Posts published during May, 2010
Good Morning America sends two divers, including Felipe Cousteau Jr., into the oil-contaminated waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
“The consistency is unlike anything I’ve ever seen…a lot of people are saying that when you apply the chemical dispersant, you know, it disappears, the oil goes away. But here we go right now. This is evidence that doesn’t happen…
…the oil is now suspended. You can now imagine any fish coming through this would just be covered in it.”
“Let’s wait and see,” said Sen. James Inhofe on the floor of the Senate today.
This liability cap is a big issue indeed, and one that is not as straightforward as it first seems. In discussing a maximum amount that a privately owned oil company can be held liable for in the event of a catastrophic environmental disaster, we are implicitly deciding how much the taxpayer burden for such disasters should be. I haven’t seen comprehensive enough of numbers to guess a total cost of this spill, nor have I seen many people guessing totals, but I have heard figures such as a cost to BP of 15 million dollars a day. That to me, sounds low. I would guess this number is the immediate cost to BP, but that it doesn’t account for governmental expenses or economic losses in surrounding regions.
Lets take that at face value though, maybe the 15 million covers every single cost associated.
That would mean that under the current 75 million dollar liability cap, BP’s capitol liability would have ceased after 5 days.
This spill has been going on, without much hope of stopping, for nearly a month. And now there are said to be giant plumes of oil floating under the surface of the sea, their locations unknown and magnitude only hypothesized.
From where I”m sitting, the existence of a liability cap for economic damages of catastrophic oil spills and other environmental damage caused by industry is a policy that serves one very small constituency, at the expense of another very large constituency. Sen. Inhofe seems to think this policy is necessary to keep the independents in the game. The independent oil barons that is – you know, those small business oil ventures.
Ultimately, anyone trying to turn a (gigantic) profit, especially by pillaging the earth’s oil reserves, should be liable for all risk and damages. Why should there be different rules for these folks, when other entrepreneurs, the truly small business independents, risk their homes and livelihoods taking relatively menial risks?
I think its time to turn this equation around, fuck the conversation of liability caps for oil companies and other resource-mongers capable of incurring catastrophic environmental damages – lets just get rid of the cap. How about some protections for the rest of us whose relative burdens of liability far exceed anything BP or James Inhofe could compain about? If our government should be doing anything in the realm of safety nets, how about restoring some of the social ones!
I guess the same logic applies about our country’s and globe’s neo-liberalization – we don’t really know what the ultimate cost will be, so lets not upset anyone with a vested interest in this system of producing wealth; rather, let’s wait and see!
The video below is footage of the gushing well head at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico before and after BP’s latest attempt to stem the tide (switch occurs around 2:30)
I wonder if anyone knows how long the spill would have to continue at this rate for the reserve the well is spilling from to dry up?
[graffiti in Chicago shows the Northern Gannet, enshrined as the first oiled bird recovered by BP]
The Deepwater Horizon oil rig that exploded and sank on April 20, 2010 and has since spilled millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico is an absolute enigma. Even after following this story for the 4+ weeks since it surfaced, I have yet to find anyone who can speak with certainty about this spill, or its fallout.
How much oil is actually leaking? What are the real costs of this disaster, and what are the real costs of the fossil fuels we consume? What does it mean for the future of the US’s energy policy? What are the policy implications of elected officials in Florida and Louisiana saying they no longer support off-shore drilling? Will there be a calcified “drill, baby, drill” cult, unmoved by this catastrophe?
Most importantly though – how will we ever wean ourselves off oil if our politicians, leaders of industry, government, and citizenry stomach this spill?
Yet, there remains good (?) news on the horizon.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is keeping the pressure on BP to clean up their mess, saying in response to BP’s elated statements that an attempt to stem the flow of oil out of the gushing well is (finally) working, that the technique is “not a solution to the problem and it is not yet clear how successful it may be…we will not rest until BP permanently seals the well head, the spill is cleaned up, and the communities and natural resources of the Gulf Coast are restored and made whole.”
That is it for the (somewhat) good news. Here is yet the bad news:
Researchers from the National Institute for Undersea Science and Technology said they had detected the slicks lurking just beneath the surface of the sea and at depths of 4,000ft (1,200m).
Samantha Joye, a marine science professor at the University of Georgia, said: “It could take years, possibly decades, for the system to recover from an infusion of this quantity of oil and gas.
“We’ve never seen anything like this before. It’s impossible to fathom the impact.”
Chemical dispersants BP has been dumping underwater may be preventing the oil from rising to the top of the ocean, the scientists said.
The find suggests the scale of the potential environmental disaster is much worse than previously feared…Some scientists cast doubt on BP’s estimate of the oil flow rate, saying the widely repeated figure of 5,000 barrels per day dramatically understates the real amount.
…Mississippi has become the third US state to have traces of oil wash up on its coast, along with Louisiana and Alabama.The spill is threatening to eclipse the 1989 Exxon Valdez leak off Alaska as America’s worst environmental disaster. (BBC 5/17/10) [emphasis added]
Welcome to the 21st century, I suppose.
Coming out of the streets of Columbus, Ohio:
The question becomes, what ignorant “neighborhood watch” group will paint over these?
Hailing from Belgium is Roa, and this is a rabbit:
Hopping aboard the ever widening platform of principled arguments espoused by the GOP comes this new whopper – persons without judicial experience (circuit, appeals, Federal, etc.) have no place on the Supreme Court.
Rather clearly, this principled argument is being levied against the likes of Elena Kagan, the Obama Administration’s Solicitor General and nominee to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.
But I shall not waste any time getting to the meat of this, and for such an effort I will yield the floor to Rachel Maddow, who will offer some Helpful Hints for Hypocrites:
For the record, I think principled arguments are very important in politics. Principles are a direct reflection of the value systems that they claim to represent, and thus do wonders in communicating political thoughts to a society. But does it not immediately negate the premise of principled arguments for them to be so easily disproved as un-principled? To put it another way, does the fact that these principled arguments by GOPers are so easily proven to be political calculations contradict these politician’s prerogative to espouse their principles in Congress?
This is just me, but if I can prove someone to be lying, their integrity is thrown out the door – a fairly open-shut instance of a dishonest politician for that matter.
Do you think that Congressional Republicans will feel the same way after November though, in that, will they continue to support their un-principled hypocritical minority leader Mitch McConnell when they realize how much YouTube fodder his shenanigans create?
For more info about the Obama Administration’s proposal to break up the Mineral Management Service into two separate agencies and some additional background info, check out this article by ProPublica.
Condensed version follows:
Splitting the agency has the potential to help, but it doesn’t go far enough to address the agency’s main conflict of interest, said Mandy Smithberger, an investigator at the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group.
“The conflict of mission at MMS is bigger than that issue,” Smithberger told me. The conflict also looms between the leasing and royalties sides, which “seems not to be addressed at all” by the proposed restructuring. To the extent that a desire to collect royalties influenced how stringent inspections were, the new separation will help, she said. But a desire to collect more royalties could also influence the decision to move along lease sales in order to boost production.
Smithberger and others, including MMS-critic Rep. Darrell Issa [6], R-Calif., have called the move a good “first step.”
Adorning my comments cue this afternoon:
What you fail to address is that the gov’t 86′d the request to skip some of the “standard” steps for the fix. They wanted to go beyond the basic 1, 2, 3 fix and the gov’t denied them.
Also, these are Federal waters . . . why was the gov’t so slow in responding? Whether you all want to believe it or not, Bush reacted to Hurricane Katrina 100 times faster than Obama’s response to this spill.
Also, please note that this is one, yes one, off-shore well out of thousands . . . considering the numbers out there and the years inbetween “spills” . . .
…in Katrina thousands of Americans were trapped in their homes without water or food or any tangible hopes for rescue…the oil spill didn’t even reach American shores until nearly 2 weeks after it first began – so there isn’t much room to conflate these disasters as being comparably disastrous nor caused by the same factors and therefore part of the same policy debate.
I actually don’t find the fact that this Deepwater Rig is one out of hundreds or thousands other off-shore oil rigs to be very comforting…it merely implies that this is only a drop compared to how much oil could spill into the ocean, not exactly a comforting thought if this comparatively little spill can do so much damage, cause so many people to be out of work, and cost the government/private industry sooo much money.
Especially true when one considers the contemporary context of the sole government agency that oversees off-shore oil drilling, the Mineral Management Service (MMS), whose most egregious debacles occurred under the watch of our last administration (sex for oil…another scandal involving meth use at the MMS(?)…). Of greatest importance though, from the Wall St. Journal on May 7, 2010:
The small U.S. agency that oversees offshore drilling doesn’t write or implement most safety regulations, having gradually shifted such responsibilities to the oil industry itself for more than a decade. Instead, the Minerals Management Service—now caught up in the crisis of the Deepwater Horizon rig that for weeks has sent crude oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico—sets broad performance goals for the industry. Oil producers and drilling companies are then free to decide for themselves how to meet those goals, industry executives and former regulators say.
Clearly something broke before this administration, allowing this spill to be gushing 3 weeks later and with our only real hope at this point of assuredly stopping this flow of oil into the Guld of Mexico still about 2 1/2 months away. Unfortunately for that cause, most all of BPs tactics have been only used once – on this spill! And does shooting recycled rubber and golf balls into the pipe sound like a hair-brained scheme or what?
Considering that fact though, that thousands of other oil rigs inhabit our coastal waters, something must change in this relationship. Is it the government’s perogative to hold blind trust in the companies who operate these rigs? Or is it the government’s perogative to use its existing agencies to create a standard upon which we uphold a minimum standard of worker safety, environmental integrity, disaster response, and corporate accountability?
So the question becomes, what is Obama’s next step? Fix that broken government!
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has named two high-level officials to oversee a restructuring of an agency that oversees offshore drilling.
Salazar said this week he wants to split the Minerals Management Service in two. One agency would be charged with inspecting oil rigs, investigating oil companies and enforcing safety regulations, while the other would oversee leases for drilling and collection of billions of dollars in royalties.
Rhea Suh, assistant Interior Secretary for policy, management and budget, and Chris Henderson, a senior adviser to Salazar, will oversee the MMS restructuring. Salazar has said the plan will ensure there is no conflict, “real or perceived,” regarding the agency’s functions. (WaPo 5/13/10)
Social networking isn’t some new idea that MySpace or Facebook came up with, these sites have merely exploited the most superficial aspects of it. As such, it is incredibly unfortunate that the likes of Facebook has come to be synonymous with networking of late.
I’m inundated with advice over the importance of networking, aka schmoooozing, in my professional life and it makes damn good sense – meet people, establish good report and keep up contacts because you never know what opportunities may be presented by mere virtue of knowing someone. Simple right?
So then Facebook and these other sites come along and pretend to offer an easier way to network (without all the mucking around and uncertainty of actual human interaction). Seemed good at first, you can catch up with friends from school, keep up contacts with and remember the names of new people, and you get to enjoy all the wonderful splendors of voyeurism without all the risk!
But then something happened. Barriers were taken down and suddenly anyone could join. Then networks became meaningless and unverifiable. Next thing you know, multiple daily requests are popping up for some quiz or virtual garden and then great-aunt Gertrude sends you a friend request. Whats worse is that all the while, one assumes a certain level of security about their private information, a certain amount of control over what happens to that info, only to find out that in fact Facebook has no such agenda to protect your personal information. In fact, just the opposite is true. Facebook uses your (supposedly private, controlled) activity as a way to mine, collect and categorize data about you which it then sells to advertisers.
Never mind those egregiously unsettling circumstances for a second. In my short 4 year relationship with Facebook, which I should more accurately define as one of acquaintances, I’ve never found my life easier, more enjoyable or, for that matter, better off because of Facebook. There is no need being fulfilled by Facebook and I think its creators realized that very quickly. They have then, very successfully, manufactured the need which drives Facebook’s popularity. A society left wanting of something more tangible, a more meaningful or lasting sort of human interaction is exactly what Facebook exploits.
Proponents of its genius likely take solace in their ability to readily quantify the number of friends they have; relish in the ability to sort through pages and pages of crass bullshitting and small talk; uphold the value in removing nerves from the act of meeting someone new or getting to know someone.
But I don’t. I can no longer justify my needlessly participating in this sham of a community that we call Facebook. My friends don’t need it to be my friend. My colleagues don’t need it to work with me. Have a photo that you really want me to see? Having a barbeque, benefit or blow-out? Then you can either tell me in person, or you’ll already know how to reach me.
Not at the heart of this matter, rather resting more auspiciously along the sidelines, is the shameless politicking that occurs through Facebook. Am I the only one who scoffs at the notion that some bullshit screed written on Facebook can become national news? Am I the only one who thinks the existence of a Facebook page or group representing a cause, concern, issue or politician symbolizes absolutely nothing in the real world? Have we forgotten that virtual means solely the image of reality, that virtual by definition cannot replace reality? If the walls of Facebook is where the future of activism lies, it will be a bleak future.
So in recognizing all my unshakable qualms with Facebook, I cannot further my involvement with it. I never again want to receive an email about or from Facebook and I never again out of my own volition wish to type www.facebook.com into my browser (except to delete my account after I finish writing this).
Of great importance though, is the incredibly difficulty one faces in attempting to delete a facebook account. The most obvious route, that Facebook itself presents (through the account settings page) does not actually delete your account, but merely deactivates it. What in the world is a deactivated account? It was not until I came across this helpful link that I was able to proceed with deleting my account (click here when logged into your facebook account if you want to delete it). Big caveat though, apparently the act of deleting a facebook account takes 2 WEEKS to process, so be careful not to fall into old habits and log into your account after attempting to delete it for Facebook will just log you in and act like nothing ever happened.
But all in all, I don’t take Facebook seriously. If I did, I wouldn’t be jumping off that wagon. Seriousness should be reserved for real things, not contrived or isolated virtual worlds. Absurdity is best reserved for such things, and often can best describe what normalization means in the internet age.
As if news of an increasingly threatening oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico isn’t bad enough on its own, we now get to revel in the inane plans to stop the spill conjured up by BP:
“British firm BP will make a second attempt this week to seal the oil well.
An attempt to drop a huge box on to the leak failed at the weekend and BP will now try to cap it with a smaller box.
The energy giant is also expected to try to plug the well using rubbish like tyres and golf balls,” (BBC 5/11/10)
And, for our added delight, we can also observe the child-like bickering of each responsible party (BP, Halliburton, Transocean), as they appeared before the Senate this morning, each of which apparently figures that their best course of action is to shift blame to someone else:
“The Deepwater Horizon rig that blew up in the Gulf of Mexico on 20 April was owned and operated by drilling firm Transocean, but leased by BP.
The head of BP America told the Senate hearing he had reason to believe a critical safety device called a blowout protector had been modified, reports news agency Reuters.
Lamar McKay also noted the 450-tonne device was owned by Transocean.
But Transocean’s boss said there was no reason to believe its blowout protector had been at fault, as he pointed the finger at BP.
“Offshore oil and gas production projects begin and end with the operator, in this case BP,” said chief executive Steven Newman.
He also pinned blame on the failure of a cement oil-well casing, built by BP contractor Halliburton.
But Halliburton executive Tim Probert argued his firm had followed all requirements set out by BP and industry practices.”
What amazes me is not the unique nature of this oil spill, or the originality of these executive’s techniques in front of a pissed-off Congress, rather, I’m amazed by the fact that Halliburton continues to get jobs while millions of Americans and thousands of other American businesses languish – I mean, if a group of scoundrels (KBR) that were oh so willing to defraud the government during a war are still being hired to do “honest” work, what hope is there for the American economy? Well, to refine that, what hope is there for the integrity of the American economy? And furthermore, why aren’t the tea partiers jumping down these bastard’s throats? For all of their outrage in the past year, they seem to blankly stare at the face of corporate corruption.
This example of the oil executive’s willingness to game the system, cover their asses and cut their losses shows how predominant laissez-faire remains within our country’s and government’s consciousness. It isn’t even a risk for these cats to put on a straight face and tell whatever version of the facts they wish, because they have extremely-well paid lawyers on their side who coach them in precisely how to best pull the blanket over Congress’ head. Its just like with Goldman Sachs recently. Where even though it was painfully obvious that the corporation’s lawyer had instructed their clients to stall, meander, play dumb and otherwise waste Congress’ (and the taxpayer’s) time, they stayed within the legal bounds of how one can lie under oath.
Congress and the American people know this to be the case. Sen. Susan Collins asserted during the Goldman Sachs hearing that she was certain the bank execs strategy was one of running out the clock. Today, Sen. John Barrasso reacts to BP, Halliburton and Transocean’s Congressional testimony as such, “”I hear one message – don’t blame me. Shifting the blame game doesn’t get us very far.”
We know these tactics to be tried and true for Corporate America, but we continue to give them a platform upon which to be upheld as honest and truthful, and our media continues to disseminate the corporate talking points impartially and under the guise that each news story has to have fair and balanced view points represented. This is not only frustrating as an observer and quasi-participant in the system, but as a human being. Corporations are not people and should receive no special treatment or deference, nor should the people who run corporations be upheld as inherently valuable or irreplaceable for that matter. Privilege should not beget priority in our system, but it often does.
The critical question in examining how our country can move beyond patronage is one that focuses on Congress: will they punish those whose transgressions befell enormous consequences for the larger population, or will they just as soon yield their own power to those with privilege?
…and everything in between
