Letters to the Editor: Oil company decision to bypass Coastal Commission years after spill is ‘arrogant'
To the editor: Few communities know the devastation that oil drilling can produce as much as Santa Barbara ('Under Trump, Texas firm pushes to restart Santa Barbara oil drilling. Is it skirting California laws?' April 6). We have seen our beaches drenched in oil, our land despoiled and wildlife killed. Sable Offshore Corp. is full of promises that its operations will be safe and secure. Yet its arrogant actions to ignore cease-and-desist orders from the California Coastal Commission warn us that it cannot be trusted.
America produces more oil and gas than any other country on Earth. Do we need to risk despoiling a pristine coastal area to get more? Despite the Trump administration's 'drill-baby-drill' policies, responsible world leaders are phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to cheaper, safer renewable energy.
The city of Santa Barbara's 2024 Climate Action Plan, 'Together to Zero,' provides a road map aimed at achieving carbon neutrality by 2035. There's no place in that plan for more oil and gas.
Robert Taylor, Santa Barbara
..
To the editor: I was a young mother in Santa Barbara at the time of the 1969 spill, a lawyer for Santa Barbara County at the time of the Exxon Alaska spill, when the county had to consider 'tankering' of oil from offshore platforms, and I was a public member of the Coastal Commission in 2015, when the Refugio spill — the one from the same pipeline at issue now — poured from onshore, into the ocean, damaging 100 miles of coastline.
This is exactly why we have a strong, statewide Coastal Act. Sable's claim that it doesn't need permits for repairs in environmentally sensitive habitat is specious, and it has preemptively sued the commission. Now that Sable has acquired Exxon's processing plant, as well as the pipeline — 10 years after the Refugio spill — for the sake of all our children, and grandchildren, all the permits should be revoked or deemed abandoned.
Jana Zimmer, Santa Barbara
..
To the editor: The 1969 Santa Barbara disaster, the 'environmental shot heard round the world,' helped lead to the founding of America's most powerful coastal regulatory agency, the California Coastal Commission. The agency was singular for many reasons. Foremost, it was birthed by the people in 1972's Proposition 20 and codified four years later with passage of the California Coastal Act. Oil drilling off our storied coast was thereby regulated. Texas-based Sable is working to unravel the commission's regulatory authority. We must fight this effort. Contact Sacramento officials. Remind them that our treasured coast is the soul of California.
Tom Osborne, Laguna Beach
...
To the editor: In the same April 6 edition of The Times there is an article about a Texas oil company trying to resume drilling off the coast of Santa Barbara and then a few pages later another article about an oil company that has been found liable for damaging coastal Louisiana ('Chevron ordered to pay more than $740 million to restore Louisiana coast in landmark trial,' April 6). What's that definition of insanity again?
Larry Harmell, Granada Hills
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
34 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Approval Rating Falls to Lowest Point
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Several polls show that Trump's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low for his second term. The latest Gallup poll, conducted between June 2-19 among 1,000 adults, shows that Trump's net approval rating stands at -17 points, with 40 percent approving and 57 percent disapproving. That is done from -10 points in May, the previous lowest result recorded by Gallup. The poll had a margin of error of ± 4 percent. Meanwhile, the latest YouGov/Economist poll, conducted between June 20-23 among 1,590 adults, shows Trump with a net approval rating of -14 points, with 40 percent approving and 54 percent disapproving—down slightly from -13 last week. The poll had a margin of error of ± 3.5 percent. Similarly, a new Bullfinch Group poll, conducted between June 17-20 among 1,006 registered voters, puts his net approval at -13 points, with 41 percent approval and 54 percent disapproval. That marks a sharp drop from -5 in May. The poll's margin of error was ± 3.1 percent. Why It Matters The drop comes amid a broader downward trend in Trump's approval rating, which was particularly pronounced after his "Liberation Day" tariffs. But the question of direct U.S. involvement in the conflict between Israel and Iran has visibly contributed to the drop as polls have shown the majority of voters do not support it. Trump ordered airstrikes against three key Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend. In retaliation, Iran fired missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters before boarding Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House, Tuesday, June 24, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters before boarding Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House, Tuesday, June 24, 2025, in Washington. Evan Vucci/AP What To Know The latest Ipsos/Reuters, American Research Group polls also show Trump's net approval rating at record lows for his second term. In the Ipsos/Reuters poll, conducted between June 21-23 among 1,139 registered voters, Trump's net approval rating stood at -16 points, with 41 percent approving and 57 percent disapproving. That is down from a previous low of net approval of -12 points in last week's poll. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Similarly, in the latest American Research Group poll, conducted June 17-20 among 1,100 adults, Trump's net approval rating hit -21 points, with 38 percent approving and 59 percent disapproving, down from a low of -14 points in the previous poll conducted in May. The latest Morning Consult poll, conducted between June 20-22 among 2,205 registered voters, did not show Trump's approval rating at an all-time low. But it did show a notable decline in Trump's approval rating, with 45 percent approving and 53 percent disapproving, giving him a net approval rating of -8 points. That is down from a -6 net approval rating in the previous poll. The margin of error is plus or minus 2 points. Other polls have shown a downward trend in Trump's approval rating in recent days. In the latest J.L. Partners poll, conducted on June 16-17, Trump's approval held steady at 48 percent. But disapproval was up 11 points to 51 percent since the last poll in February. Still, a handful of polls recorded slight gains for Trump, though largely within the margin of error. In the latest Echelon Insights poll (June 17-18), Trump's approval rating was up 2 points at -4, while disapproval was down by 1 point compared to last month. Poll Date Approve Disapprove YouGov/Economist June 20-23 40 54 Ipsos/Reuters June 21-23 41 57 Morning Consult June20-22 45 53 Bullfinch Group June 17-20 41 54 American Research Group June 17-20 38 59 Trafalgar Group June 18-20 54 45 RMG Research June 11-19 53 46 Gallup June 2-19 40 57 Echelon Insights June 17-18 48 52 J.L. Partners June 16-17 46 51 And the most recent RMG Research poll, conducted between June 11-19, put his approval rating up one to 53 points, while his disapproval rating remained the same at 46 points. In the latest Trafalgar Group poll, conducted between June 18-20, 54 percent approved of Trump's job performance, while 45 percent disapproved, giving him a net approval of +9 points. That is up from +8 in last month's poll, when 54 percent approved and 46 percent disapproved. What Happens Next Trump's approval rating could fluctuate in the coming weeks, depending on the outcome of key events.
New York Post
39 minutes ago
- New York Post
Inside 'Pickaxe Mountain': Iran's underground fortress — that may be stashing uranium
An under construction hidden fortress in Iran — known as 'Pickaxe Mountain' — may potentially be housing any uranium stockpiles that Tehran managed to smuggle out before the US bombed its nuclear sites. The deeply buried installation, which is just minutes from the Natanz nuclear facility — one of the three sites struck over the weekend, has been quietly reinforced in recent years. Multiple reports have now suggested that Pickaxe could be the perfect hiding place for uranium — as speculation mounted that Iran may have been able to remove its cache before the attacks unfolded over the weekend. Advertisement 3 Satellite image of the Natanz uranium enrichment site construction area in Iran. DigitalGlobe/Getty Images Open-source satellite images taken Thursday and Friday showed scores of cargo-style trucks lined up outside of Fordow, arousing suspicion that the theocratic regime could have moved its stockpile of enriched uranium. Almost 900 pounds of uranium enriched to 60% purity has been unaccounted for since the Israeli airstrikes began on June 13. Meanwhile, Iran has been cagey about the Pickaxe Mountain site after satellite imagery emerged earlier this year showing a new deeply buried tunnel and security perimeter close to the existing Natanz site. Advertisement The director general of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency asked Tehran in April about what was going on there — but got a blunt response. 'Since it is obvious it is in a place where numerous and important activities related to the program are taking place, we're asking them, what is this for? They are telling us, it's none of your business,' Rafael Grossi, the director general, said at the time. He added that it 'cannot be excluded' the tunnels would store undeclared material but said he didn't want to speculate on intentions. Advertisement 3 Images released by US defense contractor Maxar Technologies showed more than a dozen trucks lined up outside Iran's Fordow nuclear facility just days before the US carried out its large-scale airstrikes. Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies/AFP via Getty Images 'I've been raising this issue repeatedly, and I will continue to do so,' Grossi said. It wasn't immediately clear if Pickaxe suffered any damage during the latest strikes that targeted Natanz, as well as the Fordow and Isfahan nuclear facilities. President Trump, for his part, has insisted Iran wouldn't have been able to remove any uranium being enriched at the sites before the attacks. Advertisement 3 The deeply buried installation is just minutes from the Natanz nuclear facility. DigitalGlobe/Getty Images 'They didn't have a chance to get anything out because we acted fast,' Trump said Wednesday. 'It would have taken two weeks, maybe. But it's very hard to remove that kind of material, very hard and very dangerous for them to remove it.' Trump, too, has insisted his attacks 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear program and the White House has dismissed a leaked preliminary intelligence assessment suggesting Tehran could salvage it within months.
The Hill
39 minutes ago
- The Hill
US, Iran talks ‘promising': Trump envoy
Steve Witkoff, U.S. special envoy to the Middle East, said Tuesday that talks with Tehran for a long-term peace agreement are 'promising' — a day after President Trump announced a temporary ceasefire agreement after 12 days of conflict between Iran and Israel. In an interview on Fox News Channel's 'The Ingraham Angle,' Witkoff said discussions with Iranian officials were already underway, as the fragile U.S.-brokered ceasefire appears to be holding. 'The president has said unequivocally that he wants to see — and he's hopeful for — a comprehensive peace agreement that goes beyond even the ceasefire,' Witkoff told host Laura Ingraham. 'We're already talking to each other, not just directly, but also through interlocutors,' he continued. 'I think that the conversations are promising.' The envoy, who has participated in negotiations with Iran on the Trump administration's behalf, said he's 'confident' about the prospects for a deal, which he said would ensure 'long-term prosperity' for Iran. 'We're hopeful that we can have a long-term peace agreement that resurrects Iran, that brings it into the League of Nations, that creates long-term prosperity for Iran and, most importantly, allows for the GCC to grow economically,' Witkoff said, using an acronym for the Gulf Cooperation Council. He also touted Trump's authorization of U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, saying, 'Eliminating this risk was crucial to the economic future and prosperity of the entire Gulf region.' 'And we've achieved that,' Witkoff continued. 'So, I think now it's time for us to sit down with the Iranians and get to a comprehensive peace agreement.' He added, 'And I'm very confident that we're going to achieve that.' Ingraham then asked Witkoff whether a potential deal with Iran would allow for any uranium enrichment. 'No,' Witkoff said, without hesitation. 'They don't need it,' the special envoy, who has also been instrumental in Russia-Ukraine peace talks, continued. 'What they need is a civil, non-enrichment program, just like Abu Dhabi has. They're running a reactor like that, called Bushehr, where they don't have enrichment, and they're getting fuel from the outside. And we're going to work with them on this. But what they don't need is enrichment.' His comments come as multiple outlets reported that Saturday's strikes likely only set Tehran's nuclear program back by a few months. The administration has vowed to investigate the reports, which contrast Trump's rhetoric that the attacks 'destroyed' Iran's nuclear capabilities. Witkoff and others have called the leaks 'treasonous.'
