There is a boatload (pardon the pun) of environmental wackiness out there to poke fun at. Things like draining our lake for the benefit of snails (or whatever aquatic dredge-fodder it was) while we all suffer toilets that won’t flush with the government-mandated tablespoon of water.

I become cynical despite being quite enamored of nature and the environment. I know, for example, when I sit down to watch an excellently produced nature program on Discover, that it IS coming- just a matter of when. It’s the one common denominator in every single broadcast of the genre: the animals are suffering and it’s MY fault. Every life form out there from the smallest flea to the largest mammal has a natural habitat and I am infringing on it in some way. Even the common chicken has a natural habitat- Gainesville. But as a human, I apparently do not have one.

But even an advocate of global warming like me cannot overlook the abhorrence of the Valdez accident and its environmental and economic impact. This was a preventable and inexcusable catastrophe and many of our fellow Americans still suffer for it. The real polluters, Exxon-Mobile in this case, want to seek cover in the overhyped environmental “crisis" rhetoric which is prevalent today and hope we chalk it up to yet another frivolous law suit. But as weary as I am of environmental hype and as bullish as I am on unadulterated American capitalism, I don’t patronize those jerks either. Frankly, I was hoping this debacle would end up putting them out of business. Unfortunately, they got off easy.

So…not that you probably care that much about the opinion of an old cynic like me, I think your article is right on. Not to say we can’t find some other issues to argue about though :). By the way, just kidding on being a proponent of global warming…but just to be safe, ask me in January when my pooch’s water bowl is frozen over for the third straight day- who knows?

J.G.

Debbie,

Nice entry.

Huge subject.

I think Exxon should have paid much more for the damages than it did.

The "case" did not include a "secret settlement" with the "Seattle Seven."

The Seattle Seven settled out of court and those damages were not included in calculating punitive damages.

If other settlements exist, and many out of court settlements include "no disclosure" clauses, then the punitive damages should be more than $500 million --- twenty years later.

With the damage payments to the Seattle Seven, the punitive damages, under the Supreme Court guidelines, should be more than $750 million.

The court, by the way, doesn't collect the money and hand it over. Exxon may just use their considerable legal team to start bargaining with individuals. Certainly after 20 years, some of the individuals in the case have died. They saw their way of earning a living, the value of their private property, and their cultural heritage all destroyed.

Mike