Getting Mad

Getting Mad

President Obama's speech last week, if nothing else, conveyed how he truly cares about the people living around the Gulf of Mexico and his serious desire to stop the leak and begin cleanup. However, while President Obama's words may have been emotion-filled, the entire speech felt very much like 'the President's Weekly Adress' to be released for internet hounds and podcast subscribers; it was very informal. President Obama was not angry. He was not furious with BP. He needs to be.
Sure, BP is not entirely at fault. Lackadaisical federal regulators did not do their job, and Congress did not do its job. None of this, however, excuses BP for their horrific business practices.

BP's rescue plan in the case of an oil disaster was the equivalent of a seventh grader's semi-plagiarized term paper. BP has threatened to fire any and all employees who wear pertinent protective gear while working on the cleanup, presumably for PR reasons. This goes beyond terrible regulation. This is disgusting. Why aren't congressmen- why isn't President Obama- mad about this? The righteous, populous anger America so desperately needs right now was glimpsed when Rep. Joe Barton apologized to BP. The remarkable unity seen in response to Barton's comments needs to be channeled, and channeled towards getting something done. 
In a time when an endless swarm of indistinguishable voices dictates the personality of the internet, when rant-like, all-caps comments are posted on extremist sites, providing the textual equivalent of screaming at your idealogical twin, it may seem that instigating more anger is not the solution. However, it is the responsibility of Congress to get angry at corporations that hurt the American public and precious American environment, to get angry at regulators who fail to even basically protect Americans, and even to get angry with themselves and their institution for doing nothing. The solution is not instigating more anger; the solution is instigating the right anger.

Read more »

Quote 6/16/10

Quote 6/16/10

“[Obama is] frustrated because he cares about the small people, and we care about the small people."

BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg

Read more »

BP, Robots, and Nuclear Bombs

BP, Robots, and Nuclear Bombs

Nearly fifty days since oil began leaking into the Gulf of Mexico at tremendous speed, impacting local business, environment, culture, and health, the federal government has estimated that around 1,000 barrels of oil have entered the Gulf per day. BP and the US government are rapidly reaching an unfortunate conclusion: no solution will be reached before August; no cleanup will begin until at least the fall. No matter how heavily the federal government lines the coast with boom, no true success will be reached for keeping oil off the shore until BP finishes creating a viable solution. This explosion and leak exemplify exactly why off-shore drilling is not a good idea. We can't control it, and, when there is a problem, we cannot fix it.

Our understanding of what works to stop an oil spill like this (a relief well) has done nothing to stop BP from trying less secure solutions. Last week, robotically operated devices were sent to the pipe. The machines made incisions in an attempt to fit a cap to the leak, however, due to complications, the plan was- temporarily, at least- abandoned. Before that, 'top kill', in which BP bombarded the rig with heavy drilling mud at extremely high pressures, also was declared a failure after a few days.

The Gulf community is desperate. However, the current 'solutions' that only worsen the condition and disperse oil into the air do not help. Someone last week suggested simply nuclear bombing the rig. Why are money and manpower being spent on these ideas, as opposed to investing in real solutions? It is time for BP to find answers that are not ridiculous, and to stop focusing on those that are. More importantly, why weren't these real solutions invested in before drilling began? BP is ranked among the world's most profitable companies. It should be obvious to everyone where those profits went. It wasn't to solutions in case of disaster, that much is certain.

Read more »

Top Kill: The Environmental Murder Mystery

Top Kill: The Environmental Murder Mystery

It's the classic whodunnit: a crime of massive scale was committed in the Gulf of Mexico, and all of the suspects have wildly blamed each other. The ramifications of the crime are sill being felt across the coast, and don't show signs of going away anytime soon.

In the Gulf of Mexico, sea-faring birds who once were brown are now a matted black, slick with oil. Beaches around the coast are punctuated by clumps of sand glued together in thick, greasy globs. Attempt after attempt has been made by BP and others to control and stop the spill. Today, the "top kill" method was employed, a last-ditch effort to clog the hole before the situation worsens. Top kill is a plan in which BP will bombard the hole with heavy "drilling mud" in an attempt to end the flow of oil. If this is effective, cement will be sent on top of the mud, hopefully binding the site permanently.

As President Obama embarks on a trip to Louisiana to assess the damage, it is imperative that a closer look is taken of those who were supposed to be regulating BP's off-shore drilling habits. Regulators at the Department of the Interior allowed BP to drill at an ocean depth that, while profitable to oil companies, is completely unsafe for the environment. If something goes wrong that far into the ocean, there is virtually nothing that can be done to reverse it.
Moreover, BP's rig wasn't anywhere near the deepest drilling. Oil companies are allowed by the US government to drill at much lower depths in the sea than BP did. If the BP spill is difficult to fix, imagine the position America would be in if a disaster occurred at two, five, or ten times the depth. 

Read more »

"So It's Your Fault!"

"So It's Your Fault!"

As oil continues to spurt into the Gulf of Mexico, leaders of all possibly culpable parties, like BP and Halliburton, are completely unwilling to take responsibility for their actions and admit their involvement in the environmental tragedy. At last week's Congressional hearing, the representatives from each company spent more time blaming each other and absolving themselves of responsibility than offering solutions or even reasons for the failure. Even ignoring the massive impact on shore communities, fishermen, and sea-dwelling animals, the oil spill's gigantic impact on the environment is absolutely heinous. The unwillingness- not just of the corporate leaders, but of politicians- to take responsibility for their actions has become unfortunately rampant in Washington.
In 2009, after the passage of the stimulus, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal took an anti-stimulus stance for his state, attempting to spurn all aid from the federal government to help Louisiana out of the financial crisis. Now that the oil spill has infiltrated Louisiana's shore, Jindal is quick to call for the federal government to provide both personel and financial support to the state. Its not as though Jindal has changed his mind on the role of the federal government and rejected his previous actions as improper, he has just decided that in certain scenarios- when his state's workers are in imminent danger, for example- it is okay for the federal government to provide aid and in others- like a massive state-wide financial crisis- it is not.
Some politicians have simply changed their mind about off-shore drilling subsequent to the spill. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has made statements changing his position on drilling off the coast of California, which is different from Jindal's selective positions. By changing his position completely, Schwarzenegger is not acting hypocritically or irresponsibly, rather, he is simply taking current events into account.
The complete danger and massive size of the spill has not changed how some view off-shore drilling. Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has continued to, while oil is still being released into the water, make statements for off-shore drilling. The Obama Administration has not edited their expansive off-shore drilling plan, nor has Virginia governor Bob McDonnell. Hopefully, the enormous scope and financial and  environmental danger involved will lead to some politicians reconsidering.

Read more »

Please Don't Drill Baby, Drill

Please Don't Drill Baby, Drill

It is approximated that only six percent of the world's crude oil lies in the United States- and about a fourth of the world's crude oil can be found in Saudi Arabia. However, America is the top consumer of oil in the world. Thus, even if America was able to harness all of the projected oil resting in its reservoirs, the oil found would not be anywhere near enough to make a true difference in oil cost for Americans, and it would be a huge expense and an even bigger step backwards for clean energy efforts in America.
President Obama has proposed, in his new energy plan, to begin drilling in and around several stretches of American coastline. "The likely return... [is about] two week's supply [of oil]," Keith Olbermann said on his show tonight. Obama's plan, which is seemingly a grab for some Congressional support from Republicans, will not provide any substantive energy to Americans.
Congressional Republicans don't seem interested in offering support, however. Some have begun to make statements against the plan, and other Republicans, outside of Congress, have done the same. Sarah Palin tweeted against the plan, and others have had similarly negative reactions. This proposal will decrease support from both liberals, who don't want to see any increase in drilling, and conservatives, who also oppose the plan for either not being sweeping enough or, quite simply, for being Obama's plan.
Several environmental leaders have spoken out against the proposal. Obama's plan would allow America to continue to rely on oil, rather than promoting new, 'green' energy methods. "We are seriously disappointed with the President," Eric Pica, of Friends of the Earth, said, although he noted that if this was attached to a green energy bill aiming to reduce climate change the proposal could be accepted by the community.
Still, any increase in drilling is negative. President Obama must remember that he was elected on a platform that focused on energy efficiency and that he was elected instead of a man whose vice presidential pick made a name for herself by calling out "drill baby, drill."

Read more »