Post by ferryfast admin on Aug 30, 2007 0:35:04 GMT -5
Originally posted: August 28, 2007
Hawaii ferry a political test case
Posted by Toni Salama at 3:05 p.m. CDT.
An Opinion Posted to the Chicago Tribune Travel Blog
When it comes to environmental and cultural protest, Hawaii is no piker. Decades ago, the U.S. military appropriated the entire island of Kahoolawe for a bombing range. Historically, Hawaiians designated Kahoolawe as a university, where their most promising citizens were educated in religion, navigation, the healing arts and statesmanship. Using the island for target practice was as much an attack on the Hawaiian way of life as it was an assault on the land.
Hawaiians protested, worked for change and eventually won the island back as a sacred place. The clean-up is ongoing.
The Hawaiian language has been another battleground. The mother tongue of the islands was once banned. But Hawaiians didn't give up. They worked for reform, and now Hawaiian is one of the state's two official languages (the other being English), is taught in schools and can be overheard in everyday situations.
A few years ago, the citizens of Molokai nixed the idea of big passenger ships calling on their island. They were worried that so many tourists descending at once for shore excursions would change the character of their laid-back island for the worse.
Now the Hawaii Superferry, which started service Sunday between Oahu and Kauai, is at issue. The state Supreme Court ruled last week that the state should have required an environmental report before the ferry launched. However, state transportation officials, noting that the court didn't explicitly say the ship couldn't run, still allowed the service to start. But on Monday, a state judge agreed to temporarily block Hawaii Superferry between Oahu and Maui. A hearing is set for Aug. 29.
Reportedly, only a few hundred people on Kauai and Maui protested the ferry. They say the ferry might harm whales and spread invasive species. Hawaii Superferry says that, for more than three years, it has met all the requirements of the state Department of Transportation, including provisions pertaining to environmental review, and that it has complied with, and in many instances, exceeded Hawaii and federal environmental standards.
Certainly Hawaii needs to be protected on all fronts. But it has little to fear from Hawaii Superferry.
This ferry is brand new. Except for its sailing from the shipyards in Mobile, Ala., through the Panama Canal, to Los Angeles and finally to Hawaii, it has sailed nowhere else. It is powered by waterjet propulsion, not exposed propellers. It has no ballast tanks in which foreign species might otherwise lurk. And its hull is covered in a non-toxic paint that further prevents unwanted species from going along for the ride.
Where are those protesting the arrival in the Hawaiian Islands of countless greasy freighters hauling a never-ending parade of containers crammed with foreign-made goods and foreign-grown foods? What about the tankers that bring gas? Are we supposed to believe that these workhorses that make every port in the world aren't carrying anything more than consumer items?
Where are the visionaries who see ferry service as a way to reduce Hawaii's dependence on airplanes (and their environmental baggage) for inter-island travel? Or is sailing something that can only be trusted to the big cruise ships and the few rich enough to own ocean-going yachts?
What forces are really behind the ferry protests? I have my suspicions. Maybe the airlines. Maybe the rental car agencies. Both of those industries could stand to lose if the ferry is successful. Maybe some of the freighter companies, too, because the ferry will be able to carry delivery trucks in addition to passenger vehicles.
Hawaii residents stand the most to gain from a ferry service that allows them to take their vehicle with them. And with Hawaii Superferry claiming more than 20,000 tickets already sold, ferry customers vastly outnumber what at most are a few hundred protesters.
If this argument were really about the environment, real activists would be marching on the State House, not blocking the harbor with surfboards.
Hawaii ferry a political test case
Posted by Toni Salama at 3:05 p.m. CDT.
An Opinion Posted to the Chicago Tribune Travel Blog
When it comes to environmental and cultural protest, Hawaii is no piker. Decades ago, the U.S. military appropriated the entire island of Kahoolawe for a bombing range. Historically, Hawaiians designated Kahoolawe as a university, where their most promising citizens were educated in religion, navigation, the healing arts and statesmanship. Using the island for target practice was as much an attack on the Hawaiian way of life as it was an assault on the land.
Hawaiians protested, worked for change and eventually won the island back as a sacred place. The clean-up is ongoing.
The Hawaiian language has been another battleground. The mother tongue of the islands was once banned. But Hawaiians didn't give up. They worked for reform, and now Hawaiian is one of the state's two official languages (the other being English), is taught in schools and can be overheard in everyday situations.
A few years ago, the citizens of Molokai nixed the idea of big passenger ships calling on their island. They were worried that so many tourists descending at once for shore excursions would change the character of their laid-back island for the worse.
Now the Hawaii Superferry, which started service Sunday between Oahu and Kauai, is at issue. The state Supreme Court ruled last week that the state should have required an environmental report before the ferry launched. However, state transportation officials, noting that the court didn't explicitly say the ship couldn't run, still allowed the service to start. But on Monday, a state judge agreed to temporarily block Hawaii Superferry between Oahu and Maui. A hearing is set for Aug. 29.
Reportedly, only a few hundred people on Kauai and Maui protested the ferry. They say the ferry might harm whales and spread invasive species. Hawaii Superferry says that, for more than three years, it has met all the requirements of the state Department of Transportation, including provisions pertaining to environmental review, and that it has complied with, and in many instances, exceeded Hawaii and federal environmental standards.
Certainly Hawaii needs to be protected on all fronts. But it has little to fear from Hawaii Superferry.
This ferry is brand new. Except for its sailing from the shipyards in Mobile, Ala., through the Panama Canal, to Los Angeles and finally to Hawaii, it has sailed nowhere else. It is powered by waterjet propulsion, not exposed propellers. It has no ballast tanks in which foreign species might otherwise lurk. And its hull is covered in a non-toxic paint that further prevents unwanted species from going along for the ride.
Where are those protesting the arrival in the Hawaiian Islands of countless greasy freighters hauling a never-ending parade of containers crammed with foreign-made goods and foreign-grown foods? What about the tankers that bring gas? Are we supposed to believe that these workhorses that make every port in the world aren't carrying anything more than consumer items?
Where are the visionaries who see ferry service as a way to reduce Hawaii's dependence on airplanes (and their environmental baggage) for inter-island travel? Or is sailing something that can only be trusted to the big cruise ships and the few rich enough to own ocean-going yachts?
What forces are really behind the ferry protests? I have my suspicions. Maybe the airlines. Maybe the rental car agencies. Both of those industries could stand to lose if the ferry is successful. Maybe some of the freighter companies, too, because the ferry will be able to carry delivery trucks in addition to passenger vehicles.
Hawaii residents stand the most to gain from a ferry service that allows them to take their vehicle with them. And with Hawaii Superferry claiming more than 20,000 tickets already sold, ferry customers vastly outnumber what at most are a few hundred protesters.
If this argument were really about the environment, real activists would be marching on the State House, not blocking the harbor with surfboards.