Victory in the Atlantic!
Grassroots efforts have paid off for the Atlantic coast. The Obama Administration has reversed course on offshore drilling in that region.
Back in 2008, Congress lifted the ban on offshore drilling in the Atlantic, and just a short time later, the Obama Administration announced that they would open up that region to offshore drilling.
But, that decision sparked countless protests, numerous environmental actions, and more than a million public comments on drilling in that region.
Thankfully, last week the President responded to the people and removed plans for oil drilling from his five-year proposal on ocean energy development. That's what happens when Americans stand together and fight for what they believe in, and that's the benefit of having a President who actually listens to the American people.
In a call with reporters last week, Sally Jewell, the Secretary of the Interior, said, “We certainly have heard from coastal communities, generally about their opposition.” And, local officials along the coast celebrated the announcement as well.
Frank Knapp, president of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, said, “Obviously, this is the right decision, and obviously it was a decision that arrived because of all the concern.”
Rather than threatening the local ocean-based economies, this decision will protect industries like tourism and fishing, which provide up to 25 percent of jobs in some coastal areas.
Perhaps equally important, this decision is proof that small, local, grassroots movements can truly have a profound effect on our entire nation. Although it may not always feel like it, We, The People really can shape the policy of our country by standing together and demanding that we be heard.
That's great news for the communities and animal life along the Atlantic coast, and it's great news for the brave men and women fighting for change all over our nation.
I very much would like to think and feel that the Obama administration decided not to move forward with offshore drilling off the Atlantic coast because of the groundswell of opposition from communities, environmentalists, etc, but I tend to believe that it was done to protect the D Party and THEIR nominee, HRC in this 2016 presidential election. The D Party is dominated by corporate Democrats and if not for this election year, they would not think twice about moving ahead with offshore drilling.
Anybody understand Fascism?
Against which wars were fought?
They likely think it's a movie... when they think!
Should have said IF they think... sorry!
Thom asserts that Obama listens to We, the People and thus vacated plans to develop east coast drilling, but if this is so, how do we explain the fact that Obama just signed off on the TPP???
I fail to understand why Obama even has a five-year plan. He has only months left in office so why did he waste precious time in his office to create one? His plan is, also, only a proposal to be overturned by the next president, if they so desire. So, hold onto your hats, people, Hillary will drill, drill, drill!
Obama just signed off on TPP? I thought this issue was defeated in the Senate...not enough votes?
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a trade agreement among twelve Pacific Rim countries signed on 4 February 2016 in Auckland, New Zealand (one of which was the USA), after seven years of negotiations, which has not entered into force. …The United States government has considered the TPP as the companion agreement to the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a broadly similar agreement between the United States and the European Union.
Historically, the TPP is an expansion of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4), which was signed by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore in 2005. Beginning in 2008, additional countries joined the discussion for a broader agreement: Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the United States, and Vietnam, bringing the total number of participating countries in the negotiations to twelve. Current trade agreements between participating countries, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, will be reduced to those provisions that do not conflict with the TPP, or that provide greater trade (corporate abuse) liberalization than the TPP.
There are many parts to this thing (TIPP, etc.,) and there have been varying signing dates (such as 2005) with some countries signing on while others have signed on this past February 4th. My understanding is that the TPP passed our House, Obama signed on with the group in Auckland, it now goes to the Senate and if it passes there then whomever is president at that time (a two year long process to finalization) gets to do the final signing (or not). This is my understanding. If I haven't got it right, I hope someone will explain what we all need to know. Thanks.
Obama drafted a five year plan with the exectation that HRC will next occupy the oval office and he wanted to leave her a To Do List so she would stay the course and not get overwhelmed or flustered by the job. Usually, previous presidents assist the newly elected president with getting their feet under them, but since HRC already knows her way around the WH, Obama wanted to give her a working syllabus so she wouldn't look weak or foolish; especially where the military is concerned.
Do you think that a lot of the Americans watching the wall-to-wall coverage of the terrorist attack in Belgium actually think it IS happening here??