Diatribune

Cross-posted @ Progressive Historians and My Left Wing

If someone would have asked me back in March 1989 if the Supreme Court of the United States would end up deciding the case against the largest oil company in the world -- responsible for the largest oil spill in world history - nearly two-decades later; I would have answered that, ostensibly, the prima fascia evidence of the culpability of Exxon-Mobil was not only overwhelming but also incontrovertible.

Apparently, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with me when they recently upheld a $2.5-billion punitive damages judgment against the oil giant.

However, big oil means big money, and apparently, big money talks in our judicial system. And, whether or not we acknowledge it, if the money?s spread out just right, the wealthiest among us can essentially get away with murder ? or, the most horrific case of criminal negligence against the environment in the history of American jurisprudence.

Perhaps, this time justice will prevail.

"... we've fetched up hard aground."

Eighteen years after Captain Joseph Hazelwood?s now infamous words -- from its precarious position on Alaska?s Bligh reef -- crackled across the radio waves; the battle over the extent of damage to the once-pristine Alaskan environment could finally be coming to an end.

More than thirty-thousand people, including fishermen, cannery workers, native Alaskans of all ages, and others, are still waiting for what they call ?adequate compensation? for the hazardous conditions they've endured since more than 11-million gallons of crude were dumped into Prince William Sound that fateful day in March 1989. By the time winds, tides and currents were finished spreading the thick aphotic liquid -- over 10,000 square miles -- including 1,200 miles of rocky beach are still feeling the effects. And, as usual, animals and marine life suffered even worse, with the deaths of hundreds of thousands killed, and many native species still not fully recovered.

A recent astounding federal study on the spill's affect on the region concluded that significant amounts of oil have remained below beach surface, and is only declining at a rate of 4% per year. Deep pools of thick, emulsified goo called "oil mousse" caused by the oil presence also persists below surface.

The Christian Science Monitor has the story:

"Our results indicate that the remaining subsurface oil may persist for decades with little change," researchers from the National Marine Fisheries Service and other agencies concluded in a report published in February. "Such persistence can pose a contact hazard to inter-tidally foraging sea otters, sea ducks, and shorebirds, create a chronic source of low-level contamination, discourage subsistence in a region where use is heavy, and degrade the wilderness character of protected lands."

Last year, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, which oversees ecosystem recovery in Prince William Sound, painted a mixed picture.

Some species, including bald eagles, harbor seals, and river otters, have recovered to pre-spill levels. But others ? killer whales, sea otters, mussels, and clams among them ? have not fully recovered. Pacific herring, which are commercially valuable as well as being a source of food to marine mammals, birds, invertebrates, and other fish, appear not to be recovering, and at one point the fishery had collapsed with only 25 percent of the expected adults returning to spawn, according to the oil spill trustee council.

Of course, Exxon-Mobil Corp. has disputed all along the claims by biologists, fishermen and others that damaging effects continue to plague the region, including drop-offs in herring and salmon runs. The company asserts that:

"... hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies conducted by researchers from major independent scientific laboratories and academic institutions" have proved that "the environment in Prince William Sound is healthy, robust and thriving."

The Texas-based oil giant points out that it already has spent some $3 billion on environmental cleanup, government settlements, fines, and compensation.

But, despite the oil giant?s claims, the appeals court sided with the plaintiffs, taking into account the more than 6,000 of those originally claimed to have been harmed by the oil spill have since died:

"It is time for this protracted litigation to end."

The most recent ruling was the appeals court third in the case since 1994.

Earlier this year, Exxon-Mobil reported the largest-ever annual profit by a US company - $39.5 billion in net income. At their annual meeting in Dallas last week, company executives faced a vocal minority of shareholders demanding that Exxon-Mobil set goals for reducing greenhouse gases and committing to invest more in renewable energy sources.

So far, Exxon-Mobil has declined to join BP, Conoco-Phillips, and Shell as part of the US Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of corporations and environmental groups pushing for binding legal limits on greenhouse gases.

After the 1989 spill, the Exxon Valdez was banished from Prince William Sound, renamed the "SeaRiver Mediterranean," and sent to other parts of the world. In 1990, Congress passed a law banning single-hulled tankers like the Valdez from domestic waters by 2015.

Meanwhile, villagers residing in Cordova, Alaska - the fishing village most affected by the oil spill - recently erected a "ridicule pole" mocking  an Exxon-Mobil official's promise just a few days after the Valdez ran aground.

"We will do whatever it takes to keep you whole."

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Peace

Links to more about the Exxon Valdez oil spill:

Wikipedia: Exxon Valdez

Wikipedia: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

Environmemtal Protection Agency Report

Exxon-Mobil Official Press Releases

Think Quest: Prince William Sound - Paradise Lost

__________________________