As the oil disaster continues in the gulf, watch the live feed below (windows media player required).

Angry? Frustrated? Had enough? Click here to tell President Obama to take action today – and help us prevent an oil disaster in New England.

From the first time I heard a BP official (May 3, 2010 on NPR)  promise to pay “all legitimate claims” arising from the massive “Deepwater Horizon” discharge of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, my mind turned immediately to the epic legal drama that unfolded in the poisonous wake of the Exxon Valdez tanker disaster.

In the press and during Congressional hearings, BP officials have been extremely disciplined in their undeviating use of this phrase to describe BP’s alleged readiness to pay its fair share (let’s remember that Halliburton and other oil industry contractors are also responsible for this mess) of the financial damages caused by the oil plume emanating from its drilling operation.  Putting aside the issue of whether the full extent of the damage this disaster is causing can ever truly be measured in dollars and cents, it doesn’t take a lawyer to figure out that the phrase “all legitimate claims”–a reasonable enough sounding frame–could give defense attorneys a lot of wiggle room in deciding which claims to pay and which claims to fight.   If BP takes a page out of the Exxon playbook and decides to fight, there’s a good chance that BP will pay pennies on the dollar for those claims that it ultimately determines to be legitimate.

NOAA scientists cleanup and study oil as the Exxon Valdez tanker's breached hulk spews oil into Prudhoe Bay

In case you’re wondering, BP’s profits from the first quarter of 2010 alone were nearly 5.598 BILLION–an increase of 135% over first quarter of 2009 according to BP’s own figures.  That kind of money can buy you the most aggressive defense attorneys in the country–the likes of which lost the first Exxon Valdez trial, but then won the 20-year long legal war of attrition that followed.  Exxon’s endless appeals dragged out payment of and–with the help of a corporation-friendly Supreme Court majority–ultimately dwindled down the amount of damages awarded to fishermen, natives, and others whose livelihoods suffered or were destroyed by the Valdez disaster. 

If you want a preview of where things could be headed if BP does decide to dig in its heels, there are at least two great books on the Exxon disaster that are worth reading.  David Lebedoff’s Cleaning Up: The Story of the Biggest Legal Bonanza of Our Time focuses on the known facts surrounding the Exxon disaster as they were argued at trial and tells the heart-wrenching story of the victims, the perpetrators, and the lawyers that represented them on both sides of the issue.  Dr. Riki Ott’s book Not One Drop– Betrayal and Courage in the Wake of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill covers some of the same ground, but brings a broader scientific and socio-political context to the events that led to and followed the Valdez disaster.  Hers is a compelling indictment of the whole legal and political system surrounding oil extraction that has been designed for and in large part by the oil companies themselves.

As we continue to watch helplessly as the Deepwater Horizon debacle unfolds, it’s important to revisit the Exxon Valdez spill and its tortured legacy.  Regardless of what happens in the legal battles to come, both disasters–and the growing menace of climate change that is literally fueled by our seemingly insatiable appetite for oil–make the most compelling case in the Court of Public Opinion for truly getting “Beyond Petroleum.”  We are all members of the jury in that case.  How will you vote?

As recently as this morning the Coast Guard was asserting that oil from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico had not entered the “loop current” that travels around the tip of Florida over to the East Coast.

And now it appears the oil is hitting Florida as tar balls appear in Key West . . . they are being tested to determine to determine their origin.

Some commentators have, appropriately, noted that in addition to banning drilling in sensitive areas off our own coasts we need to appropriately regulate drilling that is underway and, to truly solve the problem, we must gain control and dramatically reduce our use of oil – a process that will involve building livable, walkable communities centered around transit.

Sadly, efforts are afoot in Washington to push in exactly the opposite direction – tell your Senator not to back Senator Lisa Murkowski’s Big Oil Bail-Out which would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to crack down on global warming pollution from oil and coal.

Comprehensive energy and climate legislation, combined with strong federal and state action using current law, can point us towards a cleaner and safer world where we don’t have to worry about tar balls on our beaches . . .

Now is our chance.

On Thursday, May 27, the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) will hold a public hearing on whether to shut down Vermont Yankee right now, instead of waiting until 2012. You will have the opportunity to tell the PSB what you think—whether the PSB should shut down the plant now, or take other action to address the ongoing leaks, false information and company misconduct that violates state laws.

It is important for our regulators, the Vermont Public Service Board, to hear from you.

What can you do to help? Join a growing community of concerned people like you by attending the public hearing on May 27. Tell the PSB what YOU think should happen to Vermont Yankee.

Public Hearing on Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
Thursday, May 27
7:00 p.m.
Gymnasium at Vernon Elementary School
381 Governor Hunt Road, Vernon, VT

One more voice might be all we need to stop Vermont Yankee in its tracks for good—make it yours.

In response to objections regarding the cost of Cape Wind, CLF and 12 other organizations issued the following statement:

The news this week that National Grid has officially filed its contract proposal with Cape Wind is great news for everyone in our state who breathes the air and believes we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels in general. Any estimate of the real costs of Cape Wind must factor in the economic, environmental and public health benefits to consumers and the Commonwealth over the long-term. In addition to knowing how much the power from Cape Wind will cost, the public should also know how much it will save them. To accurately estimate the value of our investment in Cape Wind, we can’t just focus on short-term increases to electric bills – pennies per day, on average – but must consider the savings over time.

By making a 15-year commitment to supply customers with clean wind power, National Grid and Cape Wind together are taking an essential step toward bringing the nation’s first offshore wind project to life while delivering substantial economic and environmental rewards. As the contract goes through rigorous public scrutiny, we call upon the public and state decision-makers alike to ensure that it is compared to other electric power agreements on an apples-to-apples basis that fully credits the expected benefits.  These include:

▪  Because Cape Wind’s fuel is free, the long-term power purchase agreement can – and will – ensure price predictability over the long term, moving consumers off the volatile fossil fuel price roller coaster.

▪  The project’s zero fuel cost means that when the wind blows, Cape Wind will be first in line to deliver power to consumers – forcing the most expensive polluting fossil fuel-fired power plants to run less, reducing the market price for electricity and saving customers millions of dollars.

▪  The contract price, initially set at 20.7 cents per kilowatt hour, is an “all-in” price that includes not just the price of the electricity but also the transmission, renewable energy incentives that are required by law, the project’s capacity to contribute to the regional electric supply, and other environmental benefits.  It is inaccurate to compare this price to the stand-alone price of traditional electricity.

▪  Any comparison of Cape Wind’s contract price to the price we currently pay for traditional power must take into account the extraordinary environmental and public health costs of ongoing reliance on fossil fuels – including the costs of addressing the growing oil drilling catastrophe in the Gulf, increasing climate change impacts, and air pollution from coal plants that worsens lung and heart conditions.

▪  By making long-term price commitments, Cape Wind and National Grid are placing the risk of any increased development cost squarely on the shoulders of Cape Wind, not ratepayers.

▪  Cape Wind will bring significant economic development opportunities to the Commonwealth, from quality construction jobs to ongoing maintenance and operation, and will propel Massachusetts to the national forefront of offshore renewable energy development.

Yesterday, New England Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) introduced in the Senate the long-awaited climate bill, now known officially as the American Power Act. Here’s what Seth Kaplan, CLF’s Vice President for Policy and Climate Advocacy, had to say on the subject:

“We applaud Senator Kerry’s hard work and persistence in addressing this most fundamental of global crises and working towards the kind of climate bill we need. Immediate action must be taken to end our dependence on oil, build a new clean energy economy and, most critically for our children and grandchildren, reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a reminder of the damage that occurs when our natural resources are mishandled. To protect New England’s communities, forests, coastlines and waters, we must come forward immediately to build a cleaner, safer and more prosperous future for our region.”

We know that many of you have unanswered questions about Vermont Yankee and its impact on your community. Join CLF’s team of experts and fellow community members for a discussion about Vermont Yankee, our vision for a clean energy future and how we can get there.

Now is your chance to join in the discussion – and get answers to the questions you may still have.

Vermont Yankee Q&A
Thursday, June 10th
6:00-8:00pm
The River Garden
157 Main Street
Brattleboro, VT

RSVP to events@clf.org or by calling 800.370.0697 x760 by June 7th. We hope to see you there!

The political landscape seems to be shifting in response to BP’s oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. An overnight poll of Florida residents shows a remarkable shift in public opinion on the value of oil drilling off of their coast. Are these results at all surprising since Floridians are seeing the approaching slick to their heralded beaches? Let’s put it in the context of the previous Florida oil storm, which came in the manner of a multi-million dollar lobbying onslaught by a secret group of out-of-state oil companies in late 2008 and through 2009. This secret cabal was so careful about hiding their indentities that their names are still unknown to Florida citizens despite creating a debate that was on the front pages for months. What a difference an exploding oil platform makes.  Now, the Democrats in the state legislature are urging a vote for a state constitutional amendment to ban offshore oil drilling.  Gov. Crist is leaning their way.

On the Left Coast, the Governator had a more direct conversion and made one of the more prescient observations since the Great BP Gulf Eruption. “Why would we want to take on that kind of risk?,” he asks. “Why indeed?,” responds Rep. John Garamendi who wasted no time in putting his money where his mouth is by introducing federal legislation to permanently ban new oil and gas drilling along the entire west coast. Garamendi won a special election this spring and may be a freshman, but he’s been around the block and knows his oil. He served as deputy secretary of the Department of Interior during the Clinton administration and as Lieutenant Governor of California where he nixed the silly drilling for cash ploy by Plains Exploration and Production oil company.

Back on the Jersey Shore long-time drilling opponents Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, along with Congressman Frank Pallone, are looking at similar legislation to ban drilling in the mid-Atlantic region. Our own New England environmental champions Rep. Ed Markey and Sen. John Kerry were never shy about protecting our beloved Georges Bank and Stellwagen Bank from drilling even at the peak of the Bush era clamor to eliminate the 20 year moratorium.  Unfortunately, the final legislation was never passed and New England’s ocean is still one bad administrative decision away from a return to the failed drilling proposals of the past. The politics of drilling flow like the motion of the ocean itself with the fate of the K-(G)-L climate legislation. Drilling, billions for nukes, a legislated override of a Supreme Court decision to allow regulation of climate pollution and promises, promises to herd in a stray Republican vote are all now up in the air. Sen. Kerry says the proposed legislation will be unveiled on Wednesday. Here’s hoping the proposed oil drilling provisions in that bill have been subject to the same moment of clarity that have awakened millions of Americans. We need climate protection legislation without adding to the oil-carbon disaster.

As the BP oil spill heads east the US Coast Guard, BP and the Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection are planning a coordinated response in the event that oil reaches the western coast of Florida, reports Offshore Magazine, a publication dedicated to issues related to the offshore oil drilling industry. (The ability to plan is certainly a good thing because, as we all know, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.) Late yesterday NOAA predicted that impacts will not reach the western coast of FL for at least 72 hours at current rates. However, the reports are coming in of the oil slick now moving within a few miles of the Mississippi and Alabama coasts.

Preparing for a catastrophic oil spill on Florida’s famously white sand beaches reminds me of a House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee hearing in early 2009 where one rather certain freshman Louisiana Congressman gave a stern lecture to the Executive Director of the St. Petersburg Convention and Visitor’s Center about the fallacy of not embracing oil drilling a few miles from the Florida coast. D.T. Minich was testifying that the tourism industry drives in $300 million dollars in tax revenue to Pinellas County, Florida alone and tourism delivers $7 billion a year to just that portion of the state. Why would they risk a truly sustainable golden goose? Yet, the point was lost on the oily faithful.

The insistent reliance that Big Oil and their Congressional cheerleaders place on the worth of oil receipts seems to carry a different kind of value, almost a higher moral value than an equal dollar generated by tourism, recreation or the ecological services that are the basis for commercial and recreational fishing. Is it possible that the real value of an oil buck might carry a little more if it boosts an electoral campaign rather than just pay some short order cook’s light bill? Where does all that Big Oil money go? The Washington Post reports this morning that British Petroleum has already “mobilized a massive Washington lobbying campaign” and that BP has spent $20 million on Washington lobbying since that February 2009 hearing where Rep. Freshman tried to proselytize the Florida tourist industry. We know that Congressional campaigns get more expensive each cycle and there are always open checkbooks willing to help finance them, but somehow there is still a well dressed emperor strutting down New Orleans’ Canal Street who has no shame about defending an industry that puts ocean wildlife, coastal workers and their communities, and the health of the planet at grave risk.