Pollution from factories in China

We arrived in Hong Kong on Sunday, leaving Beijing’s blue skies behind to be welcomed by the worst air pollution Hong Kong had seen in history.  The week was busy, meeting with Hong Kong’s leading environmental and social non-profits to get a sense of the work that’s happening in Southern China, and explore opportunities for collaboration.

Just across from Hong Kong is the Pearl River Delta (PRD), a life-source for hundreds of millions of people in southern China. Over the past several decades, rapid development and population strains have left China’s major water ways, including the Yellow River, Huai River and Yangtze River in a crisis state. A similar fate is slated for the PRD, with Guangdong being the hub of China’s manufacturing boom.

Despite the central government’s repeated commitment to protecting the environment, a major struggle remains in getting Beijing’s environmental policies implemented across the country. Even the new elevated status of SEPA to a Ministry doesn’t guarantee that local EPBs will be accountable to the national environmental watch-dog.

Furthermore, the driving force behind most of China’s development lies outside the country, in the West’s demand for cheap consumer goods. Many multinationals are taking advantage of China’s plentiful labor and lax environmental laws or aren’t paying attention to what’s happening in their factories or supply chains.

While the situation in the PRD is dire, it is not completely hopeless. There is a unique opportunity to reverse the trends of rampant industrialization, and protect the PRD from worsening pollution. As corporate responsibility shifts from being a trend to standard operating procedure, multinationals can lead by example in China by upholding their environmental and social commitments.

I recently spent a week in Beijing – my first time to one of the world’s largest, and arguably becoming one of the most important cities. It’s been an incredible experience and we’ve been blessed with beautiful blue skies.

I was there with Daniela, our China program director, connecting with partners, reporters, bloggers, companies, university students and colleagues. I’ve met some of the leaders of China’s environment movement – a very dynamic and passionate group of individuals taking on some of the world’s most daunting problems. It’s a fascinating time to be here as it feels like these Chinese grassroots environmental groups are really gaining momentum and simultaneously China is preparing for this summer's Green Olympics.   Our partner’s strategies, all locally focused, are becoming increasingly more sophisticated while the national government is also taking on these monumental challenges.

Preparing for the Olympics, Beijing is issuing and initiating a stream of environmental policies. From building green venues to limiting the number of cars in the city to reduce smog, Beijing is getting ready to present blue skies to the international community when the world turns its attention to the Olympic games. It's pretty amazing I think that China chose to set such high environmental goals for the Olympics.

Talking with our partners is a huge source of inspiration – it definitely takes a committed individual to do environmental work any where, but especially in China. The problems here are daunting and the concept of environmental work as a profession is quite new, and often lonely, work.

But there was a real shadow that exists over my visit here and our partner’s incredible work. China’s environmental problems reach far beyond Beijing and far beyond the Olympic spotlight. The Han River recently turned red with pollution, leaving over 200,000 people access to clean water.  Incidents like this really reinforce the need for a strong environmental movement throughout the country, not just in Beijing and not just related to the Olympics, to act as a community resource to respond and try to prevent these kinds of tragic events. But these groups can’t do it alone, which is why I think Pacific Environment’s model of supporting these groups is such great work and why I’m so excited to be here!

At a rally last year in Southern California, high school students from Malibu make their commitment known with face paint.

This week, our staff worked up and down the West Coast of North America to wean the United States off of our addiction to fossil fuels.  In Oregon, Rory Cox and Sarah Kagan helped organize a rally in Salem protesting new proposed Liquefied Natural Gas terminals.  Proposals to build new terminals in Coos Bay and along the Columbia River would turn Oregon into an energy colony to feed gas to the California market.

Remember the old slogan “Don’t Californicate Oregon”?  Well, these LNG terminals would do just that.  So Rory and Sarah worked with our partners in Oregon to rally on the capitol steps in Salem, bringing over 200 people together to voice their opposition to these polluting and unnecessary terminals.  Why would Oregon want to derail its renewable energy initiatives just to feed LNG, a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, to California?  Click here to read more about the protest and see photos as well as a video clip!

At the same time, up in Alaska, our nation’s Minerals Management Service was busy leasing off vast areas of the Chukchi Sea in the Arctic to oil and gas companies.  Shell was the high bidder, with ConocoPhillips and Statoil not far behind.  Last week, we filed a lawsuit challenging the sale.  At the lease sale itself, Alaska Program Associate Rachel James and Program Fellow Rebecca Noblin worked with Alaska Natives from the Arctic to make sure that their protests were heard by the media.  Rebecca even donned a polar bear suit to draw attention to the threats to the polar bears from drilling in the “Polar Bear Seas” and from increased greenhouse gas emissions that will result from the massive amount of proposed drilling.  Click here to read a live blog from the event hosted by our friends and colleagues at Alaska Wilderness League and see photos.  And click here to read a great opinion piece by our long-term partner Rick Steiner that describes the insanity of the Chukchi lease sale.

Let’s hope we can take Rick’s words to heart and break our fossil fuel addiction in North America.  We need to do this – to protect our planet from global warming and oil spills as well as to build a new green economy.  That’s what our staff was doing all this week, up and down the West Coast!

Reindeer have been a way of life for centuries in the Russian Far East.

A number of our partners on Sakhalin have launched efforts to get Exxon to re-route a pipeline around Piltun Lagoon and away from reindeer breeding grounds.  Click here to read about our visit to the reindeer herders last fall.

In December, the reindeer herders joined together with environmental and indigenous groups to send a letter to Exxon and to Russian state agencies to ask for the pipeline to be rerouted.  After all, there are strong biodiversity reasons for this:  Piltun Lagoon is the source of the rich benthos that feeds critically endangered Western Gray Whales off the coast of Sakhalin and is habitat for rich fisheries that feed native peoples.  Exxon’s on-shore construction has already impacted reindeer breeding grounds, and construction of a pipeline through the reindeer breeding grounds will likely doom this native tradition that is struggling to survive.

Exxon, though, has other ideas.  Without informing leaders in the indigenous or environmental communities, Exxon secretly brought together many of the reindeer herders for a meeting.  The herders were confused and asked where were the leaders and why weren’t they at the meeting?  Exxon simply said the leaders couldn’t attend, even though these people had not been informed.   The reindeer herders, under the influence of alcohol, signed a statement allowing Exxon to build the pipeline.

Exxon learned from the “divide and conquer” strategies used to subjugate indigenous cultures in the 19th century.  Too bad they’re still using these tactics.

Thankfully, the herders themselves said that this meeting with Exxon was improper, and now even Exxon has agreed to a meeting that will bring all the stakeholders together.  After all, this decision is not that difficult.  All the reindeer herders want is a common-sense decision to re-route the pipeline so that it will avoid Piltun Lagoon and reindeer breeding grounds.  Certainly Exxon, with its record-breaking profits, can see the wisdom in this?

Photo by Vladimir Gorbunov.

 The government’s decision to delay listing the polar bear as threatened is certainly getting a lot of press – and thankfully, the press is linking the polar bear to the government’s incomprehensible decision to move forward with oil and gas lease sales in the Chukchi Sea.

Check out the following links for some great editorials on the subject:

Regulatory Games and the Polar Bear (The New York Times)

Polar Bears:  Stop Oil, Gas Leases (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)

Protecting Polar Bears (The Los Angeles Times)

The Threatened Polar Bear (The Washington Post)

Meanwhile, Congressman Ed Markey is holding a hearing about the polar bear and the Chukchi Lease Sale in the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.  The hearing is at 9:30 Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, January 17.  The panel will be broadcast over the internet for those interested:  It can be accessed by going to http://globalwarming.house.gov/home and clicking on the box next to the picture of Ed Markey on the left hand side.  The box reads "Next Hearing--Polar Bears on Thin Ice- Thurs. Jan. 17 at 9:30am"

If anyone has trouble with that link they can also try here.

Let’s hope that Minerals Management Service is paying attention and chooses to delay the Chukchi Lease Sales!

Photo by Vladimir Gorbunov.

Welcome back to Pacific Environment’s blog in 2008.  Over the next year, check back to this blog to find interesting tidbits and news related to our work to protect the Pacific Rim environment!

A couple of items caught my eye in the last couple of days.  First of all, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delayed its decision about whether to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act.  Supposedly the delay is to allow the Service to consider new scientific studies.  Yet the studies – which demonstrate sea ice in the Arctic receding even more rapidly than originally thought – only confirm the critical need to act now.

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s delay in making a decision now allows the Minerals Management Service to proceed unhindered with a proposed oil and gas lease sale in the Chukchi Sea in February.  Recent news articles suggest that both Exxon and Shell are interested in the lease sale.  Is it coincidence that the Fish and Wildlife Service’s delay allows the government to move forward with this lease, which will only increase the threats to the polar bears?  I think not.  Click here to read a press release from our partners at Center for Biological Diversity or click here for an article that explains the connection between the polar bear delay and the Chukchi lease sale.

We fiddle while the Arctic burns.

Meanwhile, at least South Korea is taking some action.  Click here to learn that South Korea is taking action to ban single-hulled tankers by 2010, following its disastrous oil spill last month.  Wait, you say, weren’t single-hulled tankers banned after the Exxon Valdez?  No, unfortunately not.  The Valdez spill led to an international agreement to phase out single-hulled tankers by 2015.  Now, South Korea is making a commitment to moving up that timeline.  Sometimes it takes an accident like they experienced to force action.  We could learn something from Korea.

This is the time of year when many people think about charitable giving and how to create positive change for the year ahead.  If you like what you have been reading on this blog, I would encourage you to donate to Pacific Environment.

On this blog, you’ve read just a few of the stories about our on-the-ground work around the Pacific Rim and why our staff are so effective at dealing with the huge environmental challenges that our world faces today.  We’ve had a great year, with victories in China, Russia, Alaska, and California.  Your support will help us achieve even more great results around the Pacific Rim in 2008!  Just click here if you would like to support us with a year-end, tax-deductible donation.

Thank you for your support, and thank you for all that you do to make this world a better place!  From all of us here at Pacific Environment, best wishes for the holidays and New Year!

Here’s to a great 2008!

Happy Holidays,

David Gordon

An Indigenous Woman on the Altai Plateau

Altai, nestled in southern Siberia to the west of Mongolia, to the east of Kazakhstan, and to the north of China, is an amazing area.  It’s known for its wildlands and beauty, as the landscape climbs from Siberian pine forests to alpine plateaus.  

The Ukok Plateau – a vast plateau that is recognized as a World Heritage Site – is one area that Pacific Environment and our partners our trying to save.  The Russian government has announced plans to build a gas pipeline to China through the Altai, directly through the Ukok Plateau.  The project is led by Gazprom (note that Putin just anointed the chairman of Gazprom as his successor to become president of Russia).  

Indigenous Altaians are extremely worried about the pipeline.  They point out that there are better routes for the pipeline that make more sense both economically and environmentally.  These routes, though, go through Mongolia or Kazakhstan, and Russia wants a direct pipeline to China – which means going through the Ukok Plateau.  

One of the reasons indigenous Altaians are so worried is that this is a sacred area for their culture.  In addition to its environmental beauty, the Ukok Plateau is home to thousands of sacred sites.  We’re supporting Maya Erlenbaeva and the Foundation for Sustainable Development of Altai, a local organization, to map these sacred sites to that they can demonstrate the value of the Plateau.  Our friends at the Sacred Land Film Project visited Maya and the Foundation earlier this summer and produced a wonderful short video that shows Maya’s inspiring work.

Our efforts in Altai are going to ramp up in 2008, which promises to be an important year for deciding the fate of the Ukok Plateau.  We’re hopeful that we can convince the Russian government and Gazprom that there’s a better alternative than the Ukok Plateau for building a gas pipeline to China!  Click here to find out more about our campaign!

In the meantime, enjoy the video and the short journey it takes you to the sacred places of Altai in southern Siberia!

­

One of the things that makes our work so special is spending time in communities -- in the small villages that tie together the North Pacific, in China, Russia, Alaska, and stretching down to California.  Especially in Russia, many of these communities struggle to survive and have seen hard times over the last 15 years.  

The work we do in these communities is often not sexy, doesn't result in big conservation victories, and is often hard to explain.  At times, it is excruciating to experience the reality of these small villages.  But our outreach in these villages is also some of the most rewarding -- working with people who are trying to assert control over the way their natural resources are used and trying to make sure that the resources are used sustainably and for their local benefit.  

Click here to read some writing by one of our field staff that paints a picture of the conditions in rural villages in the Russian Far East.  Our field staff wrote this piece in response to a basic question:  "How do people survive in Russia's forgotten villages?"  I hope you enjoy the writing.

The topic of China’s environment is one of world historical importance. This is increasingly evident in the media, with the New York Times series called “Choking on Growth” as well as in global politics, with lots of discussion about China at the recent Climate Conference in Bali.

Meanwhile, here in Northern California last weekend, experts on China and the environment convened for a two-day conference to discuss research and trends in issues such as health, energy, policy, law, clean-tech and media.

As you can imagine, there was a lot to talk about. After two days of discussions and presentations, I was as exhausted as I was inspired. We talked about China’s commitment to renewable energy and the shortcomings of the country’s environmental monitoring systems. We discussed the importance of capacity building of local government officials and the citizen’s right to know. We learned that China’s environmental history is almost as bleak as modern day, and that media plays a critical role in pushing for environmental reforms.

While it was great to have so many (over 200) people convene to have these conversations, I was frustrated by the lack of action. As C.S. Kiang put it “we are reporting on the problems and not the solutions.” This drove me to ask the question that no one else brought up, which was how do these problems get solved, especially for the local people who are dealing with these environmental crises on a daily basis.

The responses included strengthening civil society, and conducting public education in coordination with local government support. This is Pacific Environment’s approach for working in China, and I think more voices from the grassroots environmental community would have been a welcomed addition to the packed agenda last weekend.

As Jim Yardley, New York Times Beijing Corresponded told us in his closing remarks “NGOs play an enormous role.” I agree, and hope that more of China’s environmental civil society will have a chance to participate in future discussions on these issues. After all, it impacts them the most.

Robert Moiseev

In recent weeks, we have lost two shining stars of Russia’s conservation movement.  On Thursday, Robert Savelievich Moiseev passed away, one day after his 70th birthday.  Robert Savelievich was the director of the Kamchatka Branch of the Pacific Institute of Geography, part of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 

Robert Savelievich’s vision of sustainable development for Kamchatka and the North Pacific was truly extraordinary.  Meeting with Robert Savelievich was always a pleasure that would result in expanding my worldview.  He had a deep and complex understanding of sustainable development, based on his background as an economist and a patriot of Kamchatka and the North Pacific.  He immediately understood the value of international connections; his vision was truly North-Pacific wide, as he understood the ties between Kamchatka and Alaska.  He was one of the primary drivers behind the ideas for the International Bering Sea Forum, which brought together community members from both sides of the Bering Sea. 

Robert Savelievich believed that Kamchatka could prosper only if it could sustainably manage its renewable resources, particularly its fisheries.  He worked with us to demonstrate the value of Kamchatka’s salmon economy.  He thought that Kamchatka’s economic priorities – which now appear to favor oil over fisheries – were terribly misplaced.  His vision, though, was always frustrated by government officials who failed to have the long-term vision that Robert Savelievich championed.  It’s particularly tragic that proposals to drill for oil off of western Kamchatka are moving forward at the same time that Robert Savelievich has passed away.

Most of all, though, I will remember Robert Savelievich as a mentor with an incredibly keen wit, golden tongue, and sharp mind.  I remember once attending a public hearing on mining issues in Kamchatka, at which Robert Savelievich spoke.  He spoke directly after a representative from the mining company.  Robert Savelievich had the amazing ability – well-developed through the Russian scientific dialectic – to “dress down” whoever had spoken immediately prior to him.  With an amazing economy of words, he showed the gaping flaws in the arguments of the mining company and went on to offer a vision for Kamchatka far beyond what anyone could imagine.  I remember thinking to myself that I never wanted to speak directly after Robert Savelievich!

Robert Savelievich’s vision and leadership will be sorely missed, but I am hopeful that his vision for Kamchatka and the North Pacific will live on through his writings, his colleagues, and his family – and through those of us who will continue to promote a vision of sustainable development for the North Pacific.

Another shining star of the Russian conservation movement who passed away in late November is Boris Konstantinovich Shibnev, at the amazing age of 89.  Boris Konstantinovich led an incredible life, having been born just a year after the Russian Revolution.  He had read the works of Arseniev (the Russian analogue of John Muir) who wrote about his travels through the amazing nature of the Russian Far East (for those interested in his work, I recommend the Akira Kurosawa film “Dersu Uzala”).  After being demobilized from the Russian Navy in 1939, Boris Konstantinovich moved to the Bikin River watershed in northern Primorsky Region.

Boris Konstantinovich was a fierce defender of the Bikin, a roadless area of 3 million acres with an amazing collection of subtropical biodiversity that is rare to find in such a northern area.  He led scientific expeditions, was a teacher who gained great respect among the indigenous Udege people, and led early non-governmental efforts.  I met Boris Konstantinovich in 1992 during my first visit to the Russian Far East.  He had created a natural history museum in his home in the village of Verkhny Pereval.  His passion and commitment to the Bikin watershed was contagious.  At the time, the Bikin was under threat from Hyundai Corporation, which wanted to log the upper headwaters.  We helped launch an international campaign that helped protect these forests from loggers.

These two stars of the Russian conservation movement will be warmly remembered – and our partners will be working to continue their traditions by protecting Russia’s most important wilderness areas and by promoting a sustainable vision for the region.

This morning, we woke up to news about another major Pacific Rim oil spill.   This time, it appears as though a barge with a crane struck an oil tanker off the coast of South Korea in the Yellow Sea, spilling over 10,000 tons of oil.  This is the third major oil spill we have seen in a month – in San Francisco Bay, in the Black Sea, and now in the Yellow Sea.

Time will tell how bad the damage will be from this latest spill, though given the amount of oil spilled, and the likelihood that less than 20% of the oil will be recovered, we can expect the impacts to be severe.  Earlier this year, I attended an oil spill workshop in Japan and met colleagues in Korea working to prevent oil spills.  They were particularly worried about the growth in shipping of oil – symbolized by new tankers coming from Sakhalin along the coast of Korea – and the likelihood of accidents.  Up until then, their worst catastrophe had been the Sea Prince spill in 1995.  Today’s spill involves twice as much oil as the Sea Prince.

Here’s an article that details the fact that this was a single-hulled tanker – a dinosaur that long ago should have been retired in favor of double-hulled tankers.  This area in the Yellow Sea is a very busy region for shipping.  Given growth of shipping around the Pacific Rim, I hope this will be a wake-up call for the International Maritime Organization and governments to address the dire need to improve shipping safety.  

Meanwhile, here in San Francisco Bay, more details are coming out about the bar pilot’s mishandling of the Cosco Busan, leading to our spill.  It seems clear that the pilot made numerous mistakes that led to the spill, including leaving port in such heavy fog without electronic equipment that either was working properly or that he understood and ordering the ship to full speed in heavy fog when he didn’t understand his location.  A terrible, preventable tragedy.  We need legislative action in Congress to make sure that such accidents around the Pacific Rim are prevented in the future.

Our policy director Doug Norlen recently attended the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel meeting as an observer.  This panel, known as “WGWAP” for short, was set up by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and Shell/Sakhalin Energy to make recommendations to minimize the impacts from oil and gas development around Sakhalin on critically endangered Western Gray Whales.  The primary feeding ground for Western Gray Whales is directly adjacent to Sakhalin Energy’s drilling area and two offshore platforms.  The whales are impacted from noise, construction activities, ship traffic, and potentially by oil spills.

The idea behind the panel is a good one:  let’s bring together some of the best scientists in the world to review Shell’s plans and make recommendations to make sure that it minimizes the harm to Western Gray Whales.  This would work, if Shell took the panel’s recommendations seriously.  Unfortunately, when push comes to shove, Shell just does what it wants and ignores the panel’s recommendations.

This is especially apparent on noise issues.  For over a year now, the panel’s scientists have asked Shell to use a certain set of noise criteria.  Shell has refused, saying this is unnecessary and could lead to shutdowns in their operations and delays of their construction schedules.  But isn’t the idea here to protect the critically endangered western gray whales?  Shell’s refusal means that it can create noise “spikes” without shutting down its operations.  Yet clearly this is not to the benefit of the whales.

Environmentalists who were observing the construction this summer warned that a lot of noise in early July appeared to be frightening the whales away.  Shell says that its acoustic recordings either weren’t working or didn’t pick up the noise.  But since Shell refuses to abide by the panel’s reasonable recommendations, there’s no way to be sure.  Unfortunately, IUCN appears to have too close of a financial relationship with Shell to hold the company’s feet to the fire.  Meanwhile, potential public lenders, including the export credit agencies of the US, UK and Japan, have set adherence to the WGWAP recommendations as a condition of their financing.  Yet, they too appear to be letting Shell of the hook. After years of concern about Western Gray Whales, Shell is still avoiding its responsibilities to follow the advice of the scientists.  

As Sakhalin Energy plans to conduct new seismic testing in 2009 – and seismic testing can have some of the most serious impacts on whales – it is too bad that the company continues to put its construction schedules behind the well-being of Western Gray Whales.  This is just one more of the failures of the Sakhalin-II project, and one more reason the project should not be supported by public and private investors.

We received a rather strange press release from Shell and Sakhalin Energy over the weekend.  The press release stated that severe weather conditions had damaged production facilities at Sakhalin Energy’s platform of northeastern Sakhalin.  Apparently there was a “small release” of oil into the sea.  Even more strange, Sakhalin Energy spokespeople say that they don’t know when the release occurred!  They say the release was less than 10 liters – frankly hard to believe, given Sakhalin Energy’s track record so far.

I don’t understand how the world’s largest integrated oil and gas project, built according to Shell and Sakhalin Energy to world-class standards, can have an oil spill and the company doesn’t even know when it occurred.  Meanwhile, I’m not surprised that this happened – severe storms hit Northeastern Sakhalin on a regular basis, especially going into winter.  Check out this photo to see the kind of waves you can get offshore of Northeastern Sakhalin.

Of course, as global warming intensifies, so will the intensity of the storms.  This latest spill is similar to a September 1999 spill in which somewhere between 2 and 200 barrels of oil (depending on whether you ask the company or environmental groups) spilled when the floating storage tanker broke off from its moorings.  Let’s hope that independent analysis will show the actual amount of the spill and when it occurred.

This latest incident – and Shell’s lack of information about when it occurred – proves once again that offshore oil development in arctic and subarctic conditions is just too risky for these fragile environments.  Shell just doesn’t know how to do it right.

Yesterday, I attended a Congressional subcommittee hearing in San Francisco to talk about the Cosco Busan oil spill.  The hearing was led by Representative Elijah Cummings, chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation (how’s that for a mouthful!).  Impressively, all of our Bay Area representatives showed – Pelosi, Woolsey, Lee, Miller, Tauscher, Lofgren, Lantos, and McNerney – what a turnout!  And we had Rep. Richardson from the Los Angeles area, who rightly pointed out that maritime safety is a national issue.

I was impressed with the questioning from our members of Congress.  They were asking the right questions.  How could such a mistake happen?  Why was the response so slow and disorganized?  How do we improve our laws and regulations to make sure that a spill like the ‘Cosco Busan’ never happens again?

I was not as impressed with the Coast Guard testimony.  While they owned up to the coordination problems, the Coast Guard kept saying that the response was appropriate.  I don’t understand how that can be, when no containment boom was placed around the ‘Cosco Busan’ to prevent oil from escaping out into the Bay?  For those interested, check out this YouTube version of the oil spill distribution, which demonstrates just how the strong tides and currents in San Francisco Bay made the oil churn through the Bay like it was in a washing machine.  Once the oil wasn’t initially contained, it was already too late.

It seems like a lot of investigations have started.  The Coast Guard is doing its own investigation.  The National Transportation Safety Board is doing an investigation.  Governor Schwarzenegger has asked the Office of Spill Prevention and Response to conduct an investigation.  The US Attorney is doing an investigation.  And yesterday, Speaker Pelosi called for an Inspector General’s investigation.  Soon we will need an investigation to keep track of the investigations!  But unfortunately, none of these investigations are independent.  We need an independent, fresh look at our shipping safety regulations.  The regulations we have in place now are not enough to deal with the volume and size of ships we have moving through places like San Francisco Bay.

We’re calling for an independent commission that will make recommendations about how to improve our shipping safety laws.  Check out our op-ed and go to this action alert to send a message to our elected leaders.

And let’s hope we can put the safeguards in place to make sure that our waters and wildlife don’t have to suffer from this pollution again in the future!

Photo of the Selendang Ayu crash. Photo by US Coast Guard.

Liubov is right in her comment to my post about the oil spill in San Francisco Bay.  News reports say about 15% of the oil has been recovered, but I’m not sure that’s the whole story.  Once oil is in the water, it will often emulsify – mixing with water into an oily, liquidy goop.  Essentially, it expands – so even though they’ve recovered 15% of the total, that 15% may include both oil and water.  Historically, although the oil companies don’t like to advertise this, there is a very low recovery rate for cleanup of oil after spills.

The catastrophe Liubov mentions in Kerch Strait, between the Black Sea and Azov Sea, is devastating.  Several ships, including an oil tanker, went down in a very severe storm.  Some of our Russian partners have been following this accident since it happened over the weekend.  And yes, the damage from the Volganeft-139 – the ship that went down in Kerch Strait – could be even greater, as it was carrying much more oil.  We’ve heard that the spill could be as much as 2,000 metric tonnes – far greater than the amount spilled from the Cosco Busan in San Francisco Bay.

From what we’ve heard, the Volganeft-139 was a ship built to transport oil up rivers.  That means it’s a lighter boat, without a deep draft like ocean-going boats.  The oil is transferred from an ocean-going boat to the river boat before it heads up river (or vice-versa, depending on the direction).  As a river boat, the Volganeft-139 simply was not built to ride out a storm in an ocean with 18-foot waves.  So one has to ask:  was this accident preventable?  Should the Volganeft-139 have been in Kerch Strait at all, or once it new the storm was coming, could it have sheltered in an area that would not have been hit with such fierce conditions?

Lots of investigations will start happening both with the Cosco Busan in San Francisco and the Volganeft-139.  Both are tragedies whose impacts will be felt for many years to come.  We’re putting together recommendations as part of our shipping safety work here in the States, and some of our Russian colleagues are doing the same for the Russian government.  Let’s hope we can learn from these mistakes to help prevent such accidents in the future.  

Bird covered in oil from a spill on Sakhalin Island

One of our worst nightmares came true yesterday, when a cargo ship spilled 58,000 gallons of bunker fuel into San FranciscoBay.  The ship was traveling out of San FranciscoBay in heavy fog when it hit the BayBridge.

I commute into work on the ferry, so I was on the look-out for oil and oil spill response this morning.  Standing out on the front deck of the ferry, I smelled the oil before I saw it; there’s certainly a strong smell of oil hanging in the air.  I saw ribbons of oil, many with dark globules of floating oil, from RichardsonBay in Sausalito to the FerryBuilding in San Francisco.  Some areas were harder hit than others – I particularly saw a lot of oil near Alcatraz and Fisherman’s Wharf, two of San Francisco’s biggest tourist attractions.  

According to news reports, beaches to the north of Golden GateBridge on the Pacific have been the worst hit so far – apparently the tide and the currents pushed the oil that direction.

This article starts to talk about some of the effects of the oil spill:  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/08/MND7T870A.DTL  We’re just starting to see a lot of birds come back into the Bay for the winter, including cormorants, grebes, and pelicans, all of which I saw this morning from the ferry. We can only hope and pray that the effects on fisheries and birds are not serious.

To my surprise, I did not see any oil skimmers or other oil spill response equipment working in the Bay this morning.  I did see one Coast Guard helicopter, hopefully looking for oil sheens.  But I was surprised at the lack of oil spill response boats, especially since the weather is pretty good right now and the Bay is calm – as good conditions as you can get for cleaning up spilled oil.

According to this article, officials are “meeting” about how to respond:  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/08/BAD8T8PLU.DTL  On the radio this morning, one official said proudly that 13 agencies were involved in the response.  I have a sinking feeling that it’s going to take a lot of meetings to get everyone on the same page before we see oil spill response vessels out on the Bay!

This is why we talk about the need for good oil spill response plans BEFORE accidents like this happen!  Once they happen, time is of the essence to clean up whatever is possible.  This is why we are so worried about the potential for oil spills in places like SakhalinIsland and Alaska – where the biological resources or so rich, yet we don’t have the cleanup technologies to prevent the damage from a major oil spill when it happens.  And as this oil spill shows, even with some of the best oil spill prevention measures, accidents do happen.  It’s not a question of if, but a question of when.

Of course, once the oil is in the water, it’s pretty much too late.  At best it will be possible to clean up a tiny fraction of the oil spilled, even in the best conditions.  I’m sure we’ll be spending a lot of time figuring out who’s guilty.  From the ferry, I could see the guilty cargo ship, with Hanjin spelled in large letters on the side.  But in this article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/08/BAH3T81G7.DTL), the finger-pointing for responsibility is already starting:  “The ship is owned by a Greek firm that is chartering the vessel to Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd. of Seoul. Hanjin spokeswoman Sonya Cho said the ship ‘is operated by the Greek owner and his crew’ and that Hanjin ‘has no responsibility in any matter concerning this accident.’”  Hmmmm, sounds like Exxon to me!  Nice way to start avoiding responsibility.

With our organization based in San Francisco, our thoughts are of course with all of the people in Southern California suffering from the raging wildfires.  And we have to ask whether or not global warming is contributing to the conditions leading to the fires.  Here’s a good article by Amy Goodman that starts to explore these connections:  Global Warming Link to Natural Disasters:  http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/336682_amy25.html

Meanwhile, scientists are not giving us much more reason to hope.  Check out this article, which says that carbon dioxide emissions are growing even faster than expected: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003968367_co223.html.

This makes me wonder what we are doing to end our addiction to fossil fuels.  Yesterday, Rachel from our Alaska program was with a delegation of native peoples in Washington D.C. asking Congress to slow down the rush to drill for oil both onshore and offshore in the Arctic.  Industry is pushing the U.S. government to open up Arctic lands and waters and zone the Arctic for oil and gas.  This at the same time that we’re already facing the catastrophic and life-threatening impacts of global warming, and our greenhouse gas emissions just continue to spiral upwards out of control?  As Rachel says in this press release (http://www.pacificenvironment.org/downloads/10-23AKNativepressrelease_FINAL.pdf), “they need to move beyond oil.”

This past weekend, I attended the memorial service for Bill Davoren, an old friend and colleague.  Bill founded the Bay Institute and recently passed away at the age of 83.  He was an elder in our movement.  I was lucky to have the opportunity to work alongside Bill when Pacific Environment had its offices in Fort Cronkhite on the Pacific Ocean in the early 1990s.  

He first retired from the federal government in 1981 and founded the Bay Institute.  Ten years later, he retired for the second time, this time from the Bay Institute.  But he couldn’t stop working – he founded the Aral Sea Information Committee to build connections with Central Asian environmentalists who were fighting the destruction of the Aral Sea – one of the Soviet Union’s worst environmental disasters.  That’s when I met Bill.

Bill was an old-west style cowboy who had moved to the Bay Area when working for the Department of Interior.  Originally from Colorado, he was always a committed environmentalist, trying to figure out how to stop crazy water diversion schemes and protect our water resources.  He tried working within the system, and eventually realized that the best way to keep the system honest was to watchdog the system from the outside.

At the memorial services, people remembered Bill as a “raging environmentalist.”  Yes, he was one of the good guys who would read endless amounts of water policy, go to all the public meetings, and pester government officials to keep them honest.  He knew how government worked and was always ready to help push them for better water policy.

I don’t think of Bill as “raging.”  I think of him as a jovial mentor who was always trying to do the right thing.  He was one of the people who taught me that we need constant vigilance to watchdog government and business – and that you can have a sense of humor at the same time!  

Yesterday I attended the annual Business Ethics Network conference.  Business Ethics Network, or BEN, links together activists and businesspeople who are working to make corporations more responsible.  It’s a great conference that brings together people from the environmental, social justice, labor, public health, and other movements.

I was inspired by the stories we heard – about how the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has convinced 600 companies to stop using dangerous chemicals in lipstick and other cosmetics, about how our colleagues at Earthworks are leading a corporate campaign to reform destructive gold mining practices, and about how a campaign targeted publishers and printers to make sure Harry Potter would be printed on old-growth-free and recycled paper.  Special kudos go to our friends and colleagues at Forest Ethics – some of the leaders in the corporate campaign world – who earlier this year convinced Victoria’s Secret to stop using old growth pulp from British Columbia to print its catalog.  Even better, Forest Ethics just helped turn its work with Victoria’s Secret into a promise by the British Columbia government to protect 5 million acres of mountain caribou habitat in inland British Columbia.  Amazing!

We’re working to transform corporations as well – from our work in Sakhalin and Alaska to make sure Shell becomes more responsible in its offshore drilling practices to our efforts in California to stop the import of Liquefied Natural Gas, yet another fossil fuel contributing to global warming that we don’t need.  Fighting corporations is only part of the battle.  The other part is transforming the corporations so that they can be responsible and act for the public good