Re: Hawaii Superferry
Considering the sorts of things that are transported over our waterways for industrial and commercial purposes - much greater toxicity at much, much higher volumes - I would thing two consumer-serving vessels would be the least of their worries. If a Superferry has an accident, you might end up with a fuel spill and 250 cars at the bottom of the ocean, true. But what about a 70-year-old tanker? Or container ship? You could lose an entire rental car fleet, or have another Exxon Valdez.
I think it would take a Superferry years of abuse before it could do half of what that tanker did just last week off Kalaeloa.
Given the poll, I suppose I would be among the 80 percent disappointed. But I think the question should have allowed for people who are asking, "Why wasn't an EIS built into the master plan in the first place?" Well, more people should be asking that, anyway.
I also agree that the environmentalists are just an easy scapegoat. Behind every legislator pushing for this, you'll find ten "shipping companies, barge companies, airlines, car rental agencies, [and] taxi companies" for every long-haired hippie. In that sense, this is just business as usual for Hawaii politics.
Originally posted by Miulang
I think it would take a Superferry years of abuse before it could do half of what that tanker did just last week off Kalaeloa.
Given the poll, I suppose I would be among the 80 percent disappointed. But I think the question should have allowed for people who are asking, "Why wasn't an EIS built into the master plan in the first place?" Well, more people should be asking that, anyway.
I also agree that the environmentalists are just an easy scapegoat. Behind every legislator pushing for this, you'll find ten "shipping companies, barge companies, airlines, car rental agencies, [and] taxi companies" for every long-haired hippie. In that sense, this is just business as usual for Hawaii politics.
Comment