As the nation plans new defenses against the more powerful storms and higher tides expected from climate change, one project stands out: an ambitious proposal to build a nearly 60-mile "spine" of concrete seawalls, earthen barriers, floating gates and steel levees on the Texas Gulf Coast.
Like other oceanfront projects, this one would protect homes, delicate ecosystems and vital infrastructure, but it also has another priority — to shield some of the crown jewels of the petroleum industry, which is blamed for contributing to global warming and now wants the federal government to build safeguards against the consequences of it.
The plan is focused on a stretch of coastline that runs from the Louisiana border to industrial enclaves south of Houston that are home to one of the world's largest concentrations of petrochemical facilities, including most of Texas' 30 refineries, which represent 30 percent of the nation's refining capacity.
Texas is seeking at least $12 billion for the full coastal spine, with nearly all of it coming from public funds. Last month, the government fast-tracked an initial $3.9 billion for three separate, smaller storm barrier projects that would specifically protect oil facilities...
Normally outspoken critics of federal spending, Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz both backed using taxpayer funds to fortify the oil facilities' protections and the Texas coast. Cruz called it "a tremendous step forward."..
The proposals approved for funding originally called for building more protections along larger swaths of the Texas coast, but they were scaled back and now deliberately focus on refineries...
Oil and chemical companies also pushed for more protection for surrounding communities to shield their workforces...
Texas has not tapped its own rainy day fund of around $11 billion. According to federal rules, 35 percent of funds spent by the Army Corps of Engineers must be matched by local jurisdictions, and the GOP-controlled state Legislature could help cover such costs. But such spending may be tough for many conservatives to swallow.
Texas "should be funding things like this itself," said Chris Edwards, an economist at the libertarian Cato Institute. "Texans are proud of their conservatism, but, unfortunately, when decisions get made in Washington, that frugality goes out the door."
24 August 2018
"Big oil asks government to protect it from climate change"
You can't make this up. And it's not The Onion.
I heard Mexico is going to pay for it!
ReplyDeleteTexas should be funding this by itself? Should that apply to the below sea-level city by the sea (nawlins) as well?
ReplyDeleteI'm all for pushing back climate change but it's silly really to complain about this. Floods or a tsunami would cause massive chemical spills. Oil refining is at the core of our society. You can't just shut it down, and as long as it's running you need to protect it just like any other crucial infrastructure.
ReplyDeleteThe problem isn't that you need to protect vital infrastructure, the problem is that the industry being protected has been telling people that climate change isn't a thing with one hand (and therefore not taking steps to mitigate the issue), but then ask for and receive public money with the other hand to deal with the problem that they're not helping to solve.
DeleteIf my house catches fire by accident, the fire department comes along to put out the fire. If I deliberately set fire to my house, the fire department comes along to put out the fire - but I also go to jail (or at least pay a large fine) and I don't get an insurance payout etc. The oil industry, either through negligence or malicious intent has set fire to their own house, are asking for the fire department to help, but aren't doing anything to change their behaviour. And, unfortunately, the house they've set fire to is a house we all share.
Do you have a source for the article? I want to follow-up on it. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteOops. My bad. It was CBS News (now inserted as a link).
DeleteThanks for the proofreading.