Hands Across The Sand June 26
We’ve been inundated with heartbreaking images of oil covered birds and devastated fishermen struggling in the wake of the BP oil disaster. While officials are working to clean up the mess, we need to work to make sure this never happens again.
While we applaud President Obama’s decision to cancel Virginia’s lease sale, we are not out of the woods on drilling. Virginia, along with our Atlantic coast neighbors, is still enrolled in a leasing program that could allow drilling as close as just 3 miles off our coast and our Chesapeake Bay!
The Obama Administration superseded the 2010-2015 program with its own 2012-2017 program for the Atlantic from Delaware south. That’s what we are fighting.
Keep in mind that there are no moratoriums protecting the Atlantic. In 2008, President Bush cancelled a presidential moratorium and Congress allowed a congressional ban to expire.
Virginians are urged to join Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation and Oceana for HANDS ACROSS THE SAND, a national day of action, on Saturday, June 26. We’ll join hands and form a line in the sand to say “No” to offshore drilling and “Yes” to clean renewable energy.
HANDS ACROSS THE SAND will be held on these Virginia beaches:
- Virginia Beach Oceanfront between 19th and 31st Streets (Click here to RSVP.)
- Sandbridge, Little Island Park, 3820 Sandpiper Road, Virginia Beach (Click here to RSVP.)
- Ocean View, Community Beach Park, 700 E. Ocean View Ave., Norfolk (Click here to RSVP.)
- North End, 81st Street and Atlantic Ave., Virginia Beach (Click here to RSVP.)
- Buckroe Beach off Point Comfort Ave., Hampton (Click here to RSVP.)
At 11am, we’ll start gathering at each beach. We’ll join hands from 12:00 to 12:15.
HANDS ACROSS THE SAND started in Florida earlier this year as over 10,000 Floridians locked hands over 80 beaches in opposition to oil drilling. “This movement is not about politics; it is about protection of our shoreline, our waterways, our tourism, our coastal military missions and our quality of life,” said Dave Rauschkolb, founder of HANDS ACROSS THE SAND.
HANDS ACROSS THE SAND is a National Day of Action with hundreds of events happening across the country on the same day, Saturday, June 26. Together we will call on President Obama to move America beyond oil over the next two decades. For more information, visit http://www.HandsAcrossTheSand.com.
Even as oil spews from the bottom of the Gulf, Big Oil and its allies are doing everything they can to dangerously drill off our coasts. Attend Hands Across the Sand to protect our oceans, beaches, and wildlife from more offshore drilling!
HANDS volunteers are needed. Please contact Eileen Levandoski, Sierra Club Virginia Chapter, eileen.levandoski@sierraclub.org.
Join us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
June 16th, 2010 at 7:53 am
I hope all of you participating either bike, hike, roller skate or travel some other means that does not involve getting there in your automobile; otherwise you are just consuming crude oil needlessly and increasing our needs for foreign crude oil while demonstrating against domestic production.
June 16th, 2010 at 11:19 am
I expect that there will be a higher proportion of bicycles and hybrid vehicles at this event than there are in the general population.
Driving a car does not automatically make an environmentalist a hypocrite any more than paying taxes makes an anti-tax Tea Party member a hypocrite.
Unfortunately, the society we live in is currently built around the use of automobiles. I would get there by light rail if I could.
Environmentalists have advocated for public transportation, higher fuel economy standards, energy efficiency, and development of clean renewable sources of energy for decades. It is the anti-environmentalists who have largely blocked these things from happening (so far). The economics of peak oil will force us there eventually.
June 17th, 2010 at 5:24 am
Like the folk singer playing an acoustic guitar at a protest to save the trees…
The first step in having the moral authority to telling everyone else how to live is to live that way yourself, David. Having a “higher proportion” doesn’t quite cut it. Does 1.1% buy you some moral justification that 1.0 % doesn’t?
It’s like when your predecessors on the left wanted us to unilaterally give up nuclear weapons, because gosh those Communists would follow right along with us and throw down theirs.
I have zero confidence that other countries would ever abide by the rules folks like this would impose on us.
’til then, explore all the alternatives you want, but we aren’t replacing oil and coal any time soon.
June 17th, 2010 at 6:21 am
I have previously posted about taking personal responsibility for reducing my own carbon footprint, which is about one third the national average. If everybody did what I did (or achieved equal or better results by other means) a lot of the problem would already be solved.
It would be a lot easier if public policy changed. I can’t take public transportation because there isn’t any that will get me there. Establishing energy efficiency standards for everything from building insulation to appliances and providing economic incentives would encourage consumers to buy them. Instead of providing the current government subsidies to oil and coal, those same resources could be shifted to development of clean renewable sources.
Despite your lack of confidence, other countries are already far ahead of the U.S. in this effort. The jobs and future economic growth are being developed elsewhere while we lag behind. Like I said, the economics will force us there eventually.
June 17th, 2010 at 9:44 am
David,
Are you sure there is no public transportation option for you? Or is it that you might have to hike a couple blocks, wait in the sun for the bus and then wait again in the sun for a transfer.
I support light rail as long as the costs are kept reasonable. Light Rail might provide alternatives to some people. But Light Rail is not going to replace completely the automobile in our needs for transportation. Now, you explain to me just how good light rail would have to be for you to take it instead of driving to the demonstration in your car. Would there have to be a very convenient starting point along with a very convenient end point? Or would you be satisfied with hiking a couple blocks on each end along with your Light Rail commute? Would you be willing to transfer to a bus somewhere along the way to start/finish your commute? If you take your car to the demonstration what is your excuse for not taking public transportation? Remember, the empty bus trying to provide public transportation consumes just about as much fuel whether you are on it or you skip it and drive your car.
June 17th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Just out of curiosity, I went to the HRT site and found that the nearest bus stop to my house is 3 miles away, about 45 minutes walking at a fast pace in 90 degree heat. If I arrived at the bus stop just in time to catch the bus, it would then take me 2½ hours on the bus to get to the oceanfront. If I missed the bus, I may have to wait up to 45 minutes to catch the next one. Total trip: 3¼-4½ hours one way.
If I could walk a couple of blocks, hop on the light rail, and then walk a couple of blocks to work, I would commute that way every day. In weighing the cost, I would have to evaluate the light rail fare cost compared to the cost of gas and parking, wear and tear on my car, and risk of car accident, as well as the aggravation of sitting in traffic. The next time I move to a new residence, I will certainly take the availability of public transportation into account.
June 17th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Your curiosity serves you well. For the reasons you identified, light rail is not going to meet all of our transportation needs. We are still going to be dependent on private automobiles for transportation. For the time being, we are still going to need to consume crude oil to get around. You serve as a perfect example of how even to travel to protest against oil production you still depend on oil production to get to the protest.
June 17th, 2010 at 11:30 am
I never said that “light rail will meet all of our transportation needs.” It is just one piece of the puzzle.
I am dependent on a private automobile because of my lifestyle choices and because the structure of our society makes it very difficult to live without it. I drive a fuel efficient vehicle and society could be restructured to encourage efficiency instead of waste.
I have no illusions that we could completely eliminate our dependence on oil immediately. What we can do is significantly reduce it through fuel efficiency and alternative energy. I just wish we had started earlier.
President Obama expects that we can cut vehicle fuel consumption in half over the next 20 years.
Gov. McDonnell just announced that Virginia intends to be a leader in establishing the infrastructure to support electric cars. I doubt his enthusiasm, but it is likely to happen with or without him.
June 18th, 2010 at 3:12 am
I applaud you for driving a fuel efficient vehicle. While I do not drive a hybrid either, I do buy the most affordable, fuel efficient vehicle on the market when it comes time to purchase. Perhaps if I needed to put more miles on a vehicle per year the fuel savings would be worth the additional expense of a hybrid. Even with the commute of my kids back and forth to college our vehicles are all low mileage. How low? My 92 pickup has only about 60K miles on it. My 96 Suzuki has only about the same. With me vehicles rust out before they wear out.
But you and I both need gasoline for our fuel efficient automobiles. In the Niger Delta they experienced the same as an Exxon-Valdez oil spill for each of the last ten years. http://www.waado.org/environment/petrolpolution/oilspills/OilSpillPage.html Why should foreign citizens alone be asked to cope with environmental damage to fuel our insatiable appetite for crude oil?
Drill here, drill now. If me and my fellow citizens can’t do without fuel in the gas tank, we should deal with the problems of our appetite just like the citizens of other nations are forced to deal with it. You do not like the environmental costs? Lead by example and show us the way. Meanwhile I am going to continue to bring that toilet paper to your grocery store in a vehicle that only averages about 6.25 MPG. As long as you demand the toilet paper I am going to demand we drill here and drill now.
June 18th, 2010 at 5:23 am
Analogy: It is our insatiable “appetite” that has caused the obesity, diabetes, and hypertension that is slowly killing us. Making the decision to eat a quart of ice cream at home instead of eating out at a fast-food restaurant makes no difference to the prognosis. What we need is diet and exercise. I am “leading by example and showing the way,” but others won’t necessarily follow. It is very difficult to change bad habits. Public policy needs to change. We need to stop subsidizing harmful behavior and start incentivizing healthy behavior. Actually, this applies both to food and energy production in this country.
June 18th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Ok, you are still pulling up to the fuel pump to fuel your car. If diet is what we need, then you lead by example. Even if everyone follows your current leadership thus far, we are still going to need foreign oil.
You still need toilet paper just like the rest of us when you go to the bathroom.
June 19th, 2010 at 6:52 am
You know, you would think that with all that has happened in the last two months, it would be clear how counterproductive and harmful the usual left-right talking point “debates” are. As I understand the false dichotomy, if you use any oil at all, you can’t be in favor of cutting back oil use. If you use no oil at all, you’re a tree-hugging hippie liberal unworthy of anyone’s attention. Therefore, no one, no one at all, has any standing whatsoever to say we should cut back our oil use. Drill, baby, drill!
This is not a new problem. We have seen the handwriting on the wall for forty years now. The future is here. There is a volcano of oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico, and nobody knows how to stop it any time soon. If that does not make you stop, and think, and change your ways, instead of calling names and engaging in a ridiculous exercise in reducto ad absurdum, nothing will.
God help us all.
June 19th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Spotter help us all.
If you are going to point at the problem while continuing to be part of the problem then I think we have a problem.
I’m not willing to give up my air conditioning. As a solution to my problem while continuing to use air conditioning I point to increased use of nuclear power up until we realize the promises of fusion. While fusion scientists have been saying fusion power is only a decade away for several decades now, I think the experiment currently underway in France offers real promise. It passes the common sense test.
Why does fusion happen naturally in the Sun but is so difficult here on Earth? Common sense answer? Gravity. The experiment in France will replace gravity with electromagnetism. Instead of gravity pulling things together electromagnetism will push it together so fusion becomes possible.
Unlike some environmentalists who insist we do like they say and not like they do, I have a plan. If you keep the AC turned on in your house, remember your plan must include the least fortunate to have AC. If you do not include them, you lose their votes.
How unfortunate it is that environmentalists might lose the vote of the people, based upon pricing the majority of the people to have AC out of the market in the summer time. Lead by example. Keep your AC off in the summer. It is unnecessary and all you do is have to sweat like a pig.
June 19th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
I’m not an environmentalist. 60,000 barrels of oil a day, or more, is spewing into the Gulf of Mexico, with no end in sight. I don’t think you, or Kirwin, get to decide who is entitled to an opinion on this. Get real.
June 20th, 2010 at 2:55 am
Spotter,
The Niger river delta has faced the the equivalent of an Exxon-Valdez spill every year for the last ten years to provide oil to our economy. We get 10% of our imported oil from Nigeria.
In comparison, with all the wells that have been drilled in the gulf and with this being the first major spill (other then spills in Mexican waters by Pemex) in the gulf, evidently oil exploration and extraction can be accomplished more safely for the global environment when done domestically then when done in foreign territories.
In the gulf, under our supervision, spills happen infrequently. In Nigeria, spills happen often. We are also starting to import fairly large quantities of oil from Canada that come from tar sands. Now lets put that on the scale of justice. On one side the infrequent spills from domestic production and on the other side constant environmental damage from foreign production; when I try this the scales do not just sway to the side favoring domestic production I have trouble keeping the scale from tipping over, figuratively speaking.
I didn’t claim you are not entitled to an opinion. I never said so even back when over 70% of the nation’s population favored offshore drilling (before the spill). I realize that public opinion polls show support for offshore drilling is in a downward trend but one taken a couple weeks ago still showed more then half supporting it. (Due to the steady downward trend it would not surprise me if it is now less then half.) But I (and yes even Brian Kirwin) get to give voice to an opinion as well. Isn’t it you who included the phrase “…instead of calling names and engaging in a ridiculous exercise in reducto ad absurdum…” in one of your comments above?
June 20th, 2010 at 3:34 am
Warning, warning Will Robinson, double post!
I just can’t help myself because I was bothered by Spotter’s lumping me in with Brian Kirwin and then my only response being to defend Brian Kirwin.
I wish to point out that when I have participated in conversations on Bearing Drift it is not uncommon for Brian to resort to calling me “punk”, questioning if the little in my name refers to the size of my sexual member etc.
I wish to point out that I describe myself as a moderate. Why? Because liberals call me conservative (note Spotter) and conservatives call me liberal (note Brian Kirwin). Well I must be something so I guess I must be a moderate. I will also state that due to the variety of my opinions someone else 100% opposed to me in everything might also be a moderate. They too would hold opinions that do not always agree with the extremes on either side and while I would disagree with them 100% I still think they would qualify to be called a moderate.
That’s why I call Glenn Nye a moderate. I do not always agree with him, but he does not seem to be tied to the extremes of either party. He seems to be willing to consider both sides before he decides how to vote. I also think he is preferable to the lady he replaced and the gentlemen who are now running against him.
June 20th, 2010 at 6:10 am
You and Kirwin both stated or implied that if someone uses air conditioning or drives a car, they cannot be against off-shore drilling.
You and Kirwin have both expressed above your belief that no one but you is entitled to an opinion.
After Pearl Harbor, Congress voted 388 to 1 to declare war against Japan. Jeannette Rankin was the one member of Congress who voted no. I bet she had a lot of good reasons, too, that could have been eloquently expressed in numerous blog comments.
History has passed you by.
June 20th, 2010 at 6:31 am
First off, Brian Kirwin has not involved himself in the conversation above.
Second, your offering up a 388 to 1 vote as an example is not representative. Sure I will admit while the last poll still showed me in majority more recent polls might show me in minority. But the minority opinion will not be 1%.
June 20th, 2010 at 7:45 am
Wait for it.
June 20th, 2010 at 8:01 am
Wait for what?
I predict that public opinion in favor of offshore drilling is not going to fall below 40% before it starts springing back upwards as the economy improves and fuel prices start approaching $5 a gallon again.
You can not provide an improving economy with low fuel prices and since I predict an improving economy I think my crystal ball is less foggy then yours.
Drill here, drill now.
June 21st, 2010 at 5:59 am
LittleDavid: You keep making the same tired argument and I keep refuting it. Here we go again.
According to you, it is all or nothing – we either “drill here, drill now,” or we have to give up our cars, air conditioning, and toilet paper. Any environmentalist who doesn’t live like the Amish without using any gas or electricity at all is a hypocrite.
You say “lead by example.” I do. My carbon footprint is about one third the national average, without great sacrifice or suffering. If everyone followed my example, most of the problem would already be solved.
We don’t need to end all use of oil and coal immediately or ever; we just need to reduce it over time.
We don’t need to stop driving cars; we just need to drive more fuel efficient cars, use better replacement tires, develop public transportation, and build “smart growth” communities that are easier to get around by walking or biking. New fuel economy standards will bring the national average up to the level of my personal vehicle over the next 20 years. Cutting our national consumption of oil in half would do a lot more to reduce our dependence on foreign oil than increasing domestic oil production by one percent of total consumption. Developing efficient rechargeable electric or hydrogen fuel cells will eventually eliminate gas engines for personal vehicles.
We don’t need to turn off the AC; we just need to turn it down, use better insulation, more efficient heat pumps, programmable thermostats, and ceiling fans to stay cool.
We don’t need to give up toilet paper; we just need to make toilet paper from recycled paper instead of old growth forests and transport it by train or natural gas trucks.
The current energy economy is warped. Government heavily subsidizes oil and coal, keeping their cost artificially low. Environmental and health costs are externalized and not even included as part of the cost of fossil fuels. We pay low prices at the pump, but we pay much more for it in hidden ways.
Public policy needs to change to encourage consumer behavior change. We need to shift our current resources from policies that reward waste to policies that reward efficiency. We need to start preparing for a post-carbon economy. Other countries are already investing in new technologies and will dominate those markets, leaving us in the dust.
June 21st, 2010 at 9:26 am
OK, just a quick rebuttal because I’ve got to get moving.
Recycling. Recycling takes energy too. I know because I have hauled loads of materials destined for recycling, and often is is over great distances. Not all materials can be recycled endlessly, that is why even recycled paper materials gets different prices. The higher the quality of the paper (the closer it is to having come from virgin materials) the more it fetches. You see, paper fibers can not be recycled endlessly, they break down over time and with each time they are recycled. Now there is two ways to get an acceptable product, introduce some virgin materials but then they can not claim 100% recycled, but if they include some of the higher quality recycled material in the mix then, yes, they can honestly claim 100% recycled and still produce an acceptable product. At least that is how it was explained to me by people who work at both ends of travel.
By the way, while most times hauling paper products involves hauls of only hundreds of miles, I have hauled plastic for recycling frequently involves much longer distances. As an example, plastic water and soft drink bottles out of the New York City metro area all the way down into South Carolina. You’d think that since recycling in New York state is mandatory (with even a beverage container deposit) and urban concentration so deep that enough material would be available that recycling plants would be located somewhere closer, but…. (perhaps newer closer facilities have opened since the last time I hauled such a load or perhaps closer facilities do exist but they can not handle 100% of the available materials).
Now I am not trying to argue against recycling, because if it does not end up being transported for recycling it fills up the landfills and often the transportation to the landfill is fairly distant as well. Again, out the New York metro area to Western Pennsylvania is a good example. However the real benefits are, in my opinion, more to do with not endlessly filling up landfills then it has to do with reducing the carbon footprint of consumption. Virgin wood for paper normally involves transportation over much shorter distances because the paper mills are located where the forests are – the vast majority of the times the transportation involves such short distances the trucks hauling the logs are all daycabs because the truck driver gets home every night.
June 21st, 2010 at 12:36 pm
According to the EPA: Recycling 1 ton of paper saves 17 mature trees, 7,000 gallons of water, 3.3 cubic yards of landfill space, 2 barrels of oil, and 4,100 kilowatt-hours of electricity. Recycling paper instead of making it from new material generates 74% less air pollution and uses 50% less water. Producing recycled paper requires about 60% of the energy used to make paper from virgin wood pulp. It has to be transported either way.
June 26th, 2010 at 3:20 am
The link you provided to the EPA was interesting, but I wonder where you got the majority of your statistics from?
I will note the link you provided leads to the following quote: “…every time paper is recycled, the fibers get shorter. After being recycled five to seven times, the fibers become too short to bond into new paper. New fibers are added to replace the unusable fiber that wash out of the pulp during the recycling process. A single sheet of paper may contain new fibers as well as fibers that have already been recycled several times.”
July 11th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
David Campbell,
This past week I was able to listen to an interview on WHYY’s Radio Times program (WHYY is Philadelphia, PA’s NPR station) of Ronald Mersky who is a professor of civil engineering at Widener University as well as editor of the Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management.
Professor Mersky seemed to be extremely knowledgeable on recycling and solid waste management. I found the interview to be extremely interesting and I would imagine you would have found it interesting as well.
During the interview the professor stated that almost all studies about recycling show a net environmental benefit, but it is not a very significant one. He also stated that recycling all of our refuse would be extremely expensive and might result in a net negative impact on the environment. He is not against recycling because he also stated that recycling chief benefit is lessening the need for landfill space. He also makes the point that incinerating most (but not all) trash instead of recycling would yield almost the same environmental benefit while also reducing the need for landfill space. (The ashes from incinerated trash only take up 10% of the room of bulk trash.)
I’d provide a link to the audio clip but am hesitant because the last time I attempted to post with links I was unsuccessful. However you can get to the clip by googling “Ronald Mersky WHYY Radio Times” and selecting from the results the one that says “Garbage in – Power out” and then clicking on the audio link prompt. Since you are so interested in recycling I think you will find listening to the clip to be both fascinating and educational.
By the way, by coincidence, even though it is getting rarer for me to haul recycling materials, the very next load I hauled after listening to the clip was a load of waste paperboard clippings from Hebron, KY to a papermill in Cottonton, AL. Length of haul? 587 paid miles. Fuel used to make delivery? Well the load was extremely heavy and I wasn’t getting my best fuel mileage, so it took 105 gallons of diesel to haul it (5.55 MPG). I wonder how much CO2 that equates to?
The load was so heavy that even though I started off low on fuel I was unable to fill up en-route and remain legal. At 45,800 lbs it was the heaviest load I have ever hauled in this new truck. After I delivered and picked up my next load I was sweating with concern that I might not make it to my recommended fuel stop in Birmingham, AL. I made it, but I was running on fumes.
July 21st, 2010 at 10:05 am
Hi, Thanks for your great blog. I think it is really a great topic to write about on my Site. Also here is some nice information: kids ceiling fans