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.
(psssst … Woost … I’m just waiting for the Mothership to pick me up … keep it on the down low)
Enforcement and oversight are what are required, not what’s going on now thanks to K St.
Now tell us all again how capitalism is good for the environment.
That’s just funny. In a very pathetic way.
“I’ll be the guy laughing at your shortsightedness and myopia when you realize your air has become to toxic to breath and your water might as well be a glass of pesticides.”
No, I’m sorry to say, Buddah…you will be affected by the same environment and it isn’t funny atall. You may be affected first tho, as you have the sense and sensibility to recognize it.
Byron…just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. And in the case of the current environment it is IN OUR FACE SEEN! Why is everything so black and white? Why does it take a disaster and criminal prosecutions before some people will even CONSIDER changing the status quo? I just don’t get it and all the logic and all the arguments in the world are lost on some industries…to everyones detriment.
Meanwhile, who gets to deal with those who are the first to be choking from lack of air or stealth blood and tissue poisoning…it won’t be the industrial sector…
So tell me again how graft and criminal action doesn’t circumvent regulation?
Buddha:
Am I missing something? We have environmental regulations coming out out of our ears. And we still have all of those problems? How could that be?
Isn’t government the final solution? We should be pristine by now. But we aren’t are we. So tell me again how effective government regulations are.
Cement job at underwater well probed as possible cause of spill
Posted at 04:07 PM on Friday, Apr. 30, 2010
By KEVIN G. HALL – McClatchy Newspapers
Transocean operated the drilling rig under contract for British oil giant BP Plc., the largest oil producer in the U.S. portion of the gulf and a company with a spotty safety history. Transocean has said the global construction titan Halliburton had just completed “cementing” the 18,000-foot-long well around the time of the explosion.
In a statement Friday, Halliburton confirmed that it was the “cementer” hired for the job and said it had completed its job about 20 hours prior to the explosion.
“The cement slurry design was consistent with that utilized in other similar applications,” the company said. It said all procedures had been “in accordance with accepted industry practice approved by our customers.”
Read more: http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/04/30/1916916/cement-job-at-underwater-well.html#ixzz0mmenjj89
Part 2:
From NPR (1/31/2010)
The ‘Burn Pits’ Of Iraq And Afghanistan
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123187642
http://dpc.senate.gov/hearings/hearing50/szema.pdf
I’m reposting my last comment in two parts as it had more than two hot links and was sent to moderation limbo:
PART 1
“I don’t want my water or air polluted anymore than you do. But do you de-industrialize the entire country?”
Where in any of my comments did I suggest de-industrializing our entire country?
“The United States is one of the cleanest countries in the world and yes you could argue that the EPA, through fines and regulations, has helped. But you can just as easily say that industry has become cleaner as it has become more efficient.”
There are many corporations that could do much more in the way of putting money into pollution preventive measures. It may cost money upfront—but would save the companies lots of money in the long run because they won’t be required to pay for environmental cleanup in later years.
Unfortunately, not all companies are protective of the environment or care all that much about the health of their workers—or the population at large. Look at Massey Energy–as just one example. many of our citizens have had to suffer the ill effects of pollution created by agribusinesses, coal and oil companies, and other industries. And we spread it around the world too.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s_3Mt7Gk38&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Halliburton, KBR sued for alleged ill effects of ‘burn pits’ (CNN—April 2009)
by Adam Levine
WASHINGTON (CNN) — A series of civil lawsuits against defense contractors KBR and its former parent company Halliburton claims the companies endangered the health of U.S. troops and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan by unsafely burning massive amounts of garbage on U.S. bases.
Six lawsuits were filed Tuesday and three more are scheduled to be filed Wednesday in state courts on behalf of current and former military personnel, private contractors and families of men who allegedly died because of exposure to the fumes from the burning garbage. Attorneys for the plaintiffs also are seeking to file a class-action suit.
The lawsuits are the first coordinated effort by plaintiffs to extract damages for the claimed health effects from the burn pits. The military has acknowledged the concerns but said its own test of the most notorious case, the Balad Air Force Base burn pit, found there is no prolonged health risk for those who were exposed for a year or less to the fumes.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/28/burn.pits/index.html
Byron,
“I don’t want my water or air polluted anymore than you do. But do you de-industrialize the entire country?”
Where in any of my comments did I suggest de-industrializing our entire country?
“The United States is one of the cleanest countries in the world and yes you could argue that the EPA, through fines and regulations, has helped. But you can just as easily say that industry has become cleaner as it has become more efficient.”
There are many corporations that could do much more in the way of putting money into pollution preventive measures. It may cost money upfront—but would save the companies lots of money in the long run because they won’t be required to pay for environmental cleanup in later years.
Unfortunately, not all companies are protective of the environment or care all that much about the health of their workers—or the population at large. Look at Massey Energy–as just one example. Many of our citizens have had to suffer the ill effects of pollution created by agribusinesses, coal and oil companies, and other industries. And we spread it around the world too.
Remember what happened in Bhopal, India in the 1980s?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s_3Mt7Gk38&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
And more recently American corporations and the US military have been asked to address the problem of their “burn pits” in Irag and Afghanistan.
Halliburton, KBR sued for alleged ill effects of ‘burn pits’ (CNN—April 2009)
by Adam Levine
WASHINGTON (CNN) — A series of civil lawsuits against defense contractors KBR and its former parent company Halliburton claims the companies endangered the health of U.S. troops and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan by unsafely burning massive amounts of garbage on U.S. bases.
Six lawsuits were filed Tuesday and three more are scheduled to be filed Wednesday in state courts on behalf of current and former military personnel, private contractors and families of men who allegedly died because of exposure to the fumes from the burning garbage. Attorneys for the plaintiffs also are seeking to file a class-action suit.
The lawsuits are the first coordinated effort by plaintiffs to extract damages for the claimed health effects from the burn pits. The military has acknowledged the concerns but said its own test of the most notorious case, the Balad Air Force Base burn pit, found there is no prolonged health risk for those who were exposed for a year or less to the fumes.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/28/burn.pits/index.html
**********
From NPR (1/31/2010)
The ‘Burn Pits’ Of Iraq And Afghanistan
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123187642
http://dpc.senate.gov/hearings/hearing50/szema.pdf
Did I mention an oil slick that’s about to be the largest environmental disaster in American history caused by . . . the oil industry?
How about strip mining?
How about that the waters of the Great Lakes are so toxic now you can’t eat the fish from them?
How about the increased death and mutations of amphibians world wide caused by the decreasing water quality which is directly tied to manufacturing?
How about deforestation of the natural habitats of plants and animals we haven’t even classified yet? That may hold cures for terrible afflictions?
How about that island of plastic trash floating around the Pacific that’s TWICE the size of Texas?
You go right on thinking capitalism is somehow environmentally friendly. That’s delusional. I know this because history tells me so. I’ll be the guy laughing at your shortsightedness and myopia when you realize your air has become to toxic to breath and your water might as well be a glass of pesticides. I hope your kids learn how to ingest plastics for nutrients and drink poison for hydration. Because that’s the world YOU want to leave them by insisting on not regulating business.
“consent of the ruled”
“Capitalism is much more environmentally friendly than any form of statism.”
That’s simply the biggest load of horseshit I’ve heard come out of a grown man’s mouth in a long time, Byron.
Or you could tell that to the people of Bophal, India (18,000-20,000 dead and thousands more blinded and permanently disabled by the release of methyl isocyanate caused by bad plant design and poor management) or Chernobyl (want to go there for a vacation?) or Love Canal (lovely homes for sale, don’t mind the dioxins) or the mothers of Thalidomide babies (unless you’d custom order a child with flippers instead of hands) or the 578 dead from the Texas City disaster of 1947 (go BOOM!) or the victims of the continuous 30 year long mercury poisoning of the the people of Minamata Bay, Japan by the Chisso Corporation (a whole town going insane).
You just can’t make that connection that economics and governance are not the same thing, can you? And that they have different ends that are not always compatible?
You sometimes sound just like a spoiled whining child. “No regulation! I want my cake and up yours if you want me to have to follow ANY rules!” Grow up.
Unregulated “free enterprise” (and call it capitalism – free enterprise is a term that disparages the word “freedom”) would KILL EVERYONE to make a profit without any regulations and enforcement to stop them. Capitalism is amoral despite your Pollyanna instances otherwise and history shows this time and again. The State (of any sort) ultimately rules only at the consent of the rules and therefor is responsible to the people ultimately. Capitalism is responsible to a profit indicator on a balance sheet and the greed of the few over the good of the many.
Quite frankly it’s growing tiresome.
Byron,
Don’t go case resting so quickly…
Have you ever heard of Damascus swords? Apparently they gets its legendary strength and sharpness from carbon nanotubes in the steel.
I’ll answer the rest of your post later.
Slarti:
50 years ago we didn’t even know what a carbon nanotube was. I rest my case.
We lighted our homes with whale oil in the 1800’s and it was a big business and environmentally unfriendly. We then used natural gas and electricity. Whaling became unnecessary to the extent it once was. Industrialization saved the whales, it wasn’t the Sierra Club or the EPA. The principle is the same with anything at any time in history. If you have a capitalistic system new technology will always drive out old technology because more money is to be made.
What you propose will only limit innovation, which it already has. In the span of 50 years, from the end of the Civil War until 1915 we went from the horse and buggy and whale oil lamps to automobiles, electricity and airplanes. The next 50 years saw the transistor and penicillin. The last 50 years has really only built on the previous 100 years. The personal computer and the Internet have been improved and commercialized because of a fairly free market which has been pretty much unregulated and untaxed.
Capitalism is much more environmentally friendly than any form of statism. Free industry and you will have, in the span of less than 50 years, a cheap renewable source of power that runs on water or something else. Taxation and regulations have prevented this from occurring. It should already have a large market share but we don’t have truly free markets, so they are inefficient users of capital.
http://www.cfcl.com.au/
Environmentalists are so worried about clean air and water they have prevented clean air and water by obstructive taxes and regulations.
I own some of that company mentioned above as full disclosure.
Byron,
In our discussion on another thread I think that I presented a workable way to gradually curtail pollution by taxing it (or by taxing products that require pollution to produce – thus enabling the taxation of things produced overseas as well). Industry will never clean up its act until there is a cost associated with pollution and the benefits to this country of incentivizing green industry are incalculable. The US may be one of the cleanest countries in the world, but that’s damning us with faint praise – we need to do better a produce new green technology so that when the rest of the world needs to clean up their act they look to us for help (i.e. buy OUR goods and services). Just because industrialization has benefits doesn’t mean that we should ever give up trying to do the same thing cleaner and better – man-made industrial toxins are a big deal. A natural environmental toxin (like sunlight – you don’t want to know how many lesions occur in your DNA every minute you are out in the sun) can do a lot of damage, but our cells have evolved mechanisms to mitigate and repair nearly all of this damage. Unfortunately we are now producing new chemicals which are even worse that our bodies have no resistance to. New chemicals are being produced at a far greater rate than their impact (both on human beings and the environment) can be determined (I used to work in a pathology department and I’ve gone to talks by NIEHS (national institute of environmental health and susceptibility – a division of the NIH) scientists in which they described the process of testing new chemicals. At any time there are about 20 different chemicals being tested and it is a multi-year process compared to hundreds of new chemicals patented each year. Adding a cost that provides the market with incentive to produce green solutions is the only way to clean up industry – please give me an example of an industry that reduced pollution voluntarily when it was financially disadvantageous to do so.
Buddha,
Hang on bro! I’m involved in a startup company that has developed a passive process to filter drinking water using carbon nano-tubes. We’ve got a pilot project going in India and hope to start full-scale production there soon. If all goes well we will be producing systems in the US within a couple of years. With any luck we’ll be able to sell you a system that can produce 300 liters of clean drinking water a day for your neighborhood or 50,000 liters per day for your town. Industrialization and science may have caused a lot of problems, but science is our best bet to fix them as well. In the meantime, always filter your drinking water!
Buddha/Elaine:
I don’t want my water or air polluted anymore than you do. But do you de-industrialize the entire country? The United States is one of the cleanest countries in the world and yes you could argue that the EPA, through fines and regulations, has helped. But you can just as easily say that industry has become cleaner as it has become more efficient.
I think there might also be a point to make that the EPA could not regulate industry if it could not comply with the regulations. It would be put out of business trying to reach emission/pollution standards that are unobtainable. So in actuality the EPA could be nothing more than a sham costing billions and billions of dollars and not actually doing anything but creating a reason for their existence. It wouldn’t be the first time a b-crat organization created the reason for their existence out of thin air.
Thanks for the Joni, Elaine. Here’s one from her latest:
Byron and Elaine,
Longevity versus quality is an argument older than the industrial revolution. But make no mistake, that industrially manufactured longevity is indeed coming at the cost of quality. Or would would you like to see the EPA mandated notice I got about my water quality last Thursday?
Byron,
Thank you for the audio link. The speaker “James” was verified as being on the rig at the time of the explosion.
I spoke with my brother-in-law, who is an oil field manager (close to 40 years experience), he gave me several scenarios of what could have happened, and he mentioned what “James” stated as a possible result (before I saw your link and listened to the audio). James was very knowledgeable and credible.
http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1790422&spid=32364
Byron–
More and more children each year are being diagnosed with asthma, severe food allergies, autism, and other health and learning problems. I can’t say whether or not environmental pollution is the cause of many of the children’s problems–but I’d hazard a guess it’s a contributing factor. I think quality of life is important…not just longevity.
Speaking for myself: I don’t want any off-shore drilling rigs near my neck of the ocean.
Back in the 1980s my husband worked for a windmill company. The company built a big wind farm near Altamont Pass in California. When the price of oil wasn’t as expensive any longer–a lot of grant money for such projects dried up. It seemed few people cared then about developing different technologies for energy production. Maybe if we had cared more about our environment and had looked to the future and not to the past, our country would have been decades ahead of where it is now with “greener” methods for producing energy.
Yes, we have a better quality of life today than we did before the Industrial Revolution. It’s come at a cost. We have to address environmental problems/potential causes of future disasters now. Why wait until the problems get out of control or the solutions are too costly? I’m for looking ahead…looking for ways to solve ecological problems before it’s too late.
Massey Energy put lots of people to work too. Unfortunately, some of those people died before their time.