EnviroPantsOnFire

Oil Opponents' Message: Do As We Say, Not As We Do

2009-10-09T07:41:00.010-04:00

A column printed in the Oct. 9 Sarasota Herald Tribune takes a cheap shot at the Florida Solar Energy Industries Association. FlaSEIA is the brave solar energy group that has stood firm in its support for using revenues from oil drilling in Florida to help protect and sustain efforts to promote the use of solar energy in the Sunshine State.

The column accuses the solar energy group of taking "money, not a principled stand."

Well, while the writer argues his position passionately he must not be aware the some of the leading environmental groups have used money from oil and natural gas to further their own objectives.

Yes, that's right. Environmental groups have benefited from oil and gas revenues.

In an article written for the Independent Review in 2001, Dwight R. Lee, a noted University of Georgia economics professor, details how some in the environmental community have put oil and natural gas revenue to work to help meet their goals.

Background on Oil and Gas Drilling on Audubon Society Land

In regards to oil and natural gas drilling that has occurred on Audubon Society land, in the article Professor Lee says:

"For example, the Audubon Society owns the Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary, a 26,000-acre preserve in Louisiana that provides a home for fish, shrimp, crab, deer, ducks, and wading birds, and is a resting and feeding stopover for more than 100,000 migrating snow geese each year. ... Besides being ideally suited for wildlife, the sanctuary contains commercially valuable reserves of natural gas and oil, which attracted the attention of energy companies when they were discovered in the 1940s. Clearly, the interests served by fossil fuels do not have high priority for the Audubon Society. No doubt, the society regards additional petroleum use as a social problem rather than a social benefit. Of course, most people have different priorities: they place a much higher value on keeping down the cost of energy than they do on bird-watching and on protecting what many regard as little more than mosquito-breeding swamps. One might suppose that members of the Audubon Society have no reason to consider such “antienvironmental”values when deciding how to use their own land. Because the society owns the Rainey Sanctuary, it can ignore interests antithetical to its own and refuse to allow drilling. Yet, precisely because the society owns the land, it has been willing to accommodate the interests of those whose priorities are different and has allowed thirty seven wells to pump gas and oil from the Rainey Sanctuary. In return, it has received

royalties of more than $25 million (Baden and Stroup 1981; Snyder and Shaw 1995)." (Source: Dwight R. Lee, The Independent Review, v. VI, Fall 2001, pages 218-219)

Background on How Oil and Gas Drilling Has Benefited Nature Conservancy

Professor Lee's article also explains how oil and gas drilling has boosted efforts of The Nature Conservancy to protect a threatened bird in Texas.

"Thanks to a gift from the Mobil Oil Company, the Nature Conservancy of Texas owns the Galveston Bay Prairie Preserve in Texas City, a 2,263-acre refuge that is home to the Attwater’s prairie chicken, a highly endangered species (once numbering almost a million, its population had fallen to fewer than ten by the early 1990s). The conservancy has entered into an agreement with Galveston Bay Resources of Houston

and Aspects Resources, LLC, of Denver to drill for oil and natural gas in the preserve. Clearly some risks attend oil drilling in the habitat of a fragile endangered species, and the conservancy has considered them, but it considers the gains sufficient to justify bearing the risks. According to Ray Johnson, East County program manager for the Nature Conservancy of Texas, “We believe this could provide a tremendous opportunity to raise funds to acquire additional habitat for the Attwater’s prairie chicken, one of the most threatened birds in North America.” Obviously the primary concern is to protect the endangered species, but the demand for gas and oil is helping achieve that objective. Johnson is quick to point out, “We have taken every precaution to minimize the impact of the drilling on the prairie chickens and to ensure their continued health and safety.” (see statement at http://texasnature.org/news/pressr10.htm). (Source: Dwight R. Lee, The Independent Review, v. VI, Fall 2001, pages 220-221)

According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, the conservancy lauded its "chicken preserve cum petroleum patch" as a "harmonious mixture of commerce and conservation."

"Maybe it's time we all took a walk in the oilman's shoes," Niki McDaniel, spokesman for the Texas Nature Conservancy said in the Times story. "We believe the opportunity we have in Texas City to raise significant sums of money for conservation is one we cannot pass up, provided we are convinced we can do this drilling without harming the prairie chickens and their habitat. And we are convinced."

Yes, commerce can coexist with conservation. Florida's leading solar energy group smartly sees the opportunity in the Sunshine State in the same light.

As Florida weighs drilling in its waters to generate jobs and badly needed money, the time has come for others to recognize our state's oil reserves as a valuable natural resource that can be used to promote renewable energy while funding other state priorities.

False WTVT Story Leads Solar Energy Group to Issue Statement of Oil Drilling Support

2009-10-08T16:41:00.001-04:00

On Oct. 7, WTVT in Tampa inaccurately reported that the Florida Solar Energy Industries Association, Florida's leading solar industry trade group, is reconsidering a position taken last week on offshore oil drilling.

In response to that inaccurate story, FlaSEIA on Oct. 8, 2009 issued the following press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 8, 2009

Solar Energy Group Stands Firm on Offshore Drilling

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Florida’s leading solar energy group today reiterated its position that revenues from offshore oil and natural gas production in Florida waters should act as a bridge for the state to adopt alternative and renewable energies. In spite of false and erroneous reports, that position is unchanged.

The Florida Solar Energy Industries Association, the premier group representing Florida manufacturers, distributors, contractors and retailers who provide solar water heating and solar electric systems, made its position clear in a Sept. 8 letter to Rep. Dean Cannon. In the letter, the group stated that so long as the state implemented the highest possible environmental safeguards, it would support the use of revenues from oil and natural gas drilling to invest in renewable energy technologies that will reduce Florida’s reliance on foreign oil and other fossil fuels.

Offshore oil and natural gas production could generate produce public revenues of between $2.3 billion and $12 billion a year – without raising new taxes, according to projections by Florida economists Fishkind & Associates.

“The Florida Solar Energy Industry Association believes revenues from oil and gas drilling could provide a dedicated revenue source for programs that invest in renewable energy technologies,” said Bruce Kershner, executive director of the Florida Solar Energy Industries Association. “We believe the proposal to tap Florida’s offshore energy resources, with stringent environmental protections, can help move our state toward renewable energies that will reduce our country’s dependence on fossil fuels over the long term.”

The Florida Solar Energy Industries Association has long been a vocal supporter of the Florida Solar Energy System Incentives Program to provide rebates to homeowners and businesses on the purchase of solar energy equipment, but due to the state’s budget crisis, the program did not receive state funding in 2009. Instead, the program received temporary federal stimulus funds that will disappear in less than two years. Revenues from offshore drilling should be invested in making this program permanent, Kershner said.

“The proposal to drill in Florida state waters has the potential to create a cleaner and wealthier future for Florida if it provides a sustainable funding source for the development of vibrant programs that will help Florida become a leader in the solar energy industry,” Kershner said. “The economic development potential of providing green employment opportunities and attracting high-tech, high-wage renewable energy companies to Florida rivals any real or perceived threat that state-of-the-art offshore drilling poses to Florida.”

For more information on solar energy in Florida, please visit the Florida Solar Energy Industries Association Web site at www.flaseia.org.

###

In response, the Florida House Majority Office issued the following statement from Rep. Seth McKeel of Lakeland:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 8, 2009

DEPUTY MAJORITY LEADER SETH MCKEEL LAUDS SOLAR INDUSTRY SUPPORT FOR ENERGY EXPLORATION

TALLAHASSEE, FL – Deputy House Majority Leader Seth McKeel (R-Lakeland) issued the following statement regarding the Florida Solar Energy Industries Association’s support of energy exploration in Florida waters.

“The small business owners of the Florida Solar Energy Industry Association understand that it is going to take a combination of measures - conservation, alternative fuel sources and increased domestic production - to ensure abundant and affordable energy to move Florida and America forward.

“Every other Gulf State is utilizing their available energy resources, and so should Florida. Moving forward with energy exploration off Florida’s coasts helps maximize our resources to build a bridge to the clean technology of the future and the new jobs that solar energy technologies will provide for Floridians.

“It’s a commonsense approach in these tough economic times, and Florida’s solar energy leaders deserve recognition for being foresighted in their approach to our state’s energy future.”

###

Tampa Bay Resolution Contains Lie From Drilling Opponents

2009-10-08T15:33:00.000-04:00

The opponents of offshore energy exploration and production continue to get it wrong.

A recent resolution from the Barrier Islands Governmental Council continues the shameful record of drilling opponents of spreading blatant falsehoods.

According to TBNWeekly.com, a website for weekly newspapers in the Tampa Bay region, the resolution is the work of Tampa Bay's BIG-C committee.

The resolution says:

“In 1993 Pinellas County learned how environmentally and economically destructive an oil spill can be when a vessel collision at the entrance to Tampa Bay resulted in a spill of more than 300,000 gallons that reached Pinellas beaches as far away as 14 miles and resulted in a 45 percent drop in tourism and a $5 billion economic loss over the following two years.”

That is a false statement. It is the same false statement contained in an error-ridden report released in August by the Sierra Club. That report says:

"The resilience of Florida’s beaches has already been tested once by a major oil spill. In 1990, a spill from a tanker devastated many of the state's best beaches. Over the course of two years, Florida's Pinellas County saw a 45.2 percent drop in tourism. This accounted for an almost $5 billion dollar loss to the county’s GDP (2008 dollars)."

The facts show that, No. 1, the tanker accident happened in 1993, not 1990. No. 2, Pinellas County DID NOT have a 45.2 percent drop in tourism.

The truth is contained in a report from respected economists Fishkind & Associates.

"Tourism did not decline by 45% over any period in the past 22 years. This includes the 1990-1994 period. Hotel occupancy may typically fall during and after a recession by 6 points to 10 points. This is normal cyclical variance and not attributable to any oil spill whether real or imagined," Fishkind & Associates noted in its report.

Fishkind & Associates concluded the fall in occupancy during 1993 and 1994 is attributed to the post recession period as well as the effect of the tourist murders and lack of advertising.

Those who follow the drilling issue know shipping oil is a risky operation. While pulling out pictures of shipping accidents in a misguided attempt to make political points, through their actions the opponents of drilling ironically are encouraging shipping.

This episode shows, when it comes to the drilling issue, in the name of balance and accuracy, when it comes to facts the watchdogs in the media need to hold the opponents of drilling held to the same strict-constructionist standards that are applied to the proponents.

For more information visit www.EnviroPantsOnFire.com.