Spill, Baby, Spill: White House Remains Committed To Off-Shore Drilling Plan As Spill Destroys Gulf Coast

The White House is under attack on its plan to open up areas for drilling off the East Coast — a plan long opposed by environmentalists and now attracting renewed criticism with the growing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

The spill is now believed to exceed the Exxon Valdez but some experts — gushing 200,000 gallons a day, here.

The first lawsuits by fishermen have been filed over the devastation to the Gulf. The White House is reportedly reconsidering its plan to open up sensitive areas off the East Coast to drilling. It appears that it only takes a massive environmental disaster to get the Obama Administration to reconsider such plans. Hypothetical examples of a massive oil spill from an oil rig a few weeks ago were viewed as simply too speculative by the Administration.

UPDATE: After first defending the policy, the White House is now saying that the disaster was sufficient to get it to take the new drilling off the table — at least for the moment, here.

111 thoughts on “Spill, Baby, Spill: White House Remains Committed To Off-Shore Drilling Plan As Spill Destroys Gulf Coast”

  1. Byron–

    I’d give her a D for her writing style–not for what she was trying to say.

    I wrote in a previous comment: “I think she could have said what she had to say with less verbiage and much clearer prose. Too bad she didn’t read William Zinsser’s book ON WRITING WELL!”

    I like clarity and conciseness in prose. I’d say her writing style was a tad dense.

  2. Elaine:

    the answer is in your post, you would give her a D for her writing. What more needs to be said?

  3. Slarti:

    I can think of no one more qualified to take my money and if I had some extra I would definitely invest in your venture. I believe if you are a major contributor it will be a big success.

  4. Elaine:

    If you look at his early writings he was talking about returning to a gold standard. He had given up laissez faire by the time he was Fed Chair.

    He had rejected her ideas of a free market as evidenced by allowing interest rates to remain at artificially low levels. This lead to the housing bubble/bust. I would say he and Bush colluded so that Bush had enough money to finance his war. But that might be a little over the top. Although it has crossed my mind on more than one occasion.

  5. Byron,

    In a free market, a company that passes its (substantial) taxes and penalties on to the consumer will be unable to compete and will go out of business – as it should. I agree with legal remedies for the results of accidents (which should include haircuts for the investors – the entirety of BP’s profits should go to cleanup and paying for damages (both economic and environmental) until they are totally paid off) but as Elaine said, ‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure’ and the prevention side of this is providing economic incentives (I believe that taxes are the best way to do this, but I am open to other suggestions) to increase safety and decrease pollution.

  6. Byron,

    I forgot to mention that, yes, the makers of Damascus swords were not aware that the properties of their blades came from carbon nanotubes, nor did they filter water using them. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here.

  7. Byron,

    As I said, we’re trying to start up the business in India (lower costs and greater need). This is a business that depends heavily on economy of scale to get going (it wont be profitable until it becomes big enough). Consequently entering the US market needs to wait until the company is large enough and the technology has been proven. Why? Do you have money you’re interested in investing? 😉

    I’ve got to go and work on trying to cure cancer for a while, but I’ll leave you with this challenge:

    Can you give me an example of a corporation improving safety or decreasing pollution when there was not a financial incentive to do so?

  8. Byron–

    “Reason integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.”

    If AYN had been a student of mine, I’d have given her a D for a paragraph like that. I think she could have said what she had to say with less verbiage and much clearer prose. Too bad she didn’t read William Zinsser’s book ON WRITING WELL!

    “Non-contradictory identification.” Gotta love that term.


    You often infer feelings/thoughts of mine from my comments–and I’m not sure how you extrapolate out from what I’ve written to what you think I must mean.

    You said: “She is not the buffoon you and others think she is or make her out to be.”

    I never meant to imply that I thought she was a buffoon. All I know is that Alan Greenspan was a friend and follower of Ayn Rand–and, at one time, a member of her inner circle. If the “Oracle” got his ideas/beliefs about capitalism and financial/economic ideology from her…well, I’d have to say it doesn’t speak too well of her philosophy.

Comments are closed.