
‘This bill protects our precious waters': how a Florida environmental group scored a win against big oil
The Florida state congressman Jason Shoaf remembers how the threat affected the bay.
'It harmed our commercial fishing, aquaculture operations, and just the threat of oil kept tourists away for months,' Shoaf recalls. 'Businesses were forced to close, jobs were lost, and the disaster reshaped our region forever.'
Those memories were freshly triggered in April 2024, when the Florida department of environmental protection (DEP) granted a permit to Louisiana-based Clearwater Land and Minerals for exploratory oil drilling on the Apalachicola River basin. So area residents, along with environmental and business groups, formed a Kill the Drill coalition to oppose the permit.
A year later, the coalition's efforts and an administrative challenge to the DEP's permit by the non-profit Apalachicola Riverkeepers prevailed when Judge Lawrence P Stevenson recommended the department deny the permit.
In May, the DEP reversed course and denied the permit.
But that was not enough to convince those seeking to preserve the region's environment. Shoaf, who represents Florida's north-eastern Gulf coast region, applauded the DEP's decision but says the threat of oil exploration and drilling near north Florida's inland waterways would only be ended by a permanent ban. So to prevent future threats and the DEP from issuing other oil exploratory drilling permits, Shoaf and state representative Allison Tant co-authored House Bill 1143.
'While the permit to Clearwater Land and Minerals was denied, we can't assume the next one will be,' Shoaf says. 'HB 1143 protects our precious water resources and the ecosystems that depend on them by prohibiting drilling, exploration and production of oil, gas and other petroleum products within 10 miles of a national estuarine research reserve in counties designated as rural areas of opportunity. It also requires the Florida department of environmental protection to ensure natural resources are adequately protected in the event of an accident.'
In April, the legislature overwhelmingly passed HB 1143 with only one dissenting vote in the Senate. It was presented to Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, on 18 June. And, despite a poor recent record on protecting the environment, DeSantis signed the bill last week – handing the coalition that lobbied for it a cheering victory.
The area now saved from the oil industry is invaluable both to nature and the people who live there. The Apalachicola River, formed by the meeting of the Chattahoochee and Flint rivers, flows 160 miles (258km) to the Apalachicola Bay and the Gulf. Both the river and bay are critical to the region's tourism and seafood production industries.
For environmental campaigners, the success of their efforts might help lay to rest the ghosts of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion, which released nearly 3.19m barrels of oil into the gulf.
'Oil from the BP spill didn't reach our coasts, but the damage caused by the threat was enough,' Tant says. 'We've seen what can happen. We've lived it. This is not theoretical. It was a perilous time for small businesses and for those who lived in the area. It stopped tourism and shuttered small businesses. So it defies logic to think it's a good idea to drill for oil along the Apalachicola River.'
Adrianne Johnson is executive director of the Florida Shellfish Aquaculture Association which represents more than 350 shellfish farmers in Florida. Johnson, an Apalachicola native, became involved in the Kill the Drill movement for personal and business reasons.
'This region has a deep collective memory of how the Gulf oil spill devastated the regional economy and collapsed the oyster industry in Apalachicola Bay,' Johnson explains. 'And that was just the threat of oil. The majority of the state's oyster farms operate across Wakulla, Franklin and Gulf counties, and these areas downriver would be most impacted by oil drilling upriver (at the proposed site in Calhoun county). If there were to be a spill upriver because of drilling in the basin, it would have catastrophic environmental and economic impacts on the area that would be felt for generations.'
Johnson also points to the region's frequent weather-related natural disasters, such as hurricanes, as another reason why drilling had to be banned in the region.
Sign up to Down to Earth
The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential
after newsletter promotion
'Our shellfish farmers are still recovering from the multiple hurricanes of 2024,' she explains. 'But the reality of being a Florida farmer is having to contend with these weather-related events. Hurricanes and natural disasters are outside of our control. Permitting oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas is very much within our control and is an unnecessary threat to our industry.'
Tant agrees.
'We are a hurricane-prone state,' she says. 'We can't get away from that. It's not a question of will we get hit by a hurricane because we know it's going to happen. But an oil spill caused by a hurricane would make the disaster 100 times worse.'
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), the Deep Horizon oil spill caused the loss of 8.3 billion oysters, the deaths of nearly 105,400 sea birds, 7,600 adult and 160,000 juvenile sea turtles, and a 51% decrease in dolphins in Louisiana's Barataria Bay.
Craig Diamond, current board member and past president of Apalachicola Riverkeeper, says another factor behind the ban was the river system itself.
'A spill would be highly impactful given the existing stresses in the system,' says Diamond, who has worked with the Northwest Florida Water Management District and taught graduate courses on water resources at Florida State University. 'Apalachicola Bay Riverkeeper and its allies believe the long-term risks of fossil fuel exploitation in the floodplain or bay (or nearshore) far outweigh the short-term benefits.'
Shoaf says he was inspired to write HB 1143 by the community's grassroots efforts to defend the region's natural resources.
'This bill is essential to prevent unnecessary and irreparable harm to Apalachicola Bay, as well as the economies and ecosystems that depend on it,' he says.
After DeSantis signed the bill into law, the threat of drilling has now receded into the distance for the foreseeable future.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Blatant misinformation': Social Security Administration email praising Trump's tax bill blasted as a ‘lie'
An email sent by the US Social Security Administration (SSA) that claims Donald Trump's major new spending bill has eliminated taxes on benefits for most recipients is misleading, critics have said. The reconciliation bill – which the president called the 'one big, beautiful bill' before signing it on Friday after Republicans in Congress passed it – includes provisions that will strip people of their health insurance, cut food assistance for the poor, kill off clean energy development and raise the national debt by trillions of dollars. But the bill also 'eliminates federal income taxes on social security benefits for most beneficiaries, providing relief to individuals and couples', the previously apolitical SSA stated in an email circulated on Thursday. Frank Bisignano, the commissioner of the agency, said in a statement that nearly 90% of social security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits. 'This is a historic step forward for America's seniors,' Bisignano said. 'By significantly reducing the tax burden on benefits, this legislation reaffirms President Trump's promise to protect social security and helps ensure that seniors can better enjoy the retirement they've earned.' However, the spending bill does not actually eliminate federal taxes on social security due to the rule constraints of passing a bill this way – through the reconciliation process, to avoid a Democratic filibuster. Instead, the legislation provides a temporary tax deduction of up to $6,000 for people aged 65 and older, and $12,000 for married seniors. These benefits will start to phase out for those with incomes of more than $75,000 and married couples of more than $150,000 a year. Previous SSA officials said that the Trump administration's framing of the bill was misleading. 'People are like, 'Is this real? Is this a scam?' Because it's not what they signed up for,' Kathleen Romig, a former senior adviser at the SSA during the Biden administration, told CNN. 'It doesn't sound like normal government communications, official communications. It sounds like – you know – partisan.' Jeff Nesbit, who served as a top SSA official under Republican and Democratic presidents, posted on X: 'The agency has never issued such a blatant political statement. The fact that Trump and his minion running SSA has done this is unconscionable.' New Jersey congressman Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the House's energy and commerce committee, wrote on X that 'every word' of the SSA's email on Thursday 'is a lie'. 'This big, ugly bill doesn't change that,' Pallone wrote. 'It's disturbing to see Trump hijack a public institution to push blatant misinformation.'


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
If the US president threatens to take away freedoms, are we no longer free?
Threats of retribution from Donald Trump are hardly a novelty, but even by his standards, the US president's warnings of wrathful vengeance in recent days have represented a dramatic escalation. In the past week, Trump has threatened deportation, loss of US citizenship or arrest against, respectively, the world's richest person, the prospective future mayor of New York and Joe Biden's former homeland security secretary. The head-spinning catalogue of warnings may have been aimed at distracting from the increasing unpopularity, according to opinion surveys, of Trump's agenda, some analysts say. But they also served as further alarm bells for the state of US democracy five-and-a-half months into a presidency that has seen a relentless assault on constitutional norms, institutions and freedom of speech. On Tuesday, Trump turned his sights on none other than Elon Musk, the tech billionaire who, before a recent spectacular fallout, had been his closest ally in ramming through a radical agenda of upending and remaking the US government. But when the Tesla and SpaceX founder vowed to form a new party if Congress passed Trump's signature 'one big beautiful bill' into law, Trump swung into the retribution mode that is now familiar to his Democratic opponents. 'Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa,' Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, menacing both the billions of dollars in federal subsidies received by Musk's companies, and – it seemed – his US citizenship, which the entrepreneur received in 2002 but which supporters like Steve Bannon have questioned. 'No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE.' Trump twisted the knife further the following morning talking to reporters before boarding a flight to Florida. 'We might have to put Doge on Elon,' he said, referring to the unofficial 'department of government efficiency' that has gutted several government agencies and which Musk spearheaded before stepping back from his ad hoc role in late May. 'Doge is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible.' Musk's many critics may have found sympathy hard to come by given his earlier job-slashing endeavors on Trump's behalf and the $275m he spent last year in helping to elect him. But the wider political implications are worrying, say US democracy campaigners. 'Trump is making clear that if he can do that to the world's richest man, he could certainly do it to you,' said Ian Bassin, co-founder and executive director of Protect Democracy. 'It's important, if we believe in the rule of law, that we believe in it whether it is being weaponized against someone that we have sympathy for or someone that we have lost sympathy for.' Musk was not the only target of Trump's capricious vengeance. He also threatened to investigate the US citizenship of Zohran Mamdani, the Democrats' prospective candidate for mayor of New York who triumphed in a multicandidate primary election, and publicly called on officials to explore the possibility of arresting Alejandro Mayorkas, the former head of homeland security in the Biden administration. Both scenarios were raised during a highly stage-managed visit to 'Alligator Alcatraz', a forbidding new facility built to house undocumented people rounded up as part of Trump's flagship mass-deportation policy. After gleefully conjuring images of imprisoned immigrants being forced to flee from alligators and snakes presumed to reside in the neighbouring marshlands, Trump seized on obliging questions from friendly journalists working for rightwing fringe outlets that have been accredited by the administration for White House news events, often at the expense of established media. 'Why hasn't he been arrested yet?' asked Julio Rosas from Blaze Media, referring to Mayorkas, who was widely vilified – and subsequently impeached – by Republicans who blamed him for a record number of immigrant crossings at the southern US border. 'Was he given a pardon, Mayorkas?' Trump replied. On being told no, he continued: 'I'll take a look at that one because what he did is beyond incompetence … Somebody told Mayorkas to do that and he followed orders, but that doesn't necessarily hold him harmless.' Asked by Benny Johnson, a rightwing social media influencer, for his message to 'communist' Mamdani – a self-proclaimed democratic socialist – over his pledge not to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) roundups of undocumented people if he is elected mayor, Trump said: 'Then we will have to arrest him. We don't need a communist in this country. I'm going to be watching over him very carefully on behalf of the nation.' He also falsely suggested that Mamdani, 33 – who became a naturalized US citizen in 2018 after emigrating from Uganda with his ethnic Indian parents when he was a child – was in the country 'illegally', an assertion stemming from a demand by a Republican representative for a justice department investigation into his citizenship application. The representative, Andy Ogles of Tennessee, alleged that Mamdani, who has vocally campaigned for Palestinian rights, gained it through 'willful misrepresentation or concealment of material support for terrorism'. The threat to Mamdani echoed a threat Trump's border 'czar' Tom Homan made to arrest Gavin Newsom, the California governor, last month amid a row over Trump's deployment of national guard forces in Los Angeles to confront demonstrators protesting against Ice's arrests of immigrants. Omar Noureldin, senior vice-president with Common Cause, a pro-democracy watchdog, said the animus against Mamdani, who is Muslim, was partly fueled by Islamophobia and racism. 'Part of the rhetoric we've heard around Mamdani, whether from the president or other political leaders, goes toward his religion, his national origin, race, ethnicity,' he said. 'Mamdani has called himself a democratic socialist. There are others, including Bernie Sanders, who call themselves that, but folks aren't questioning whether or not Bernie Sanders should be a citizen.' Retribution promised to be a theme of Trump's second presidency even before he returned to the Oval Office in January. On the campaign trail last year, he branded some political opponents – including Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, and Nancy Pelosi, the former speaker of the House of Representatives – as 'the enemy within'. Since his inauguration in January, he has made petty acts of revenge against both Democrats and Republicans who have crossed him. Biden; Kamala Harris, the former vice-president and last year's defeated Democratic presidential nominee; and Hillary Clinton, Trump's 2016 opponent, have all had their security clearances revoked. Secret Service protection details have been removed from Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, who served in Trump's first administration, despite both being the subject of death threats from Iran because of the 2020 assassination of Qassem Suleimani, a senior Revolutionary Guards commander. Similar fates have befallen Anthony Fauci, the infectious diseases specialist who angered Trump over his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, as well as Biden's adult children, Hunter and Ashley. Trump has also targeted law firms whose lawyers previously acted against him, prompting some to strike deals that will see them perform pro bono services for the administration. For now, widely anticipated acts of retribution against figures like Gen Mark Milley, the former chair of the joint chiefs of staff of the armed forces – whom Trump previously suggested deserved to be executed for 'treason' and who expressed fears of being recalled to active duty and then court-martialed – have not materialised. 'I [and] people in my world expected that Trump would come up with investigations of any number of people, whether they were involved in the Russia investigation way back when, or the election investigation, or the January 6 insurrection, but by and large he hasn't done that,' said one veteran Washington insider, who requested anonymity, citing his proximity to people previously identified as potential Trump targets. 'There are all kinds of lists floating around … with names of people that might be under investigation, but you'll never know you're under investigation until police turn up on your doorstep – and these people are just getting on with their lives.' Yet pro-democracy campaigners say Trump's latest threats should be taken seriously – especially after several recent detentions of several elected Democratic officials at protests near immigration jails or courts. In the most notorious episode, Alex Padilla, a senator from California, was forced to the floor and handcuffed after trying to question Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, at a press conference. 'When the president of the United States, the most powerful person in the world, threatens to arrest you, that's as serious as it gets,' said Bassin, a former White House counsel in Barack Obama's administration. 'Whether the DoJ [Department of Justice] opens an investigation or seeks an indictment, either tomorrow, next year or never is beside the point. The threat itself is the attack on our freedoms, because it's designed to make us all fear that if any one of us opposes or even just criticises the president, we risk being prosecuted.' While some doubt the legal basis of Trump's threats to Musk, Mayorkas and Mamdani, Noureldin cautioned that they should be taken literally. 'Trump is verbose and grandiose, but I think he also backs up his promises with action,' he said. 'When the president of the United States says something, we have to take it as serious and literal. I wouldn't be surprised if at the justice department, there is a group of folks who are trying to figure out a way to [open prosecutions].' But the bigger danger was to the time-honored American notion of freedom, Bassin warned. 'One definition of freedom is that you are able to speak your mind, associate with who you want, lead the life that you choose to lead, and that so long as you conduct yourself in accordance with the law, the government will not retaliate against you or punish you for doing those things,' he said. 'When the president of the United States makes clear that actually that is not the case, that if you say things he doesn't like, you will be singled out, and the full force of the state could be brought down on your head, then you're no longer free. 'And if he's making clear that that's true for people who have the resources of Elon Musk or the political capital of a Mayorkas or a Mamdani, imagine what it means for people who lack those positions or resources.'


BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Who get nuclear weapons and how dem take get am?
Eighty years afta di United States detonate di first nuclear bomb, Iran nuclear programme don dey di centre of a major escalation of hostilities for di Middle East. On 2 July, Iran president sign a law wey suspend cooperation wit di UN nuclear watchdog, di International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), afta Israel and di United States attack nuclear facilities for June. Israel and di US both tok say di attacks dey necessary to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. E remain unclear exactly how much damage di attacks do and wetin di fallout fit be for di region and di UN Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), wey come into force 55 years ago and don help limit di spread of nuclear weapons. Nine kontris dey known to get nuclear weapons. How dem take get am and odas fit get am too? Join Pidgin WhatsApp Channel for more tori about nuclear weapons and oda topics. Who get nuclear weapons? Di United States, Russia, di United Kingdom, China, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea dey known to get nuclear weapons, though Israel na di only one of dis wey neva confam dis officially. Di United States become di first nuclear power afta dem secretly develop di weapons as part of di Manhattan Project during World War Two. Di US deploy di weapons for 1945, dropp atomic bombs for Hiroshima and Nagasaki for Japan, wey be one of di Axis powers - a military coalition wey also include Nazi Germany and Italy and wey di Allied forces dey at war wit. Di blasts dey estimated to have killed at least 200,000 pipo. Dis remain di only time nuclear weapons dey used for conflict. Arms control expert Dr Patricia Lewis say dis na di "real opening salvo of di nuclear arms race", wey prompt oda kontris, notably di Soviet Union, to urgently seek to build dia own nuclear weapons, both as a deterrent against attack and to project power regionally and globally. Wetin happun next? Less than two years afta World War Two end, di Cold War begin - a global power struggle between di United States and di Soviet Union and both sides allies wey last for more dan 40 years and at times bin threaten to escalate into nuclear conflict. Di Soviets begin attempt to build an atomic bomb during World War Two and succeed for 1949 wen dem conduct a successful test, wey end di US monopoly on nuclear weapons. Afta dis, both sides gada to develop nuclear weapons wey even dey more destructive. Ova di next 15 years, three more kontris become nuclear powers. For 1952, di UK, wey don collabo wit di US on nuclear weapons development during World War Two, become di third, followed by France for 1960 and China for 1964. When did other countries acquire nuclear weapons? By the 1960s, the five nuclear powers - the US, Soviet Union, the UK, France, and China - were firmly established. But fears grew that the number of nuclear-armed states could rise significantly. In response, the United Nations introduced the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), designed to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons, promote disarmament, and facilitate peaceful use of nuclear energy. Di treaty enta into force for 1970, but no be all kontris sign am, and nuclear weapons really spread. India become a nuclear power for 1974 and Pakistan for 1998. Two of dem no di treaty, in part becos of security concerns wey each of dem get about di oda. Israel no also neva sign di treaty. Israeli officials don consistently point to regional threats and tensions and di hostility of many of dia neighbours as reasons why dem no sign di treaty. E don maintain a policy of nuclear ambiguity - wey mean say dem no confam or deny say dem get nuclear weapons. North Korea initially sign di agreement, only to withdraw for 2003, blaming US and South Korean joint military exercises. For 2006, e explode a nuclear weapon during a test. South Sudan, wey dem found for 2011 na di only oda UN member state wey no be signatory of di treaty. Iran get nuclear weapons? "As far as we know" Iran neva built a bomb yet, Andrew Futter, a professor of international politics for di University of Leicester for di UK tok. E add say, "but technically or technologically, e no get real reason why dem no fit do dat." Iran, a signatory of di Non-Proliferation Treaty, don always tok say dia nuclear programme dey peaceful and dat e neva try to develop a nuclear weapon. Howeva, a decade-long investigation by di UN nuclear watchdog, di International Atomic Energy Agency, find evidence dat Iran conduct "a range of activities relevant to di development of a nuclear explosive device" from di late 1980s until 2003, wen projects under wetin dey known as "Project Amad" bin stop. For 2015, Iran agree a deal wit six world powers under wia e accept restrictions on dia nuclear activities and allow monitoring by di IAEA inspectors in return for relief from crippling international sanctions. But US President Donald Trump abandon di deal during im first term for 2018, e say e do too little to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and bring back di sanctions. Iran retaliated by repeatedly breaching IAEA restrictions, particularly dose wey dey related to uranium enrichment. On 12 June 2025, di IAEA 35-nation board of govnors declare say Iran, for di first time for 20 years don breach di non-proliferation obligations. Di next day, Israel launch a series of strikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets. E later dey joined by dia close ally, di US, wey hit three of Iran nuclear facilities, including di underground Fordo site. Israel get nuclear weapons? Israel neva officially confam say e get nuclear weapons but e dey widely believed say dem get significant arsenal. For October 1986 an Israeli nuclear technician, Mordechai Vanunu, pass details to di British newspaper di Sunday Times say Israel possess a nuclear weapons programme far bigger and more advanced dan dem previously tink. For dis dem imprisoned am for Israel for 18 years, and release am for 2004. According to di Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), a tink tank, Israel dey modernise dia arsenal. For 2024, Israel conduct a test of a missile propulsion system "wey fit dey related to dia Jericho family of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles" and e appear to dey upgrade dia plutonium production site at Dimona, SIPRI tok. Israel don act militarily to prevent regional rivals from acquiring nuclear capabilities. In addition to dia strikes on Iran, dem bomb a nuclear reactor for Iraq for 1981 and a suspected nuclear site for Syria for 2007. Which kontris abandone dia nuclear programmes? Oda kontris, such as Brazil, Sweden, and Switzerland, start dey work towards building nuclear weapons only to later abandon dia programmes, either voluntarily or sake of external pressure. South Africa na di only kontri for di world to successfully build nuclear weapons and den disarm dem and dismantled dia nuclear programme. "Dat still stand out as a pretty significant outlier for di nuclear age - of a state wey build dia own nuclear weapons and den decide to disarm," Futter say. Di decision dey driven by a combination of factors, including di end of di apartheid regime, a decrease in regional conflicts, and shifting global political dynamics. Afta di collapse of di Soviet Union for 1991, three newly independent states - Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan - inherite nuclear arms but give am up. Ukraine give up dia weapons in return for security guarantees from di US, the UK, and Russia under di 1994 Budapest Memorandum. But Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky don repeatedly argue say im kontri - wey don dey in conflict wit Russian forces for ova a decade bin gain little for giving up di weapons. How many nuclear weapons dey dia? Becos govment rarely disclose full details of dia nuclear arsenals, e dey difficult to know exactly how many weapons each kontei get. But according to di SIPRI tink tank, di world nuclear powers possess an estimated total of 12,241 warheads as of January 2025, wit Russia and di US holding about 90% of di global stockpile. Although di dismantling of retired warheads don generally pass di deployment of new ones, dis trend dey likely to reverse "for di coming years", di tink tank say. More kontris fit build nuclear weapons? Wetin happun wit Iran nuclear programme dey likely to influence weda oda kontris dey consider to build nuclear weapons, sabi pesin tok. Following di Israeli and US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities for June, US President Donald Trump declare Iran nuclear programme don dey put back by "decades". For July, di Pentagon say US strikes don degrade Iran nuclear programme by up to two years. If Iran really develop a nuclear weapon, oda kontris for di Middle East, notably Saudi Arabia, fit seek to develop dia own, Futter say. "I tink Saudi Arabia dey pretty clear say dem no currently want a nuclear capability, but a nuclear-armed Iran fit change di game entirely," e say. "How quick or easy dat go dey to do na anoda kwesion." Dr Lewis tok say "high risk" of Iran withdrawing from di NPT, wey in turn go increase di likelihood of odas to comot. Dis go be a "body blow" for di treaty but not necessarily fatal, she say. But even if oda states decide to attempt to build nuclear weapons, Dr Lewis say e get significant challenges to overcome, notably to acquire enriched uranium or weapons-grade plutonium, both of wey dey strictly controlled. She also highlights di financial burden. "E dey expensive and take years - especially if dem do am for secret. But dat neva stop poorer kontris like North Korea and Pakistan."