Mac McClelland has an article in Mother Jones about clean-up efforts following the BP oil disaster of a month ago. The extent to which BP is manipulating the local government and the press is worth noting and passing on for others to read. More to consider as they try to plug the damn hole... I suppose we are beginning to see some media trickle about what "do everything possible" really means for Big Oil Execs.In BP's defense, we need to remember that this is a complex process.
Posts
What exactly is there to cover up?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you mean... the article I linked explains a bit about how the media is being redirected by BP. I take it that what's being covered up is the extent of the damage and what exactly is being done in the aftermath. I'm not sure why this is unclear.
ReplyDelete"I take it that what's being covered up is the extent of the damage and what exactly is being done in the aftermath."
ReplyDeleteAhh, most of the American public is already in "9/11 mode" about the issue; generally speaking, that means most people think of this as near to an environmental apocalypse.
Anyway, being from the ffected region I will just note that oil spills of varying magnitude happen all the time in the Gulf.
Good article on regulation, etc.: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/bp-spill/#
ReplyDeleteEmphasis on varying magnitude.
ReplyDeleteYour response to me is bizarre, anonymous. Are you saying that BP is not, in fact, covering up the extent of the damage or what is being done in response to it?
That seems the only relevant point here. Not your speculative ideas of what "most people" "generally speaking" think about this event as a sort of conspiracy or apocalyptic event. Not regional nostalgia of "this shit happens all the time!"
"Anyway, being from the ffected region I will just note that oil spills of varying magnitude happen all the time in the Gulf."
ReplyDeleteYes, but oil spills of this magnitude have never happened in the entire course of human history.
It's a bad spill, it's a big deal. It's not an apocalypse but it's not good either. It is the worst we've ever had. Why this impulse to shrug it off? What an odd reaction! It's bad. You're allowed to say that!
The article on regulation seems independent of the question of covering up BP's screw-ups. I haven't advocated any specific solution to this (besides the obvious suggestion of not lying about conditions or restricting the media from various locations or having all calls made to local police and fire services to an oil company). It strikes me that BP has its hand in the government's pants as much as the opposite is the case.
ReplyDelete...see, this is why advocates of very limited government regulation are viewed by so many people as really only looking out for the interests of big business. As Daniel says... why the need to shrug this off? Really, what is the impulse to do so? BP doesn't give a damn about you, why play softball with them?
ReplyDelete"Are you saying that BP is not, in fact, covering up the extent of the damage or what is being done in response to it?"
ReplyDeleteHow exactly could they? I mean, BP could try to do that, but it will all out; too large of a story not to.
And yes, this shit does happen all the time; which is why I find the all the moral outrage regarding this event so funny.
Well, and if you want to make your case about tort reform and oil industry liabilities that's fine too if you want to blame government. Make the case and see if it stands up.
ReplyDeleteBut it's a big fucking spill that's doing a lot of damage. That is true even in the context of what is usually experienced in the region, and even in the context of an "accidents happen" attitude, which to a certain extent I can sympathize with. Accidents DO happen. That's not a reason to treat them non chalantly, though - particularly the record breaking ones!
"And yes, this shit does happen all the time"
ReplyDeleteTo repeat - this shit has never happened before. We have never had a spill of this magnitude. A little while ago it was certified bigger than Exxon-Valdez. This is not run of the mill stuff.
dkuehn,
ReplyDelete"Why this impulse to shrug it off?"
Because this is faux-bullshit ourtage, that's why. I used to be a fisherman ... I can't tell you how many times Gulf fisheries of one type or another were closed due to oil leaks, spills, etc. Now all of a sudden there is all this concern about the issue from Maine to Colorado to Washington. I find it to be rather disgusting and opportunistic IMHO.
As a former fisherman... as someone who has experienced the closure of fisheries before... I'm still just at a loss for words why the focus now would be such a problem. I could see someone who is unattached to these consequences laughing off the media attention, but someone who knows of the costs better than Daniel or I ever could? I think you are further away from explaining your impulse, rather than closer to it.
ReplyDeleteOK - Gulf Coast area... are you vidyohs? I think he's from houston.
ReplyDeleteI really don't think you realize what a dumbass you sound like. And I don't like ad hominems, but this is one of those rare instances where there's enough evidence that I think it really doesn't count as an ad hominem.
Anyway - the fact that you see people who are concerned that there is a massive pool of oil in the Gulf as the disgusting thing here, rather than... say... the massive pool of oil in the Gulf - I think that speaks for itself. The word "misanthropic" comes to mind.
Its a problem because I view the attention as fake and of little long-term consequence. In six months (assuming the Top Kill works) this will have faded from memory and we'll be back to business as usual, with a few limits on deep sea drilling in areas where it was going to be limited anyway. That's why what BP is doing isn't a problem I concern myself with much; BP isn't the problem ultimately; the problem is the system they work in; and that system will not be changing in any fundamental way.
ReplyDeletedkhuen,
ReplyDeleteNo, I am not vidyohs.
Yeah, someone told me roughly the same thing a few weeks after Katrina, when I predicted that Katrina fatigue would set in within two to three months. And lo and behold, I was right.
"I really don't think you realize what a dumbass you sound like."
I sound like a realist actually.
Anyway, I'll be making my exit ... but mark my words, it will be business as usual in six months.
ReplyDelete"Yeah, someone told me roughly the same thing a few weeks after Katrina, when I predicted that Katrina fatigue would set in within two to three months. And lo and behold, I was right."
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly do you mean by fatigue, then? I mean, is this just bitterness that you don't make the front page after a few months? It's not as if people aren't continuing to work on Katrina. In any major catastrophe, there will inevitably be more immediate attention to it, as a way to rally support from those far removed and as a way of updating people about a developing situation. That this tapers off doesn't mean it was to no good purpose.
Now, I'd certainly agree that there is a problem of impulsive but unsustained philanthropy, and it would be great if more people continued to be concerned about problems years after their initial sentimental impact was felt. But again, I don't see that as a reason to ignore the significance of a problem, or the significance of the wider response to it by people who live elsewhere.
...again, the question really boils down to whether BP is covering things up or is impeding the spread of important information. That's a rather straightforward issue, as is the question of the damage that this catastrophe will do. These are questions that can be answered regardless of media hype or sentimental attachment to pictures of oily seagulls.
ReplyDelete