Paredon voter initiative in Carpinteria, which overrides the legitimate jurisdiction of the City Council to approve or deny a project, and the expansion of oil drilling off Goleta.

My opponent in the Democratic primary supports the PXP proposal — and continues to do so even in light of the Gulf oil disaster. He has said my opposition to it is the major reason he decided to run against me after he had publicly stated that he was supporting me.

I opposed the PXP project because I do not believe the end dates that are being cited to justify greatly expanded drilling are legally enforceable — an opinion that was confirmed by the State Lands Commission and the state Attorney General’s Office. I also believe that approval of the first new offshore oil lease in state waters in 40 years would reverse longstanding California environmental policy and set a precedent for new federal and state offshore oil leasing. This concern has been confirmed by pending legislation by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, that would open up the entire California coastline to new drilling in state waters and offer discounted royalty rates to oil companies that pay up front for new leases. Further, the Parsky Tax Commission Report also recommended opening up the entire coastline to new drilling to generate revenues for the budget. In Sacramento, the PXP proposal was used to justify both of these proposals.

Should California decide to reverse its longstanding policy against new drilling in state waters, I believe that such a major decision should be evaluated through a coherent and orderly public process with stakeholder input and debate. Should the ultimate decision be to authorize new drilling, I believe any new leases should be put up for competitive bidding and that safeguards that cover liability for businesses and communities that are likely to suffer damage from an oil spill be put in place. In the Gulf right now, BP is only responsible for covering the cost of the cleanup. There is a $75 million cap on damages to businesses and homeowners that will not nearly cover the devastation to hard-working communities that this spill is going to create.

For more, visit Noozhawk

It is unfortunate and undemocratic that some feel telling the truth is somehow “negative campaigning.” I strongly disagree.

Democracy demands a vigorous debate on key policies that affect the District and the State. What happens in Santa Barbara on offshore oil affects the state and the nation. It is important that everyone be aware of the candidates’ significant differences on this important environmental issue.

Williams’ support for the PXP deal, which calls for up to 30 new wells, doubles the risk of an oil spill off the Santa Barbara/Ventura coast. The PXP proposal would be the first new offshore oil lease in California in over 40 years.

Williams supports the controversial PXP oil drilling. I do not.

Williams originally supported my campaign for the Assembly, but changed his mind and entered the race for the Assembly based on my opposition to the PXP proposal.

The information from my campaign accurately describes Williams’ support for the first secret PXP deal, his documented assertion that environmental groups should make “good (secret) deals like that,” and his continued support for the new leasing and drilling proposal even after the Gulf oil tragedy — and after the Governor made an informed decision to drop his support for the PXP project, calling it too risky for California.

The State Lands Commission staff and the California Attorney General, after review of the “new” PXP deal, issued a legal memorandum concluding that it is still unenforceable, still increases the risk of an oil spill, still encourages new federal leasing off our coast and is still not in the best interests of the state, but still Williams continues to support the PXP proposal.

You can’t have it both ways. Williams says he doesn’t support new oil drilling, but ignores the legal guidance of the state’s top prosecutor and the State Lands Commission legal counsel who have now twice said this deal will not stop oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coast. His support for the PXP deal demonstrates poor judgment and puts our coast in jeopardy of an oil spill that would have devastating impacts on our coastal economy, our wildlife and our beaches.

For the Ventura County Star article on the latest State Lands Commission staff ruling on the PXP proposal, go here. For a look at what Jerry Roberts of Calbuzz has to say, go here.

“We don’t have to trust the corporation…. There is a private party agreement that’s enforceable as a contract between them and the environmental groups… So we have several layers of safety, we don’t need to trust them.” (Das made this statement despite the fact that the Attorney General and the State Lands Commission have definitively ruled that the deals are unenforceable.)
— Examiner, March 6, 2010

“Williams said that a decisive event in his final decision to run was the action taken by Jordan and Nava in helping to sink a painstakingly negotiated agreement between major environmental groups and Plains Exploration and Production (PXP) oil company.”
— Santa Barbara Independent, April 1, 2009

“Among the few environmentalists opposing the deal was longtime coastal advocate Susan Jordan and her husband, Assemblyman Pedro Nava. Jordan is now seeking the Democratic nomination for the seat, being vacated by Nava. She is opposed by city councilman Das Williams, who said he got into the race largely because of Jordan’s position on the issue.”
— “Tranquillon Ridge Project Returns,” Santa Barbara Independent, 5/14 2009

“The dynamic is clear in the Jordan/Das Williams Democratic primary race for Nava’s soon to be vacant seat. Williams got in, earlier backing Jordan, for the stated reason that she opposed EDC’s deal.” Williams said he “stands with EDC” in looking for alternative ways to breathe new life into the agreement with PXP, and to address environmental concerns raised by Lands Commission staff.
— “Arnold’s Oily Surprise,” Santa Barbara Independent, 5/21/2009

“Among those fighting to beat Schwarzenegger’s bill was Susan Jordan, a top contender for the seat and a coastal advocate who fiercely opposed EDC’s agreement from the start – and who happens to be married to Nava. Jordan’s chief Democratic rival is SB City Council Member Das Williams, who backed the original PXP agreement and cited Jordan’s opposition to it in his decision to enter the race.”
— “Pedro Drills Arnold,” Santa Barbara Independent, 7/30, 2009

“Longtime enviro Susan Jordan, who’s running to succeed her husband Pedro Nava, staked out a lonely stance opposing the deal, while most of her erstwhile allies, including City councilman Das Williams, backed it. Williams who had earlier pledged to support Jordan, cited her position on Tranquillon Ridge as the key reason for making an about-face entry in to the race.”
— “No Tranquility at Tranquillon,” Calbuzz Fishwrap, 5/15/2009

“I think it was a good deal and I think we should be willing to make good deals like that.”
— Excerpt from video interview with Das Williams on www.PlanetSantaBarbara.com

“An immediate effect of the split is the decision by Santa Barbara City Councilman Das Williams to open an exploratory committee to run for the 35th Assembly District. Williams had previously pledged to endorse Susan Jordan, the wife of the termed out incumbent Pedro Nava….” The situation (defeat of PXP at SLC) played a major role in convincing Williams to abandon his support and move toward entering the race himself.”
— “Oil drilling deal splits Democrats,” Ventura County Star, 3/11/2009

“Last week, Santa Barbara City Councilmember Das Williams jumped into the Democratic primary for the seat, citing Jordan’s opposition to an agreement between environmentalists and the oil company Plains Exploration & Production (PXP) as a key reason for abandoning his earlier support of her.
— “Why Susan Jordan Loves Homework,” Santa Barbara Independent, 4/9/2009

The Plains Exploration and Production Co. and its environmental supporters in Santa Barbara had hoped that a revised agreement, under which the company pledges a long-term cessation of all oil activities in the area in exchange for short-term permission to tap into state reserves, would lead state regulators to remove their opposition.

But in a memo to commissioners on Tuesday, Executive Director Paul Thayer concluded, “The new agreement does not cure the factors that led the commission to determine the proposed leases were not in the best interests of the state.”

That opinion, coming on the heels of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s decision earlier this month to abandon his support for the Tranquillon Ridge project, makes it unlikely the company will ask the commission to reconsider its January 2009 decision to reject the project.

“I really think this is the final nail,” said Susan Jordan, founder of the nonprofit Coastal Protection Network and a leading opponent of the plan. “Given the staff’s very thorough analysis, I don’t know how PXP moves forward at this point.”

For more

Rejecting claims that the “new” Plains Exploration and Production (PXP) oil drilling agreement would end offshore oil drilling off the Santa Barbara County coast, the State Lands Commission staff has reviewed the proposal and concluded in an official memorandum that its terms and benefits are not enforceable.

In specific, the memorandum concludes that the drilling is likely to continue beyond the end dates, that decommissioning and removal of the platforms is unlikely to occur, that it creates an unnecessary and increased risk of an oil spill, and sets a negative precedent for new federal leasing off the California coast.

On May 3, after viewing the tragic ongoing events in the Gulf of Mexico, Governor Schwarzenegger withdrew his support for Texas-based Plains Exploration and Production Company’s (PXP) controversial plan to expand offshore oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coast. Had PXP’s proposal been approved, it would have reversed California’s longstanding ban against new offshore oil leasing in state waters and been the first new offshore oil lease since the 1969 blowout fouled the Santa Barbara coastline.

“I have always opposed the PXP oil drilling plan on the basis that its promise to end offshore oil drilling was unenforceable and that the massive increase in new drilling and extraction would place our coastal economy, our marine wildlife and our beaches at the risk of a devastating oil spill,” said Susan Jordan, founder of the award-winning California Coastal Protection Network and candidate for the 35th Assembly District.

“Why would I reverse 40 years of California’s long-standing ban against new drilling and accept a promise from an oil company that joined BP in a fight against stronger drilling rig protections that might have prevented the devastating oil spill that occurred 40 miles off the coast of Louisiana and now threatens the Florida Keys?” Jordan asked.

PXP had recently announced a “new agreement” that it claimed resolved all the concerns that led to the State Lands Commission’s initial rejection of the project in January of 2009. This new staff analysis, undertaken at the request of Controller John Chiang, forcefully concludes that the concerns that led the State Lands Commission to deny the project in January of 2009 remain unresolved:

“In light of the continued risk of an oil spill from the proposed Tranquillon Ridge leases, the potential encouragement of new federal leases that could be caused by approval of a new state lease, and the lack of assurance that production from the federal leases will end as provided for in the April 6, 2010 agreement, staff concludes that, apart from its publication, the new agreement does not cure the factors that led the Commission to determine that the proposed leases were not in the best interests of the state.
-- SLC Memorandum to SLC Commissioners, dated May 18, 2010

Jordan, an award-winning environmental leader, opposed the PXP deal from the start.  The issue has become a contentious one in her race for the State Assembly seat.  Her opponent in the Democratic primary, Das Williams, who had earlier pledged to support Jordan, cited her opposition to the PXP Tranquillon Ridge proposal for new oil drilling as the key reason for making an about-face entry into the race. Even after the tragic events in the Gulf continued to unfold, Williams reaffirmed his support for the PXP oil drilling deal to the Ventura County Star, saying he was “happy” to continue to support it.

Despite intense political pressure during the last two years to support the PXP proposal, Jordan has consistently stood her ground.

“Support for PXP’s drilling plans has placed vulnerable coastal communities like Carpinteria and Goleta at increased risk for new, expanded drilling. We need a strong united voice against any and all new offshore oil drilling off the California coast. It’s time to reaffirm California’s longstanding policy against new offshore oil drilling, send PXP’s oil drilling proposal back to Texas, and move toward a renewable energy future,” she concluded.

For the Ventura County Star story, go here.

For the story on Calbuzz, go here.

Joining other Carpinteria leaders, the former Mayor of Carpinteria Dick Weinberg has lent his support to Susan Jordan’s Assembly District 35 race.

“As the Director of the California Coastal Protection Network, Susan has an established track record of opposing destructive and illegal projects up and down the coast. She opposes Venoco’s Measure J and has led the opposition to the controversial PXP oil drilling plan off Santa Barbara,” Weinberg said.

“We need people in Sacramento with Susan’s drive, energy and knowledge of the issues facing our local communities. She has my support.”

Weinberg joins another former Carpinteria Mayor, Donna Jordan, in supporting Susan Jordan along with Oxnard Mayor Tom Holden and former Ventura Mayors Christy Weir and Brian Brennan.

Aside from serving on the council, Weinberg, a longtime and active resident of Carpinteria, is on the board of Directors of the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District and is a former member of the Santa Barbara Association of Governments.

Faculty Association of California Community Colleges Supports Susan Jordan

Reaffirming Susan Jordan’s strong support for higher education, the advocacy group representing the state’s community college faculty has announced its endorsement of Jordan’s Assembly race

“FACCC PAC is pleased to support Susan Jordan’s candidacy for the Assembly,” said Executive Director Jonathan Lightman. “She is extremely dedicated to public higher education and will work to protect and advance our vital institutions.”

Jordan has taken a strong position against further cuts to our community colleges and universities.

“The affordability and accessibility of public education is critical to ensuring a bright future for our young people and those who need retraining in other fields,” Jordan said. “It is a critical cog in our society and one that must always be nurtured. It is during difficult economic times that we should be increasing funding to higher education instead of cutting it. I see this as a prudent investment in our state’s and nation’s future.”

Santa Barbara County Action Network Action Fund Endorses Susan Jordan

The Santa Barbara County Action Network Action Fund is also supporting Susan Jordan. The active progressive group behind this endorsement advocates for affordable housing, preservation of open space and agricultural land, and development of transportation alternatives that reduce dependence on private cars.

Since the Earth Day oil rig explosion that killed 11 people and unleashed an unimaginable disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, the unacceptable risks of offshore oil drilling have been in the news daily.

Politicians, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, are backpedaling from their prior support, based on the horrifying images on the nightly news.

Given how close we’ve come to expanding offshore oil drilling off Santa Barbara (a proposal that now appears almost certainly dead), it’s useful to look back at how that proposal played out.

The PXP deal is a proposal to allow Houston-based Plains Exploration & Production Co. to expand its drilling operation off the Santa Barbara County coast in exchange for a permanent halt to drilling and exploration beginning in 2022.

I was the Sierra Club representative in Sacramento dealing with this proposal when it first came to light, so I saw exactly how this unfolded.

When the proposal to drill new wells from Platform Irene was first proposed by PXP, the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) did an impressive job of convincing and cajoling other organizations to support the deal, notwithstanding the fact that all the details were contained in a secret contract between EDC and PXP. Many organizations were willing to follow EDC’s lead, based on its years of impressive environmental work. Given that the details of the deal weren’t available for review, there was a heavy emphasis on “just trust us.”

The initial push by EDC and PXP to sell the deal came just after Susan Jordan had declared her candidacy for Assembly. As director of the California Coastal Protection Network and a detail-oriented person, Ms. Jordan wasn’t going to simply take someone else’s claim that supporting the first new offshore oil drilling in California in 40 years was a good idea. She dug into the available documents at a far greater level of detail than anyone else had.

What she found is now old news: the deal was not as enforceable as had been claimed (an observation validated by the Attorney General, the State Lands Commission, and the Mineral Management Service). And despite the supposed benefit of creating an end date for oil extraction, the project significantly increases the risk of an oil spill disaster in the short term.

Let’s be perfectly clear about the risks at the heart of this deal. When you set aside the various bells and whistles of land transfers and carbon offsets and such, at its core the benefit from PXP’s perspective is that they could drill more wells now, extract more oil faster, then get out. Drill more, faster, now. But, as the State Lands Commission found when it rejected this proposal last year, drilling more wells to accelerate oil extraction increases the risk of a disaster.

Having established that the proposed deal would increase the risk of an oil spill, and was not as enforceable as claimed, Ms. Jordan was in a tough spot. She has had a friend at the EDC for years, and opposing the deal was going to be personally difficult. Further, local politics were such that supporting the deal, or staying silent, would have been the safe thing to do. How Ms. Jordan handled this situation tells us lots about what kind of leader she will be in Sacramento.

Despite the political risks, and the difficulty of opposing a long-time friend’s proposal, Ms. Jordan made her decision based on the facts and what was right. She was clear about her position and explained the facts that led her there. And she stuck with it, even though she paid a heavy political price.

Her primary opponent, Das Williams, stated publicly that he jumped into the state Assembly race because of the issue, apparently perceiving an opportunity to exploit divisions in the environmental community.

Much has been said about the PXP/EDC deal over the past couple years, and it has become a significant election issue. I believe that looking at how Ms. Jordan handled this exceedingly difficult issue tells us a lot about her commitment to doing what is right, even when it is personally and politically difficult. She demonstrated exactly the combination of guts, integrity and leadership that we need in Sacramento during these difficult times.

The difference between Ms. Jordan’s response to this deal and that of her opponent is the difference between being a leader or a follower. Given the challenges facing California right now, I think we need a leader.

The author is a former deputy director of Sierra Club California.

05/06/2010

There’s an old adage that if we don’t learn from our mistakes, we are destined to repeat them. When it comes to offshore oil drilling or oil usage in general, one can’t help but wonder how many more oil spills it will take before we decide oil drilling is bad and that our co-dependence on oil simply isn’t sustainable. With the burgeoning oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico, we must look back in time and remember that this isn’t our first time at bat.

In 1969, Union Oil Platform A, stationed six miles off the coast of Santa Barbara, suffered a blowout and released between 80,000 and 100,000 barrels of oil into the ocean, killing dolphins, seals and more than 10,000 birds.

In 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker grounded, spilling 250,000 barrels of crude oil in Alaska’s Prince William Sound, killing an estimated 100,000 to as many as 250,000 birds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 harbor seals, 247 bald eagles and 22 orcas, as well as causing the destruction of billions of salmon and herring eggs. The Exxon spill severely damaged the coastline, and researchers estimate it could take another 10 years to approach restoring it to its previous condition.

As of today, the Transocean Deepwater Horizon oil rig spill is estimated to have leaked 75,000 barrels of oil to date, and with no sure way to cap the leak, is adding 5,000 barrels a day into the Gulf of Mexico. Even without hitting the coastline, experts are saying it would rank among the worst ecological disasters in U.S. history.

At this point, the idea of proposing any new drilling anywhere seems ludicrous. Even the Obama administration is backtracking on the president’s proposal for new offshore drilling.

Although California has never experienced a severe disaster such as that which is destined for the Mississippi Delta or what happened to Alaska’s serene coastline, it certainly doesn’t mean we should take our chances. But that isn’t stopping Santa Barbara’s Environmental Defense Center, which has agreed to a controversial plan with oil company Plains Exploration and Production Company (PXP) that will allow for new drilling in California’s waters for the first time since the spill of 1969.

Although the plan, which the center’s attorney says is enforceable, would result in the decommissioning and dismantling of the four most active platforms off the county’s coast over the course of the next 14 years, the risk factors and loopholes of the plan are not worth the energy, literally.

First, the four platforms listed in the proposal already have a finite life, according to a Santa Barbara environmental impact report on the PXP project. That report states that California’s Marine Minerals Service estimated that the oil will dry up and all of the platforms could be removed by 2025.

Second, new drilling means more oil being pumped and an increased risk of an oil spill. The devastating effects of the last three major oil spills should be enough to stop any mulling over the idea of new drilling.

Third, even if the plan is enforceable through legal channels, all PXP will have to do is pay for damages for breach of contract as it continues to drill. And as Coastal Commissioner Sara Wan pointed out, California officials could change their minds in 14 years and support more drilling. This would be the antithesis of the intentions of the proposal and the defense center’s clients, Get Oil Out! and Citizen’s Planning Association of Santa Barbara.

In addition to the problems associated with this plan, in the end, support for it and its passage would mean condoning continued dependence on oil, the root of the problem. If we are drilling, then we aren’t investing in alternative energy sources, and that is problematic.

We think the EDC/PXP proposal is a bad one; and now, even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger agrees. It appears that it won’t be approved by the State Lands Commission, but even this plan’s failure doesn’t equate to success. Until we have fully embraced wind, solar, wave and every other type of energy source, we can continue to expect devastating oil spills and many other problems associated with the true cost of oil.

]]> http://jordan4assembly.com/2010/05/more-drilling-is-not-the-answer-vc-reporter/feed/ 0