Revocación de Mandato 22 23 y 24 de Mayo - Instructivo para la Consulta

Revocacion de mandato 22 23 y 24 mayo instructivo para la consulta 9

View more presentations from RadioAMLOPDF.

Citing BP, Shell Claims Safety Advances for Arctic Offshore Pipeline

by Ben Buchwalter

While oil continues to spill out of BP's offshore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, Shell reaffirmed its commitment this week to plans for its controversial pipeline in the Arctic. But due to public pressure following BP's spill, Shell will impose additional safeguards against future spills, which would be disastrous for Alaska's ecosystem.

Earlier this month, California governor Arnold Schwarzenneger announced that his state would halt offshore drilling for the first time in over 40 years. A handful of environmental groups have demanded similar concessions from oil companies and state governments with limited success. Last week, the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to Shell's proposed pipeline in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas near Alaska.

In a letter Monday, Shell promised to deploy a containment dome and diving team at the drilling site to protect the area in the event of a spill. "Shell is committed to undertaking a safe and environmentally responsible exploration program," President Marvin E. Odum wrote to the Minerals Management Service. "I am confident that we are ready to conduct the...program safely, and, I want to be clear, the accountability for this program rests with Shell."

That last admission is nice to hear, considering that BP is trying desperately to avoid being held responsible for the spill in the Gulf. But Shell appears to be downplaying the similarities between both projects. Their letter states that the chances of blowout in the Arctic are much lower than the Gulf because that pipeline was 5,000 feet deep, facing three times more pressure than their project.

And while the program benefits from shallower seas, a spill would be disastrous due to the proposed pipeline's pristine location. "Oil companies have tapped the easy oil off of our coasts," said Chris Krenz, a project manager for environmental group Oceana. "They are now pushing the limits and increasing the risk by heading to the deep water of the gulf and the remote and unforgiving Arctic."

Marilyn Heiman, the US Arctic program director for the Pew Environment Group, also doubts Shell's claim to safety. "They do not begin to have enough vessels and equipment and people. If they did have a spill that lasted more than a couple weeks and had to fly stuff in, there are no runways...there's no boat dock there," she said.

Environmental concerns aside, the Arctic offshore pipeline, which scientists estimate will produce 27 billion barrels of oil, will move ahead this summer. It's now clear that Big Oil has joined ranks with other traditional energy producers of coal and nuclear here in the United States to maintain their stranglehold on the energy industry to the detriment of clean, safe renewable options like wind and solar.

Global Warming Continues Apace, Despite Deniers’ Objections

by Mike Gaworecki

Climate deniers might have just lost one of their favorite misinformation talking points — and that is actually bad news for us all.

Then again, empirical data and observable reality have never really had a hand in shaping those talking points to begin with, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a mea culpa from the denier herd.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has just reported that the combined land and ocean surface temperature for April 2010 was 58.1 °F (14.5°C), the hottest ever recorded for the month of April — meaning since about 1880, when such records first started being kept. According to the NOAA, that’s about 1.37°F (0.76°C) above the 20th century average of 56.7°F (13.7°C).

What’s more, the combined land and ocean surface temperature for the year to date — January to April, in other words — was also the highest on record at 56.0°F (13.3°C), which is 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average.

Global warming deniers, of course, love to claim that “There hasn’t been any global warming in the past decade” or even “Global warming is taking a break” to deride the notion that we’re slowly but surely cooking the planet with our out-of-control greenhouse gas emissions. Missing the point of a “global climate” entirely, they’ve even tried to claim that recent unseasonable cold snaps in their local community prove once and for all that there is no global warming.

For the record, the NOAA also reports that Arctic sea ice is below normal for the 11th straight April, and North American snow cover extent was the smallest on record for April. So those cold spells don’t disprove anything — we're seeing the effects of a warming planet every day. But then I suspect even the deniers know that, and are simply preying on the fact that most folks don’t.

Deniers make the specious claim that global warming has stopped or even reversed over the past decade based on a very simple statistical trick. For instance, 2008 was the coolest year on record since 2000. So, many deniers like to falsely claim, global warming must have ended. “In fact,” they say, “global temperatures have even gone down.” But if you take the long view — and when it comes to the global climate, that’s all that really matters — you can clearly see an upward trend.

In reality, January 2000 to December 2009 was the “warmest decade on record,” according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA.

The Goddard Institute also reported earlier this year that 2009 tied for second warmest year on record, despite the unseasonable temperatures and weather in much of North America. This coupled with the fact that Jan–April 2010 is the hottest Jan–April we’ve ever experienced — again, despite some unseasonable local weather — should drive the final nail through the “Hey, it’s snowing in March! Global warming my ass!” argument once and for all… Though of course I expect it to do no such thing.

Claudicación

Manuel Bartlett Díaz

Escucha al autor AQUI.

Explotó Deepwater Horizon, plataforma petrolera en la parte estadunidense del Golfo de México que provocó un derrame incontrolado de petróleo que cubre más de 6 mil kilómetros cuadrados, según Obama el mayor desastre ambiental de la historia petrolera. Desde México se observa la creciente mancha como algo ajeno, sólo dañina si cambian los vientos. Calderón, en el limbo; el daño llega, es el mismo mar, y la “reforma energética” que impuso abrió las puertas a las trasnacionales y la amenaza ya está en nuestro mar, poniendo en el mismo peligro nuestra ecología y modo de vida de millones de mexicanos en Yucatán, Tabasco, Campeche, Veracruz y Tamaulipas.

Estados Unidos explota el Golfo intensamente para reducir su creciente importación de petróleo. Producen 1,700,000 mil barriles diarios, 30% de su producción doméstica, con 3,500 plataformas en producción.

Deepwater, valuada en 10 billones de dólares, contaba con la última tecnología. Operaba un consorcio con British Petroleum, Transocean, experimentada en aguas profundas; Cameron, experta en prevención, y Halliburton. Fallaron, el gobierno estadunidense reaccionó de inmediato, suspendió nuevas perforaciones, reformó la Agencia Reguladora y despidió al director cooptado por las petroleras. Convocadas al Senado, las empresas se culparon mutuamente. Obama sentenció: pagarán los daños, el monto es incalculable. La marea negra avanza, daña la ecología, la vida marítima, millones de estadunidenses en paro, la pesca suspendida. Mississipi, Alabama y Florida afectados. BP responde del costo total de limpiar y está asegurada hasta por 75 millones de dólares por daños; arriba de esta cifra responde un fondo de desastres. Obama envió un paquete al Congreso para ayudas inmediatas y una reforma para elevar la responsabilidad de daños, de 75 mil dólares a 10 billones.

En México se han perforado 14 pozos en aguas profundas y se invirtieron 16,798 mil millones para 13 pozos infructuosos y uno que produce gas. Todo contratado con trasnacionales.

En la imposición de la reforma energética, fue argumento central para la apertura a la explotación extranjera la supuesta urgencia de explotar en el Golfo; ahí están nuestras últimas reservas, argumentaron, lo que nos obligaba, a “alianzas estratégicas” con quienes tenían la tecnología, motivo de una manipulación televisiva: el tesoro del Golfo. En realidad, Estados Unidos dispuso acceder al golfo mexicano.

La urgencia fue descalificada por el grupo “Ingenieros Petroleros Constitución de 1917”, profesionales de excelencia. La reserva en el Golfo es sólo hipótesis, la tecnología para aguas profundas está en desarrollo y es extremadamente onerosa. Tenemos en tierra y aguas someras reservas accesibles a un costo mucho menor. Carecemos de infraestructura para recibir el petróleo del mar, dependeríamos de instalaciones estadunidenses. Fueron más fuertes los compromisos de Calderón que las razones. Si los millones perdidos se hubieran aplicado en las zonas mencionadas, habríamos incrementado las reservas que se nos agotan. La explosión de la plataforma demuestra que esa tecnología falla, con resultados desastrosos. El presidente Calderón debe suspender las perforaciones en el Golfo; lo hizo Obama y ordenó además la revisión de toda la tecnología. ¿Dónde está el Congreso que aprobó la reforma que pone en grave riesgo al país? ¿Quién regula las trasnacionales para garantizar nuestra seguridad?

De ocurrirnos una catástrofe similar por fallas de las trasnacionales, ¿podríamos obligarlas a reparar daños?, ¿litigaríamos años en tribunales internacionales en condiciones equitativas?, ¿los estados siniestrados esperarían? Los riegos son excesivos, claman en Estados Unidos; no vale la pena, afirman los gobernadores de California y Florida, y allá requieren ese petróleo; aquí ese riesgo para millones de mexicanos es por innecesario absurdo, producto sólo de la claudicación.

mbartlett_díaz@hotmail.com

Ex secretario de Estado