Awareness is Futile: The Santa Barbara Oil Spill
Fedora Liu ’24
Ellen Chen ’25
January 28th of 1969 marks the day in which a catastrophic petroleum blowout, originating from an offshore, Union Oil-operated drilling rig, devastated the Santa Barbara Channel. Over 3 million gallons of oil seeped into the ocean, deeming the spill to be the largest in US waters up to date and significantly damaging the local ecosystem before seafloor cracks leaking the oil were finally sealed after 11 long days. A variety of factors, particularly the wealth and political connections of the Santa Barbara community and California’s long-standing tensions with offshore drilling ensured that this spill would grab national attention (Sabin, 2012). And grab the attention it did: for the first time, through technicolored scenes, Americans across the nation watched scenes of oil-coated birds and a greasy ocean surface; politicians like President Richard Nixon visited the site and addressed the environmental issue at hand; the disaster sparked the formation of a nation-wide teach in regarding environmentalism that ultimately resulted in the first Earth Day 15 months later, during which a tenth of the US population participated in coast-to-coast demonstrations. Whilst growing concerns about environmental disasters plagued citizens of the '60s, the Santa Barbara oil spill consolidated the need for an existence of a sense of “environmentalism” and unified the movement across the US. In the words of President Nixon, “The Santa Barbara incident has frankly touched the conscience of the American people (Science News, 1969),” bringing the rising urgency around the state of the natural environment to the attention of the US.
The initial response to the oil spill may be expressed through one word: disappointment. Painfully presented in a scientific news article published by the Society for Science & the Public just days after the oil cracks were sealed, such disappointment of the contemporary scientists was directed towards the two aspects of the spill: the frequency of man-made environmental disasters, such as the spill, and the lack of technological preparation or competency to handle such a large scale environmental disaster. Jaded, repetitious expressions lead the opening of the article: “Once again sticky, petroleum tides smeared white beaches. Once again the ocean surface turned to smelly, black grease,” words that mourned the destruction of nature’s beauty but also the sense of familiarity with such devastating sights (Science News, 1969). The disappointment furthers, from the perspective of the educated, when considering the lack of “truly effective technology to handle massive oil spills,” or the US failure to competently provide measures in reaction to the spill despite their prior awareness of such disasters’ frequencies (Science News, 1969). As such, the contemporary, “scientific” perspective mourned the lack of attention dedicated to the oil spill, and environmental issues at large. Thus, the fundamental issue presented lies not in that a careless, industrial mistake had been executed by the Union Oil Co, but through a deeper context in that such mistakes had appeared so frequently, yet there were no successful developments in handling such situations.
More than 30 years later, upon time and reflection, a new perspective emerged: the spill, though still a tragedy that garnered the attention of citizens across the US, inspired national concern, and political and social motion, and ultimately served as a turning point in the environmental movement. A 2002 retrospective article for the Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers indeed claims that a constructive sentiment and concern was born as a result of the spill. Americans across the nation utilized their feelings of initial disappointment and shock to create widespread urgency and attention to the situation, all the while unifying the previously fragmented environmental movement. Whilst the movement existed in sporadic concerns and activism throughout time, the spill unified activists and concerned citizens. And though the well-informed and prominent figures contemporary to the spill (from the President of Union Oil Co and President Richard Nixon to nature writers and local news editors) expressed differing opinions regarding the ethics of the disaster itself, they all shared a common sentiment of astonishment at the magnitude of publicity that the disaster had achieved (Clarke, Hemphill, 2002). Indeed, Santa Barbara News Press Editor Thomas Stroke claimed that “[the incident] has united citizens of all political persuasions in a truly nonpartisan cause” (Clarke, Hemphill, 2002). The political and social advances that resulted from Santa Barbara may further testify to its impact: an environmental grassroots movement that led to the first Earth Day was founded; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 was signed; the California Coastal Commission was created; offshore drilling was banned for 16 years by the State Land Commission before the Reagan Administration took office; ultimately, federal and state regulations regarding oil drilling were strengthened (Clarke, Hemphill, 2002). Thus while the tragedy shocked and disappointed the nation, such somber sentiments were effectively, and on a large scale, employed to further the environmental movement and initiate action and awareness to address the greater, problematic nature of the oil spill.
Truth, however, cannot be discovered without the aid of time. Thus as more time passed, the fundamental impact and constructive effectiveness rooted in the spill came into more clarity. Environmental historian Paul Sabin argues, in a 2012 article written for the Journal of American History, that despite the legislative victories following Santa Barbara, it failed to create “substantial political and economic change” (Sabin, 2012). Indeed, whilst the American public quickly became aware of the situation and pushed for change, factors such as energy security and the overgeneralization of environmental issues ultimately led to no substantial change in the US’s dependency on oil. Thus the historiography changes as such: after the commotion in response to the spill cleared out, scholars and scientists shifted their focus towards the actual environmental changes. The perspective is fitting with the times; in terms of contextualization, the 2010s saw a broader shift towards criticizing corporate initiatives under the pretense of environmentalism and pursuing more structural, fundamental changes that went beyond surface-level activism. Once the underlying issue of the US’ primary dependency on oil and the lack of a clear direction of activist organizations exposed themselves throughout time, it seemed that the “story” of the Santa Barbara Oil Spill circled back to its origins: a resounding disappointment with the lack of true change implemented.
The Santa Barbara Oil Spill, faded in the collective American memory, has become only a tale of tragedy. What ultimately must be taken away from this site is the dangers of “awareness”: the magnitude and beginnings of the spill itself originated from a society already familiar with the possible hazards man may inflict upon nature. Surely, the American people, or at least the scientists and scholars, were “aware”, yet no true action was borne from such awareness as to prevent or impede future disasters. And though the magnitude of “awareness” towards environmentalism succeeding the spill greatly rose in magnitude and instigated both social and political momentum, ultimately the core issues of energy dependency and undermining of the oil issue in the broad scope of environmentalism were hardly tackled, leading once more to the lack of true change. Both the origins and the fate of Santa Barbara lie in the failures of “awareness” to inspire tangible action and growth.
But the Santa Barbara Oil Spill need not be permanently deemed as a somber tragedy. History repeats itself; thus to do its great losses “justice” and to formulate a narrative most equitable, Americans must learn to grow from the lessons its story presents. To redirect the fate of the Spill in a constructive direction, the people as a collective must break away from the destructive cycle of disappointment and pursue the fundamental, structural issues in remembrance and honor of the losses and tragedies of the Santa Barbara Oil Spill.
References
Clarke, K. C., & Hemphill, J. J. (2002). The Santa Barbara Oil Spill: A Retrospective. Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast
Geographers, 64, 157–162. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24041411
Helpless Birds, Helpless Technology. (1969). Science News, 95(8), 183–184. https://doi.org/10.2307/3953969
Sabin, P. (2012). Crisis and Continuity in U.S. Oil Politics, 1965-1980. The Journal of American History, 99(1), 177–186.
