39 / Theatre Review

London is a great place for theater. In our five days here, Marilyn has seen Twelfth Night, by the Royal Shakespeare Company (to which she did not give a great review) and we together have seen:

Every Good Boy Deserves Favour
The extremely popular War Horse
The Thirty-Nine Steps
Six Degrees of Separation at the Old Vic
The Misanthrope, with Kiera Knightley
Becket's Waiting For Godot with Ian McKellen

These plays were "all good," but the performance of Waiting For Godot was the best I've ever seen and the new version of The Misanthrope, by Moliere by way of contemporary author Martin Crimp, was spectacular. Speaking of spectacular, War Horse is the probably the most spectacular puppet show you'll ever see, if you favor puppet shows!

38 / The "Local"

In Britain, "living locally" definitely means patronizing a neighborhood "local," sometimes also called the "public house," or "pub" for short.

The Sherlock Holmes on Northumberland boasts a full restaurant menu. It's good!

The Coal Hole, on the Strand, has terrific pies (I particularly recommend the lamb-apricot).

I haven't been inside the Bung Hole (at least not yet), but I do like the name. It's on High Holborn, and I guess it's supposed to be a wine bar. As you can tell from the link, it doesn't get universally good reviews, but with apologies to one of my legal colleagues (you know who you are, Bill), I am almost positive you can get a Guinness at the Bung Hole, and I doubt you can go wrong with that.

The idea that our daily existence might, quite logically, revolve in significant part around a privately-owned but "public" house, "local" to one's place of residence, indicates that there are different approaches to social organization. Having now been able to witness the "pub scene" up close, I'm thinking that had I been brought up in England (or Ireland), I'd be putting down a Guinness daily. For a non-drinker, that's saying something!

37 / Look Right

I like the fact that the London curbs provide a reminder that different social choices have been made here than in some other places, and that if you'd like to avoid being creamed by a double-decker you should "look right" as you leave the safety of the sidewalk.

The realities of our human-created world are infinitely malleable. It's our choice, and there's no "right" answer, in the sense of any "inevitable" answer, to how things are "supposed to be."

Things are quite different in the Natural World, where natural laws control. There, you may or may not "look right," but you had better "do right," or you'll be creamed for sure.

36 / Restaurant Review

On a sunny Friday in London it turned out to be possible, for almost the entire day, to forget the controversies and philosophical thoughts that mostly preoccupy me - even on a trip intended to provide a respite from such cares.

First, a nice long walk from the Grand Hotel on Trafalgar Square to the British Library; then, lunch with a British friend; then, an unexpected trip by bus to the Old Vic, to see a free performance of Six Degrees of Separation; then, a quick drink at the Royal Festival Hall, a walk along the banks of the Thames, past the British Film Institute and the skateboarders and the outdoor book fair, to a performance of Top Stoppard's Every Good Boy Deserves Favour at the National Theatre. Finally, a walk back across the Golden Jubilee Bridge to the Embankment Underground Station, close by the hotel.

Here's what I left out: dinner at the Giraffe Restaurant and Bar (very near the National Theatre). This place gets a rave review for food, atmosphere, and friendly service. I promised them a blog reference. They deserve it! Next time in London, head for the Giraffe!

35 / An Exchange of Correspondence

My postings to this blog are intended to reflect my thinking on how the world we create by our own "political" actions (the world we most immediately inhabit) relates to the World of Nature. In the World of Nature, human beings are "creatures," not "creators." It is this World of Nature upon which all life ultimately depends, including our own, and to the extent we forget our ultimate dependence upon the World of Nature we put all life in peril.

For me, an "environmentalist" is someone who appreciates both that we are ultimately dependent on the World of Nature, and thus must respect its laws and limits, and that we are also creative beings in our own world, a world created by our own "political" choices. True "environmentalists," thus, seek to use the political powers to which we have access to change the realities of our world, and to reflect in our world the laws and limits of the Natural World that we do not create, and upon which all life ultimately depends.

One thing we now know is that the political choices we have made in our world, basing our civilizations on the burning of hydrocarbons, is radically undermining the long term stability and viability of the World of Nature, and that we need, as a matter of the very greatest urgency, to stop burning carbon fuels.

For me, therefore, every expression of satisfaction about the "discovery" of a new oil field, or every effort further to develop and exploit oil fields that we already know about, sends exactly the wrong message, from an environmental point of view. The momentum of our past choices is carrying us forward towards the continued use of hydrocarbon fuels; that's understood, but it's not a fact that should be celebrated, and "environmentalists" should not be continuing to push forward this wheel of doom.

In this context, I have personally concluded that the "Tranquillon Ridge" oil development proposal, as touted by Governor Schwarzenegger among others, would be terribly detrimental. The idea is to allow new oil drilling on the Tranquillon Ridge, in "state waters," with the promise that this new drilling will be coupled with the cessation of other oil drilling in federal waters, and with some land donations, and that the upshot of new oil production on the Tranquillon Ridge will be to ratchet down oil development in the future. (Incidentally, or maybe not incidentally, the oil company involved, and the State of California, would make a lot of money).

Because I continue to participate in a nationwide coalition of environmentalists against offshore oil drilling (a coalition I and other Santa Cruz County officials helped create) I am aware that the approval of the Tranquillon Ridge "deal" by California will almost certainly assist efforts to open up new OCS oil drilling around the nation's coasts, including new drilling in federal waters off California. Several days ago, I wrote about this, and expressed my opposition, and I heard just this morning from one of the attorneys for the Environmental Defense Center, the environmental group based in Santa Barbara that has been spearheading environmental support for the Tranquillon Ridge deal. Thus, I can now add the following exchange of correspondence.

Environmental lobbyists will be meeting today (Thursday) in Sacramento, to debate the merits of the Tranquillon Ridge proposal. I wish I could be there!

From: Gary Patton
To: lkrop@edcnet.org

Linda:

I am on an "around the world" trip, and will be until March 15th, so I am out of telephone contact. The best email for me is: gapatton@stanfordalumni.org. I think that Pedro Nava reprinted and distributed an item from my blog (www.gapatton.net) which commented on the paid lobbyist issue. I haven't seen what he did. While I do have email access, I am mostly out doing things during the day (or most recently sleeping off jet lag), and so I am not on my computer on a constant basis, as I normally am. Thus, I've just woken up (in London), and see that I have nine pages of email items to review, including this email from you, which is near the top of the list. I haven't reviewed the other nine pages, nor have I seen the item to which you are responding. Hopefully, Pedro did not misquote my blog post.

As to what I said on my blog post, I do think that the EDC has put itself in in untenable position vis a vis the paid lobbyist issue. PCL, the Sierra Club, NRDC, and other environmental groups, as you probably know, did recently complete an extensive set of negotiations with a major landowner and several developers (the Tejon Ranch negotiations) in which the environmental groups signed off on an agreement that they thought had environmental benefits (other environmental groups disagreed). This is pretty much the same kind of thing that the EDC has done with Tranquillon Ridge, and I don't fault the EDC for that effort.

Additionally, I don't fault EDC for recovering its costs of negotiation. The environmental groups negotiating on Tejon recovered their costs of negotiation, too.

Here's the problem I see with the agreement you executed: instead of simply agreeing "not to oppose" the deal you negotiated (as the groups did in Tejon) you negotiated an agreement to "support" the deal. Further, and this is the real problem I tried to identify in my blog post, you contracted to support the agreement by actively lobbying with governmental agencies having approval power whenever PxP requests you to do so, not as EDC may independently decide. Therefore, by the terms of your contract, EDC is no longer an independent voice on this proposed deal; you are the voice of PxP with respect to the benefits or not of the deal you negotiated.

I realize, on the merits, that there are arguments for the agreement. However, the arguments pro and con were not debated generally in the environmental community prior to the agreement being finalized, and so we can only comment on the agreement now, after it has (reluctantly) been made public by EDC. I, personally, think that the contract is a "bad deal" for the environment, particularly as it will almost certainly "undo" efforts at the Congressional level to constrain future developments on the federal OCS. Naturally, I'm sorry that EDC thought otherwise, though I respect the difference of opinion.

The lobbying provisions of the contract, however, make it clear that EDC's current position is, of necessity, the position of PxP, and so for those who tend to suspect that PxP sees this deal from the perspective of making money for PxP, instead of from the perspective of environmental protection, it means that any arguments by EDC at this juncture should receive exactly the same deference that an argument by a paid lobbyist for PxP would make. Oil companies do have good arguments, sometimes, and environmental lobbyists are used to negotiating with lobbyists for the oil industry, and I hope that environmental lobbyists approach that kind of negotiation professionally, focusing on the merits. But make no mistake, from my point of view EDC should be treated like any other paid lobbyist for the Tranquillon Ridge deal; you are getting money for supporting the project. What the environmental groups in Sacramento should do should be based completely on what they think about the merits of the proposal.

As I say, on merits, I think it's a "bad deal" for the environment, and lobbyists used to dealing with the "fix is in" type of proposals (and this is one of them) will be legitimately skeptical that opening up new drilling in state waters is going to lead to a good long term result.

Sorry we disagree on this one. Best!

Gary A. Patton

=================================

From: Linda Krop [mailto:lkrop@edcnet.org]
To: gapatton@wittwerparkin.com

Dear Gary:

I wish you had spoken with me first. At least as a courtesy. But also to be responsible and get the facts. I can respond to these allegations and accusations. (E.g., I am not a paid lobbyist for PXP. I am an attorney representing Get Oil Out! and Citizens Planning Association, two groups that have been fighting offshore oil for more than 40 years.) Please, let's talk, and next time please talk to me before writing something like this. I would certainly have done the same for you.

Linda Krop, Chief Counsel
Environmental Defense Center
906 Garden Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone (805) 963-1622, x106
Fax (805) 962-3152
www.edcnet.org

34 / All Politics Is Local

A fifteen-hour flight from Singapore to London provides a convincing demonstration that "living globally" is highly unnatural. I just experienced such a flight, and it convinced me that there is a very good reason that the slogan says "think" globally, but "act" locally.

To the extent that things are "natural" they are, by definition, rooted in the specifics of local places, climates, cultures, and customs. And to the extent that Tip O'Neill was right (and I'm inclined to think he was) all "politics" is "local," too.

"Politics" is the activity by which we decide, together, what sort of world we want to live in. But we live today as if we were able to make such decisions on a "global" scale. The "New World Order" of George Bush is inherently anti-political and unnatural, and yet that is the model by which we are attempting to define our future.

No wonder we have lost touch with the World of Nature. We act like it doesn't matter.

33 / Losing Touch With The Natural World

The International Herald Tribune is the English language paper of choice for U.S. travelers outside the United States (though I must say that the South China Morning Post, available in Hong Kong, is also a very good English language paper).

At any rate, the Monday, February 1, 2010 edition of the International Herald Tribune, as placed outside my hotel door in Singapore, had an interesting column by Tom Zeller, Jr., titled "Failed efforts in protecting biodiversity."

The phrase that particularly caught my eye was this one: "That developed societies are losing touch with the natural world is not exactly news..."

Well, it isn't. And my tour of the growth spots in Asia, including Hong Kong and Singapore, convinces me that we have, indeed, lost touch with even the existence of the natural world. The focus of human activity, everywhere, is to build a world that is of, by, and for the humans, without much attention, in any way, to the ultimate dependence of everything we do on the World of Nature.

The photo illustrating today's posting is of the Marina Bay Sands, a new casino under construction in Singapore, and due to open by the end of this year. It is truly one of the most striking architectural constructions I have ever seen, resembling a ship stranded in mid-air. The link shows what it's going to look like when it is done.

Zeller quotes Ray Anderson, the founder of "Interface," a carpetinbg conmpany, and the author of the book Confessions of a Radical Industrialist: Profits, People, Purpose - Doing Business by Respecting the Earth:

There's a web of life and we're part of it. We're not above it and we're not outside it.

So true. But as the new Singapore casino illustrates by its very design, we continue to think that we can sail on in a world that we make ourselves, and remain, as we build our world, above it all!

32 / Tranquillon Ridge

Despite the formidable distractions to be found in Singapore, I've been spending a lot of time thinking about an upcoming meeting of environmental lobbyists, scheduled for next Thursday in Sacramento. If I were in California, I'd be at that meeting.

A group called the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), based in Santa Barbara, has negotiated a "deal" with the Plains Exploration and Production Company (PxP), a Delaware Corporation which has its main offices in Houston, Texas. You can click this link to see an actual copy of the agreement. The "deal" memorializes the support of the EDC for new offshore oil drilling on the Tranquillon Ridge, which is located in "state waters" off Santa Barbara County.

The most incredible part of this contract between the EDC and the oil company is the EDC's promise to lobby in favor of the deal before relevant governmental agencies, whenever the oil company asks the EDC to do that, with the oil company promising to pay the EDC for undertaking this lobbying work. Check out Paragraph 2.1. That is exactly what the agreement says. The EDC, in other words, a California nonprofit, is now a paid lobbyist for a Texas-based oil company, and is contractually committed to try to convince the State Legislature, and other state and federal agencies, to let PxP develop a new oil field in "state waters" off Santa Barbara County. It is in connection with this pledge to the oil company that EDC has asked the environmental lobbyists in Sacramento to listen to their "pitch" for the Tranquillon Ridge development.

If you've been following this issue at all, you'll remember that this PxP-EDC "deal" was first made public last year (though the contract itself was not made public until recently) and that the State Lands Commission rejected the PxP proposal. Among other things, the State Lands Commission determined that most of the "good things" for the public promised in the agreement were unenforceable, but that once the oil company got its go ahead the State would be irrevocably committed to the new offshore oil development.

PxP (and the Environmental Defense Center, working as the paid lobbyist for PxP) has not been willing to take this "no" for an answer. Now, Governor Schwarzenegger has said, in his budget proposal for this year, that the money for our state parks should come from revenues to be generated from the new offshore oil development proposed by PxP. This budget demand that the state change its long term policy against new offshore oil development in state waters makes this a timely topic for the environmental lobbyists working in the State Capitol, even without the EDC's request that it be allowed to make a "pitch" in favor of the PxP proposal.

Much of the offshore oil drilling currently underway in the United States takes place in "federal waters," under the jurisdiction of the Minerals Management Service. The Tranquillon Ridge, however, being located in "state waters," is under the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission. What is not apparent, except to those deeply engaged in efforts to stop offshore oil drilling around the nation's coasts, is the tie between what is proposed for California and what the effect of an approval of this proposal would mean in the federal context. In short, approval of the PxP deal, as advocated by the EDC, would almost certainly lead to opening up federal waters to new oil development.

Starting in the mid-1970's, I helped spearhead an effort to stop new offshore oil production (first off California, and then, ultimately, in all federal waters not already committed to offshore oil production). It is little remembered now, but there is a pretty good argument that the nationwide fight against offshore oil development actually began in Santa Cruz County, which organized local governments along the California Coast to stop Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil drilling affecting California. First, we had to stop drilling in "state waters," but in order to be ultimately successful, we had to convince the federal government to stop drilling in "federal waters" outside of state control. Amazingly enough, we were very successful. For something like thirty years, thanks to the continuing work of a nationwide coalition, Congress has adopted an annual "moratorium" on new OCS development. Recognizing the strong support in Congress for this "containment" strategy, the first President Bush, and then President Clinton, established the same rule by Executive Order, preventing the spread of OCS development to areas not already committed to OCS production. That OCS "moratorium" by Executive Order held until the second President Bush eliminated it. Now, the future containment of new OCS development depends solely on what Congress decides, and the Congress is under great pressure by the oil industry to allow new OCS development.

If California reverses its long-held position against new OCS development in its own waters, the Congress is very likely to open up federal waters (including some off California) to new oil development.

The meeting Thursday in Sacramento is very important. That's why I wish I could be there!

31 / Shopping Tourism

I am in Singapore (shown here), a clean and neat business center with a nine billion dollar a year tourism industry based on shopping. And I am not just talking about the kind of shopping you find on Orchard Road, the street with the highest concentration of the indoor shopping malls that people come to Singapore to visit - the kind of shopping centers that feature a seemingly endless array high end shops, and in which you can literally get lost all day.



It turns out that "medical tourism" is also a big business in Singapore. According to a guide who spoke to me, 40% of the medical procedures carried out in Singapore hospitals are for visitors who have come to Singapore specifically for the operations they undergo.