British Petroleum isn't dithering. Yes, it's been five weeks since the most devastating oil spill in U.S. history. But it's probably impossible to fix.
The company's execs just look calm. Deep inside, they're roiling with anguish. Keeping it low-key is how Brits roll. Especially when they've got something to hide.
Talk about something to hide. Talk about tacky: a new BP document has come to light. It is a smoking gun: To save a few bucks, BP executives decided to go with a cheaper, riskier well casing at its doomed Deepwater Horizon platform -- one without a redundant safety system that might have prevented the explosion and subsequent spill. Greg McCormack, director of the Petroleum Extension Service at the University of Texas at Austin told The New York Times that BP's choice was "without a doubt a riskier way to go."
So here we are. And millions of fish and dolphins and pelicans aren't.
Why hasn't President Obama acted like one -- a president, that is? Why hasn't he seized BP's assets? Obama's torturers at Gitmo and Bagram are winding up 15-year-old Taliban teenagers and taxi drivers. Why aren't BP's execs learning the finer points of electrodes and nipple clamps?
The damage caused by BP's negligence is incalculable. Experts who talked to National Geographic magazine say the pressure at 5,000 feet below sea level is so high that the well under BP's doomed Deepwater Horizon platform will gush oil until it bleeds out. That could take years.
"You're talking about a reservoir that could have tens of millions of barrels in it," said David Rensink, incoming president of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
"We don't have any idea how to stop this," said Matthew Simmons, retired chair of the energy-industry investment banking firm Simmons & Company International. Ideas like jamming the leaking pipe with golf balls and other debris are a "joke," he added.
By the way, a Purdue engineering professor called before Congress now estimates the flow rate at 95,000 barrels, or 4 million gallons, of crude oil a day -- 20 times the company's official claim. If oil continues to contaminate the Gulf at that rate, by the end of July, this BP spill will become the worst oil disaster ever. The previous record was set by Iraq in 1991, which deliberately dumped 336 million gallons into the Persian Gulf to slow down U.S. invasion forces during the Gulf War.
Twelve years later, almost all of the Saudi coastline, including its marshes and mudflats, was devoid of life.
"It was amazing to stand there and look across what used to be a (Saudi) salt marsh and it was all dead -- not even a live crab," Miles Hayes, co-founder of the consulting firm Research Planning, Inc. and one of those who studied the spill's aftermath, recalled.
Lovely.
So this is Obama's Katrina. Or his second: he still hasn't done much to help those who lost their jobs or to create new ones. Technically, he also inherited Bush's Katrina -- he hasn't helped the 2005 flood victims on the Gulf Coast either.
What's different this time is that people are pissed. Not fake pissed, like the Tea Partiers who think he's a socialist (now wouldn't that be nice!) because of his lame healthcare package. They're actually, seriously, this-time-we-mean-it pissed. Because, get-the-guvmint-outta-my-life rhetoric aside, Americans expect their government to do something when something this big and this stupid happens. They have that right. Taxes ought to accomplish something other than killing Iraqis and Afghans.
So where is Obama?
Stuck changing planes on his way to Clueistan, evidently.
"We will not rest until this well is shut, the environment is repaired and this job is complete," Obama told workers at Solyndra Inc., a solar panel manufacturer near San Francisco. If the experts are right that 12 years won't make a dent in a spill this size, Barack's going to be a busy guy after he retires.
"The spill in the Gulf, which is heartbreaking, only underscores the necessity of seeking alternative fuel sources," he argued.
Voilà! That's the extent of Obama's response to Deepsix Horizon: talking about alternative energy.
Reducing the consumption of fossil fuels and transitioning to solar, wind and other clean sources of energy is long overdue. But that would/will take decades. We don't have years.
Not that Obama is even trying. His new 2012 budget calls for a mere $6 billion increase -- the same amount we spend to kill Iraqis and Afghans for three weeks -- for subsidies to companies trying to develop greener fuels. From 2002 to 2008, while gas prices and profits were skyrocketing, Big Oil received $72 billion in your tax dollars. A preemptive bailout, I assume.
Obama's efforts on automobile fuel efficiency have been equally lackluster. He has signed a law requiring cars and light trucks to get at least 34 miles per gallon by the year 2016. By 2016, industry analysts say, cars would have been getting 40 mpg anyway.
If Obama were half as hopey changey as he claimed during the campaign, BP's North American operations would now be U.S. government property, nationalized in order to compensate the fishermen and other injured parties in the Gulf. If he had an ounce of toughness, he would require that every car sold in the U.S. beginning in 2011 be a hybrid. Sales of SUVs and light trucks would be banned; existing models would have to be retired from U.S. roadways within two years. All offshore drilling would be prohibited. (Yes, gas prices would rise: about three to four cents a gallon over the next ten to fifteen years, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. Whatever.)
But Obama can't lead. He's in the pocket of Big Oil. In fact, he's making things worse: even after the spill began in the Gulf, his Department of Energy was still issuing new offshore drilling permits!
Resign, Mr. President. You won't be missed.
Share this article:
|
|
|
|
I've noticed most people that bash Rall are coming from an obviously right-leaning slant. As a liberal I find him fascinating because he is so far left he almost comes back around the other side. I don't bother to write anything here directed at Rall since he's nationally syndicated and probably never sees what is written here. You don't really have to be a far left liberal to bash Obama, though. Plenty of mainstream "progressives" are doing just that. While it was clear to me that he wasn't going to be the liberal standard bearer others thought, before I voted for him (committed to Afghanistan; voted for telecom immunity against illegal, Bush-era, wiretapping; etc.), I'm still shocked to see how far he's pushed the unitary power of the executive. It's a direct refutation of what he campaigned on. Transparency (not to mention his "belief" in separation of powers). Follow the writings of Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com for more on that. But in the case of Rall's article, we're talking about what will be the single worst environmental disaster this country has ever seen, and Obama's response to it has only been slightly short of appalling. Much of the architecture that allowed this to happen was in place long before he assumed office, but there were clear warning signs that you didn't even have to look to hard to find. See this excellent article in Rolling Stone. It should have anyone re-thinking their stance. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=0 Consider the systemic levels of graft, old-boyism, irresponsibility and flat out incompetence, and then look at what Rall is advocating and ponder whether or not it's the worst idea in the world. Considering the Supreme Court has granted the same status, in this country, to corporations as it does people, it isn't a huge leap of logic to hold British Petroleum criminally libel for--and I can't stress this enough--a completely preventable ecological disaster of unprecedented proportions; possibly in human history. Think of it like arson. If you burned an entire, smallish, country to the ground. If I were Obama I'd be seizing British Petroleum's assets to give to BP's competitors as long as they fix and clean up what BP clearly never will. Makes him look like the leader he isn't being now, and it satisfies not only public justice--which will want blood soon--but also a free market justice. The diabolical oil barons without the worst safety record on the fucking planet win. Bye-bye, BP. Joe
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm browbeating Rall, not Obama. But I don't mind browbeating Obama. He isn't a leader, a point he continues to prove daily. Also, it's first and foremost the purvey of people to help themselves, not devolve into dysfunction and hope enough hard-working fat people will provide them with largesse, or that the government will confiscate enough from everyone else to take up their slack.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
You're browbeating Obama because he isn't the Christ everyone hoped he would be? He's a politician, just like any other (albeit more intelligent and devious than the last several Presidents we've had IMO). Why don't you point out the real problem, the 50% of Americans who fail to use their voices in the voting booths, the lazy, spoiled Americans who don't know how to shop for more economical cars and live within their means, the overweight, overpaid Americans who don't give back to their communities to such an extreme that we must have government 'programs' in the first place, and the sedated, careless Americans who don't seem to mind a divisive, 2-party system. But "these are not the droids you're looking for," I suppose.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Like a broken clock that's correct twice per day, Rall occasionally gets a few things right. For example, what does Barack Obama have in common with Warren G. Harding? Both are awful Presidents, but at least give Harding some credit. He openly admitted he had no clue as to how to do the job of a President. Obama has no clue, but won't dare admit it. So even Warren Harding is one-up on Barack Obama. "Resign, Mr. President", says Rall, "You won't be missed". Indeed. A great many people are resenting the fact they voted for this charlatan. But that's the extent of any credit I can give Ted Rall. If Rall had a real job, one, for example, that involved actually doing work, he might realize (as he suggests) banning light trucks is a bad idea. Many small business owners, particularly those involved in manual trades, depend on light trucks to carry tools and equipment and haul loads. And Rall wants to screw them by making light trucks illegal, a strange wish coming from someone who cares so deeply for the working man, don't you think? Then again, if this self-described Really Smart Guy actually took the time to think through his half-baked suggestions, maybe he wouldn't make them. One other question Rall might raise - if he didn't so thoroughly hate Big Oil - would be to ask why energy companies are forced into the logistical nightmare of drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place. See: Domestic Bans on Drilling. Government and so-called environmentalists should admit their role in pushing drilling off the continent into the middle of the ocean. It was just a matter of time before a venture such as BP's Deepwater Horizon went so horribly south. As a result, everyone (and not the least the environment and the Gulf Coast states) will be paying through the nose for the limitations concerning onshore production. Add to that, we are utterly dependent on foreign sources of petroleum - much of it from countries that don't like us very much - to meet our energy needs. It would be at least ten years before we could develop the infrastructure capacity to meet the needs ourselves. Add another ten years before alternative energy sources become viable enough to fully replace the demand for fossil fuels. It's an old saying, but it bears repeating - "screw the oil companies, and you'll end up freezing in the dark". Let’s hope we don’t have to find out how true that really is.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|