Lesson of Santa Barbara oilspill: Leave petroleum in the ground
By DAVID HELVARG
1 Memorial Day marks the beginning of high beach season, but there are miles of coastline near Santa Barbara that will be out of commission this weekend thanks to a pipeline oil spill.
2 This is how most offshore oilworks: You drill miles off the coast, pump the oil onshore to be processed and pipe it along the coast. On Tuesday, an underground pipeline that runs between Gaviota and Refugio State Beach ruptured, and the oil followed gravity into a culvert and back out to sea.
3 More than 100,000 gallons of oil may have spilled, including an estimated 20,000 on the beach and in an oil slick in one of our nation's richest marine habitats. The pipeline company has apologized for the “inconvenience” all this will cause. What's particularly troubling is that compared with drilling rigs, pipelines are supposed to be the safe part of offshore oil operations.
4 California was the site of the world's first offshore drilling, from piers in Summerland in the late 19th century. By 1901, the San Jose Mercury News reported, “The whole face of the townsite is aslime with oil leakages,” and Santa Barbara banned oil piers. It took the federal government more than 60 years to convince the locals that drilling technology had advanced enough that spills would be a thing of thepast. Then, in 1969, a Union Oil rig experienced a blowout and more than 3 million gallons of oil coated 35 miles of Santa Barbara County beaches sixinches thick. Seabirds, fish and mammals died in droves.
5 The sight of dying, oil-covered birds in the same year that the polluted Cuyahoga River caught fire in Cleveland gave birth to the modern environmental movement. When President Nixonmade an appearance in Santa Barbara, he was met by thousands of angry residents and the rallying cry “Get oil out!”
6 As the cleanup continues this week at Refugio State Beach, President Obama should make his own pilgrimage to the West Coast to check out the results of offshore drilling. He seems to have learned little from the BP blowout five years ago in the Gulf of Mexico. That disaster killed 11 workers and spilled 500 million gallons of oil, the resultof gross negligence on the part of BP, according to a federal court ruling. TheBP spill is still rippling through the gulf. On Wednesday, a new study reported that hundreds of bottlenose dolphins continue to die every year as a result of the spill.
7 Despite the steep costs of BP's negligence, the Obama administration proposes to open up new drilling sites along much of the Atlantic seaboard, and in the remote Arctic Ocean off Alaska,beginning in 2017.
8 Last week, in the largest citizen lobby for ocean conservation in U.S. history, nonpartisan delegations from 24 states held 163 meetings on Capitol Hill to oppose any new offshore drilling, among other issues. Along the Eastern Seaboard, more than 60 towns and cities, under Democratic and Republican leadership, have passed resolutions against oil surveys and drilling that might threaten their coastal economies and way of life.
9 On May 16 in Seattle, hundredsof protesters in kayaks surrounded Shell Oil's Arctic exploratory rig, thePolar Pioneer, hoping to keep it away from Alaska's Chukchi Sea during thebrief upcoming Arctic summer. Coast Guard Commandant Paul Zukunft has pulled nopunches about the risks of drilling and shipping in the Arctic, warning of a“black swan” incident — a disaster of historic proportion — if something like amajor oil spill were to occur, because there would be no way to effectivelyrespond to it.
10 On Wednesday, President Obamatold the graduating class at the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn., thatthe science on climate change is clear and U.S. national security is threatenedby global warming. What he didn't mention was the rest of the science, the partthat indicates that leaving petroleum reserves in the ground — and under the seabed — is the best way to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change.
11 The 1969 oil spill in SantaBarbara galvanized a movement and effectively ended additional drilling leasesoff California's coast. The 2015 spill is a reminder that the work of thatmovement is far from finished. The dangerous prospect of offshore leases willbe a factor in the presidential primaries on the East Coast. The protestsagainst dangerous drilling for Arctic oil will continue. It's past time to “Getoil out.”
Sample:
While human beings are trying to obtain resources from the nature, such exploitation is also accompanied by havoc on the ecosystem. In response to the dangerous oil spill, the authorDavid Helvarg joins the lobby for ocean conservation, expecting the Obama administration to suspend new offshore drilling. In order to engage readers tohis argument, the author makes full use of case-based evidence, manipulates contrast deftly and employs emotional appeals.
Mr. Helvarg takes advantage ofcase-based evidence, establishing ethos from the moment he beginning arguing.The case about Santa Barbara oil spill is shown that an underground pipeline ruptured and oil polluted coastlines. This unpleasant incident is apt to hookreaders’ attentions, for it coincides with the beginning of high beach season while visitors are not allowed to enjoy sunshine in this area. Meanwhile, ratherthan from drilling rigs, this leakage results from so-called safe offshorepipelines; so the author makes it clear that the highlight of his argumentcenters on offshore drilling. Then David alludes to the past similar cases inorder that he proves offshore oil spill is not a rarity. First, the history ofoffshore drilling is traced back to California in the last 19thcentury and a blowout happened in 1969 despite the federal government’s effortsto promise that “spills would be a thing of the past”. Such historicalexperience lends a credence to the claim that offshore drilling is notabsolutely free from risks and offers readers a referent that the federalgovernment’s preference for offshore drilling has parallels locals’ oppositionsfor a long time. Moreover, another recent case is mentioned in order to furtherarouse readers’ concerns about oil spill. BP blowout is so severe that almostevery reader can recognize the catastrophic consequence. By employing thisimpressive and credible incident, readers, especially those who suffered fromthis disaster, tend to evaluate whether the government should set up newdrilling sites or not. Finally, readers are able to place these cases in achronological order, thereby concluding that when the first site of offshoredrilling came into being, the potential risks on environment and health have been never-ending.
The author also devotes the construction of the passage to logically appealing to the audience. Here hestructures the middle position by means of ironic contrast between the tollcaused by oil spill and the Obama administration’s indifference for thosemassive costs. For one thing, the author reminds readers of the BP blowout andalso details the negative consequences, such as workers passing away and marineanimals still suffering. Also, these results are attributed to “the grossnegligence on the part of BP”. It is manifest that this natural tragedy isexplicitly caused by offshore drilling. Readers, in turn, anticipate that thefederal government would close or at least suspend the new drilling sites.However, the Obama administration’s decision runs contrary to the public expectation—newdrilling sites along the Atlantic seaboard and in the remote Arctic Ocean OffAlaska. For another, Mr. Helvarg deepens the conflict by reference to thoselobbies’ and protesters’ strong attitudes towards offshore drilling.Specifically, nonpartisan delegations have proposed oppositions against any newoffshore drilling and some towns and cities have passed resolutions against anypractice perilous to marine ecosystem. Meanwhile, some protestors surroundedShell Oil’s Arctic rig and required ending its exploration. All these intensiveresponses to offshore drilling are compared sharply with Mr. Obama ignoring “leavingpetroleum reserves in the ground is the best way to tackle climate change”. Thedeft use of contrast reveals the public’s unity and assertiveness in expellingnew sites, but it also interprets the officials’ stubborn standpoint to keepexploring offshore oil. After decoding the balanced structure, readers wouldgradually perceive the heavy price behind offshore oil drilling and join thecitizen lobby to advocate “Get oil out”.
Although his use of logos andethos makes people comprehend the issue on an intellectual level, the emotionalnature of this subject produces a very natural pathos. As for most readers, oilspill is an unfamiliar and ambiguous issue, so they fail to realize seriousnessand urgency. Under such circumstance, David manages to set up imageries intargets’ minds by repeating what happening on wild and marine animals.Particularly, “Seabirds, fish and mammals died in droves.” Besides, he shows “thesight of dying, oil-covered birds”, continuous death of bottlenose dolphins andthe warning of black swan. These tragedies come from oil spill and finallyremain in readers’ minds; also these images leave a deep impression on readersand evoke their sympathy for animals and condemnation of offshore drilling. Notonly does the author restore images in order to empathize with readers, but healso conveys his own emotions by means of diction. Specifically, whenmentioning the recent oil spill, he suggests that President Obama should “makehis own pilgrimage.” Here the carefully chosen word “pilgrimage” means ajourney to a holy place literally. Ironically, he picks up this word to ask Mr.Obama to visit the polluted areas by himself, because it is his administration’s negligence that leads to the awkward blowout. Therefore, this word connotes theauthor’s anger towards the Obama administration’s inaction and appeal to readers’ support for the rallying cry “Get oil out”.
Through the effective use of rhetorical tools and the mindful arrangement of this essay, the author persuades the audience that the main idea.