On November 7, 2007, a 900-foot Hong Kong-registered oil tanker crashed into the San Francisco Bay Bridge, unloading between 53,000 and 60,000 gallons of fuel oil into the bay. The consequences of the crash were fatal to some 2,000 birds and a wide array of other species that call the Bay their home; sixteen beaches were closed; but who else felt the repercussions? Captain John J. Cota, the pilot of the ship, relinquished his license after having served the San Francisco Bay Area for more than twenty five years and has been sentenced to ten months in prison. He was charged for “negligently causing discharge of a harmful quantity of oil in violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended by the Oil Spill Act of 1990” and for “violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, by causing death of protected species of migratory birds” (U.S. Department of Justice).
On April 27, 2003, a Bouchard Transportation Company-owned tank crashed into an obstacle and caused 98,000 gallons of oil to spill into Buzzards Bay in Massachusetts. Similar to the crash in our own San Francisco Bay, it caused the deaths of hundreds of birds and the contamination about ninety miles of shoreline. The captain of the ship, Franklin Robert Hill, was sentenced to five months in prison after pleading guilty to the same charges as Cota, above. In an article put out by the Boston Globe following the sentencing, Shelley Murphy reported, “‘This was extremely serious negligent conduct, rising to the level of recklessness,’ said U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collins, adding that he had the send Franklin Robert Hill to prison to send a message to others who navigate oil barges.” Jail time is quite a message, indeed. But why the increase in sentencing for a decrease in the amount of oil leaked? Is the disparity between the two spills just?
We are taking mistreatment of the environment more and more seriously every day, whether it be in consequences for major transgressions, such as the two instances discussed above, as well as for far smaller infractions, such as littering or even idling your car for longer than five minutes in designated areas (see the parking spaces alongside campus on Golden Gate Avenue, for example). Lawmakers are setting the minimum penalties on environment-related misdemeanors higher and higher to encourage people to be thoughtful about their actions in regards to how they treat the planet. Despite these attempts, however, are people willing to change their ways—in both small and large-scale ways—to savor the Earth’s scarce resources?
12 comments:
It's interesting to see how laws, at least in these two cases, have changed to dictate more stringent punishment for negligence. It's a good reminder that recycling isn't going to quite do it if we really hope to save the planet. Your question about how much everyone else is willing to change is a good one. What are some of the big and small changes that need to happen? What do you think it will take for them to happen?
This story shows how much our legal system can be tampered with. The person with the least amount of oil spilled gets jailed while the other person doesn't. I wonder if it has anything to do with the location of the two spills. After all San Francisco is extremely environmentally conscious. I don't know how much emphasis Massachusetts puts on the environment, but I have a feeling it is not as much as San Francisco; correct me if I'm wrong.
Courtney, I think one of the points Annie is making is that the earlier spill got a lighter sentence, while the later spill got a harsher one. Her argument seems to be that laws are getting tougher on polluters. But your comment makes me curious: are laws the same everywhere for this kind of spill? Is it a question of local, state, federal or international law?
Hi Annie,
I appreciate you calling out attention to one of the worst local environmental catastrophes in recent history. One of the ironies of a debacle like the Cosco Busan (the cargo ship that ran into the Bay Bridge)is that the ill effects linger long after the jail time is served. I just learned that the herring fishery (the only remaining commercial fishery in San Francisco Bay) has officially closed for the 2009-10 season due to low numbers of returning fish the last few years. The herring, which live out most of their lives in the ocean, return to the bay in the winter months to spawn. While several factors (including the drought)might be responsible for the poor numbers, the oil spill almost certainly affected reproduction in 2007.
On the positive side, the effects of the Cosco Busan spill might have been much worse were it not for the efforts of dozens of people- some paid workers, but also many volunteers- who helped contain the spill. If you are interested in environmental issues affecting San Francsico Bay, you might check out the Baykeeper website (Baykeeper.org) This "watchdog" environmental organization focuses on education and introducing and supporting legislation that helps protect San Francisco Bay.
Hearing about these devastating oil spills really makes me sad because the damage is irreversible. In my opinion, there is no retribution for the tank driver, or the pilot of the ship that could ever reverse the damage that was done by the oil spills. Instead of sentencing the person at fault to jail, maybe there is a better way to punish the people responsible that will help prevent more accidents in the future. One idea is to start a project based on preventative practices for drivers and pilots who transport environmentally harmful substances. They could serve jail time, and on top of that do community service towards prevention of another toxic spill. As a society, we need to put more focus into stabilizing the transportation of toxic chemicals to avoid more crises like the ones described in this blog.
What really gets me mad is not just the environmental effects of the spill, but the effects on human rights. The ship that spilled all of the oil was part of the Chevron fleet going to richmond's oil refinery. And most people are not aware of the terrible stuff that chevron does. Check out this website for more info.
http://chevrontoxico.com/
I think it's really sad and upsetting to hear about occurring oil spills. Especially when it has such a negative effect on the environment. I honestly think that jail time is not enough justice for the pain captains have inflicted on the animals. In addition to jail time, these careless captains should be forced to see the damage they have done to not only the waters, but the animals whose habitat was invaded by oil. It seems as if these captains were being absent-minded. In today's society, oil is becoming a necessity since majority of the population drives. To eliminate the transportation of oil would be difficult, but to make sure that the captains manning the ships are well aware of their surroundings is possible. Oil companies should be sure that captains transporting oil should be well qualified for the job, and able to operate effectively without harming anything, or anyone.
Jill, I agree that stiff penalties may be a deterrent. It's also important to look at other issues; building double-hulled tankers is one concrete step that helps prevent oil spills. If a tanker hits something, a double hull is designed to retain the oil.
Reducing our dependence on oil is also a part of the bigger picture, as is the environmental degradation created by oil extraction, refining and shipping. As Marshall points out, oil companies have much to answer for.
Your post brings up a very crucial idea of large-scale change on a governmental level versus everyday decisions of consumers. Certainly, small lifestyle changes indeed reduce personal effects on the environment, but on the whole they do not even come close to adequately addressing the environmental problems at hand. Drastic changes on the national, and global, levels are needed if we are to avert, or more realistically, minimize the consequences of human activity on and exploitation of the earth. This is the area in which you brought up important ideas, regarding penalties for environment-related infractions. As money certainly drives everything in the first world, where the vast majority of environmental problems are created, it seems the only viable way to address environmental injustices would be to levy fines and other penalties for those corporations who neglect laws. As for the disparity in the sizes of fines, this could be fixed by instituting mandatory minimums on the national level. Admittedly, mandatory minimums cause injustice in terms of drug-related offenses, but they could be applicable in environmental infractions. As you concluded, it essentially comes down to the amount and scale of change we are prepared bear, on both large and small scales. Great post Annie!
What I'm wondering is how there isn't a safer way for them to transport oil. Isn't there some way that we can make the oil tankers more durable? It's great that more laws to punish those who cause the oil spills but I feel that laws should also be instated to create a better transporting method.
Wow, a lot of comments. Thanks to everyone who got a chance to respond.
As for changes that need to happen, I believe that there are many, both large and small scale, that are going to need to take place in order for some of the damage to either be reversed or prevented. At the top of that list, I personally would put awareness. I feel that it's far too often that it is lack of knowledge that leads to unfortunate consequences. I think that right now, we are definitely on the right track about informing the public about issues concerning the environment--it just needs to continue to grow as a movement and strive for a more environmentally-conscious future--as well as something that IS in reach (and not just something that will "one day" be achieved.
As for the issue I was trying to convey, Dr. Seeley is right--I was specifically looking at the rise in severity of punishments as time progresses. But you're right, Courtney. It could also be partially due to San Francisco's super high standards of living sustainably and righteously.
And finally, I'm not sure what research has gone into building more durable ships. After just briefly browsing through Wikipedia's list of oil spills over the last century, it would seem that the technology would improve--although maybe there's only so much they can do in terms of durability?
You all brought up some great points, and while I focused more on the questions people put forth, I definitely think the ideas of changing our use(s) of oil and implementing minimum penalties were awesome suggestions of things to discuss. Thanks again, guys.
Post a Comment