 |
The damaged Exxon Valdez being towed out of Prince William
|
If you ask just about anyone today, they most likely know, or at least have heard of the Exxon Valdez oil spill that happened in 1989. The incident occurred on March 24 of that year, when the oil tanker Exxon Valdez struck a reef just after entering Alaska’s Prince William Sound. The impact tore open the ships hull and spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into the water. The initial response by Exxon was insufficient to contain the spill and the incident would go on to be remembered as one of the worst man-made ecological disasters in history. In the end, more than 1,000 miles of coastline would be contaminated, hundreds of thousands of animals would perish, and Exxon would end up paying billions in cleanup efforts and fines as well as being tied up in court cases for years to come. This would remain the largest oil spill in US waters until the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. Congress would also pass the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 as a direct response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. If you want to see more images from the aftermath of the oil spill,
“Remembering the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill” by
The Atlantic has some very powerful ones.
 |
An oil covered bird is examined on an island in Prince
William
|
While this incident itself is very well known, something that I had never heard of before researching it for this blog post is the protest organized by local fishermen in Alaska a few years later. This protest began on August 20, 1993 and would last for three days. Dozens of local fishermen created a 60-boat blockade in order to stop oil tankers from reaching the Trans-Alaska Pipeline terminal, which was where the Exxon Valdez had departed from before the oil spill. They did this in an effort to draw attention to record low returns of pink salmon in Prince William Sound, which had a huge impact on the local economy, and which the fishermen blamed the oil spill and insufficient response by Exxon for. Over the course of the three day protest, the blockade proved to be quite effective. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, the fisherman caused at least one tanker to turn around before entering the Valdez Narrows and two more to delay their entry into the sound.
The protestors ended the blockade after Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit met with them and promised to help the recovery effort. Babbit promised to urge Federal and state trustees (who were in charge of a $900 million settlement from Exxon), to buy more land to protect salmon-spawning streams and to aid local hatcheries. This was seen as a great success for the fishermen, who praised Babbit’s efforts and ended the blockade. If you want to learn more about the specifics of the settlement Exxon agreed to after the spill,
“Alaska Fishermen Blockade Tankers”, published by
The New York Times when the blockade ended on August 23, 1993 does a good job of explaining just how much Exxon was on the hook for.
As far as the results of the protest, overall the fishermen were very successful. They successfully raised awareness of the insufficient response from Exxon after the oil spill as well as their specific issues which required a special response. All of this, combined with the fact that no one was hurt during the protest, shows to me that it was a great success. The protesters got what they wanted, and they achieved it through peaceful means, which fits perfectly into our theme from Gaudium et Spes. When a governing body or, in this case, a large corporation has violated the rights of certain individuals or a community as a whole, it is up to that community to raise awareness and force changes to be made, as long as it is done in a peaceful way.
Marcus, your post is very informative. I'd be lying if I said I knew about the oil spill of Exxon and furthermore the protest the fisherman had conducted to raise awareness. This is so serious as it harmed their economy as a state and the government was not aware of this. The company paid the crazy amount for the clean up but no one paid attention to how harmful it was to the state and animals that were harmed. This can relate to my post as I wrote about the Women's Suffrage Parade in 1913. This parade was conducted as they believed the government was ignoring their needs and wants as people. The government had no awareness the severity of how their actions were affecting women and their suffrage rights and again, the government had no awareness of how the oil spill affected the fishermen of Alaska. The explanation of Gaudium you put I believe justifies your protest and mine which make them similar. That is that Gaudium et Spes states when a governing body or, in this case, a large corporation has violated the rights of certain individuals or a community as a whole, it is up to that community to raise awareness and force changes to be made, as long as it is done in a peaceful way.
ReplyDelete