Pharyngula

Posted by: daveau | June 17, 2010 12:24 PM

From here, it looks kind of pretty. I'm sure it's not. Just making me angrier, now.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 17, 2010 12:28 PM

fuck

Posted by: daveau | June 17, 2010 12:33 PM

Speaking of which, did anyone else see Rachel Maddow's reimagining of Obama's oval office speech last night?

Posted by: levitooker | June 17, 2010 12:36 PM

As if I didn't have enough reasons not to move to Alabama...

Posted by: bengunnink | June 17, 2010 12:46 PM

Is Augustus Gloop in there somewhere?

Posted by: cameron | June 17, 2010 12:57 PM

There's a lot of talk about how much BP should have to pay for cleanup and to recompense the people who are losing their livelihoods and having their property poisoned. There is not a lot of talk about how no amount of money is going to make this better. Damage has been done that can't be fixed. There are endangered species that live and breed in that area, and if they aren't driven to extinction by this event I'll be very surprised. How much money does it cost to bring an extinct species back?

While I was going to sleep last night I was thinking of what an appropriate punishment for the BP executives would be. Maybe we could have them stand in a poisoned swamp up to their chest in gluey oil with cinderblocks chained around their necks. They get to live for exactly as long as they can stay upright. It's no worse a fate than millions of other living creatures are suffering right now so they can afford their yachts and cocaine orgies.

Posted by: umkomasia | June 17, 2010 1:01 PM

You're. Sorry.

Posted by: Die Anyway | June 17, 2010 1:07 PM

Too close to home. (Pensacola) Damn.

BP initialized the compensation fund with $20 billion. Imagine where we could be if some of the start-up electric car companies had $20 billion to work with on R&D.

Posted by: levitooker | June 17, 2010 1:12 PM

I'm an asshole because I don't want to move to a hot climate where I'd be surrounded by conservatives and religious fundamentalists and beached oil? Please explain.

Posted by: ButchKitties | June 17, 2010 1:13 PM

Electric cars would be great, but developing them now is skipping a step. They won't do much good since most of our electricity comes from fossil fuels.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 17, 2010 1:19 PM

You've got to have some sympathy for BP in this.

Oh, this should be good...

Firstly, it's not a foriegn company as some are infering and...

Wait... which has fuck-all to do with what, exactly? How is this a defense? Or a reason to "feel bad" for BP?

This technology has been around for a while and risks are well known.

And corners were cut and safety precautions ignored by BP... what's your fucking point? That off-shore drilling has an inherent risk? No shit. I agree. But how the fuck does that engender one to feel "sorry" for BP?

If we don't want to see such surf breaks, regulators should be hauled over the coals for permiting off shore drilling.

Again, this may be a valid point, but it's got fuck-all to do with the fact that the oil industry, and BP in particular, has invested little to no money over the last 30 years in research and development of technologies to adequately prevent or respond to catastrophic oil spills. And that the safety measures that are in place, insufficient as they are, were got around, short-cut, or ignored altogether (so the testimony states thus far).

Again explain to me why any of has should have even the first fucking tinge of sympathy for an organization that drives its profits up at the cost of potential environmental disaster?

Fuck right off.

Posted by: Asclepias | June 17, 2010 1:20 PM

Cameron @ #11-That's exactly my thinking. When I heard Obama talking about how we will somehow get the coast back to its original state, I was like, "Ummm, yeah. Delusional much?" Then again, I'm willing to bet he knows that, and is just saying that to placate all the people who don't. As for extinctions, we seem to be well on the way to getting rid of that pesky Kemps-Ridley sea turtle.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | June 17, 2010 1:21 PM

Damn. Damn damn damn damn.

levitooker, you're being an ass. If you'd like to continue to be an ass, keep on going. If you'd like to stop being an ass, then stop sliming an entire area as if there is nothing and no one of any value there.

Read about the constant oil spills in Nigeria today. Apparently no one ever learns anything as long as there is profit to be made.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 17, 2010 1:24 PM

I'm an asshole because I don't want to move to a hot climate where I'd be

No, you're an asshole because you just implied that a national disaster that is completely destroying an entire ecosystem is just another reason for luckily situated you not to give a shit, and that essentially the only value this ecosystem could ever have should be measured by how well it suits your selfish ass.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | June 17, 2010 1:30 PM

By the way - where are all the libertarians we usually have around to explain to us how the unfettered free market with no government controls on what companies can do and how is the best thing evah?

Posted by: Fred The Hun | June 17, 2010 1:32 PM

Because there has never been a leak this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. That's why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge -- a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation's Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.

As a result of these efforts, we've directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology. And in the coming weeks and days, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well. This is until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that's expected to stop the leak completely.

President Obama from the Oval Office

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojydNb3Lrrs

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 17, 2010 1:34 PM

Carlie -

To me that looks like the standard "calm weather" breaking wave one would expect on that shoreline in Alabama... probably 6 - 12 inches high... my experiences with similar size waves on the shore of Maine is that they are typically this smooth on calm days before breaking... I could be wrong though...

It's an unfortunate twist of fate that this beach should carry the name "Orange Beach".

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | June 17, 2010 1:35 PM

Obviously levitooker has chosen option B, continue to be an ass.

I know there are kind, nice, reasonable people there, even if the religious/political/ecological climate isn't to my liking. I just don't want to move there want to be able to talk about how much they all suck and how happy I am to avoid being there because I am so much better than they are, that's all.

Posted by: OJC | June 17, 2010 1:37 PM

I couldn't believe that the US was planning to open up more areas for drilling. Haven't heard about that for a little while now....
Any off shore drilling could produce these consequences and while we are designing punishments for the BP executives, are we capping off any of the other wells? Hell no, we still want to drive our cars to work. Besides I'm sure all the other companies involved are completely safe.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 17, 2010 1:40 PM

And if somebody finds it hurtful or offensive when I say I don't want to move to where they are, then maybe they need tougher skin.

You're not really very important to the people living in Alabama right now, but I'm sure they all appreciate your insult added to their injury. Hate to break it to you but they kind of have bigger issues on their hands. Issues that appear to be well beyond your grasp.

Maybe it's not their skin that's too thin, but rather your skull that's too thick.

On behalf of the coast I'll just say "Geez we sure are sorry we don't suit you. You sure are important and shit. We'll get this coastline cleaned up just as *soon* as we can because we'd sure hate for you to be disappointed and have yet another reason not to like us!"

Posted by: levitooker | June 17, 2010 1:48 PM

Look, I'm sorry for offending anyone. Again, yes, there are plenty of Alabamans worthy of respect. But there are plenty of reasons I don't want to move there, just as I'm sure there are plenty of reasons lots of Alabamans don't want to move here.

I didn't say all Alabamans suck. I didn't say the whole place is worthless. I'm just not in a hurry to pick up my bags and move there. And neither is PZ, judging by the last sentence in his post, so why don't you pile on him and put words in his mouth too?

Posted by: Tulse | June 17, 2010 1:50 PM

Electric cars would be great, but developing them now is skipping a step. They won't do much good since most of our electricity comes from fossil fuels.

This isn't "skipping a step" at all, since while most of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, all of our gasoline and diesel does. Decoupling cars from direct use of fossil fuels, and moving them to a more "fungible" power source such as electricity, produceable through a variety of means, allows for incremental progress in eliminating fossil fuels entirely. If the whole electrical grid had to be renewable before we change to electric cars, the move would never happen.

Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm | June 17, 2010 1:56 PM

Rachel Maddow for REAL President!
She's got my vote.
She says she'll never run for anything, though.

Thanks daveau @ 5 for the link.

Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | June 17, 2010 2:01 PM

Wave or attacking shoggoth? You be the judge...

Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls | June 17, 2010 2:03 PM

Deep fried Jesus on a stick! That looks awful.

Posted by: Not Guilty | June 17, 2010 2:04 PM

I feel ill looking at that.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | June 17, 2010 2:10 PM

levitooker, besides smearing the entire place, you took that picture that represents real ecological devastation on a level most of us have never even imagined before, devastation that might well ruin the careers and lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and made it all about yourself and how great you have it.

Posted by: ButchKitties | June 17, 2010 2:20 PM

@ Tulse,

Fair enough. Of course it would stupid to wait for the entire grid to be renewable before switching to electric. These are changes that need to happen in tandem, not a single file progression. Mainly, I worry that switching to electric cars would lead to complacency about the overall power grid. People see how much gasoline they pump to their cars. They don't see how much coal is getting burned at the power plant.

I forgot my audience. People here are aware of the full scope of our oil use. I know so many people who talk about electric cars as if they are already completely free of fossil fuels, and if we'd only make the switch then all our problems would be solved. They don't ever consider where the energy for the battery comes from. Their realm of concern stops at their wall outlet. They're the same people who talk about ending our oil dependence while throwing their plastic water bottles in the trash.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893 | June 17, 2010 2:33 PM

Oh, come on, it's just a bunch of unthinking, dumb animals. They don't even know they're alive.

The fact is, we need to drive Hummers to keep our families safe. Anyone not driving such a vehicle doesn't care about their family.

I tried to explain to these animals that they need to nest elsewhere. It's our Gulf; God put that oil there for us to get. It'll all work out in the end. If you want wildlife, go to California, you bunch of nutballs. But you better go there soon, because that coast is next.

Our survival depends on this. We are more important than a bunch of silly pelicans.

/Poe

(I'm not sure if the average family from a solidly-red state doesn't actually think this way.)

Really, if I can be serious for a moment, I am flat out running out of reasons to oppose nuclear power. It wouldn't be your parents' nuclear power, or plants run by companies motivated only by profit; don't take me wrong.

Seems like it's working fine in France and Japan, though.

Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls | June 17, 2010 2:44 PM

@#57

Really, if I can be serious for a moment, I am flat out running out of reasons to oppose nuclear power. It wouldn't be your parents' nuclear power, or plants run by companies motivated only by profit; don't take me wrong.

Seems like it's working fine in France and Japan, though.

Came to the same painful conclusion about a year ago. There seem to be a new generation of nuclear reactors were the reaction must be actively maintained rather than prevented from running riot. In the short term might be the only choice.

Posted by: Q.E.D | June 17, 2010 2:49 PM

Here's my modest proposal: The US should expropriate all of BP's assets in the US and run the company safely as an ongoing concern to pay out for as long as it takes to compensate for all damages caused until the Gulf, its resident people and wildlife are put in status quo ante.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | June 17, 2010 2:54 PM

I am flat out running out of reasons to oppose nuclear power.

Because those of us in Oregon and Washington who live downriver from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation didn't want to store any more spent fuel rods. Thanks to Washington voters, that possibility is at least postponed. Hopefully, citizens of other states will come to the same conclusion.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | June 17, 2010 2:57 PM

Rush is trying (and failing) to put the spill into perspective:

108 million gallons of oil divided by 660 quadrillion gallons of water is one gallon of oil for every 6.6 billion gallons of water in the Gulf. One gallon of oil, not barrel, one gallon of oil for every 6.6 billion gallons of water in the Gulf. To bring this down to a size that everybody can understand, that is the equivalent of roughly one millionth of an ounce of oil in a typical bathtub full of water. The perspective here is people are saying it's going to take forever to clean up the Gulf of Mexico. It will not. Most of the Gulf of Mexico, the water volume, will not be affected.

That argument is kind of like saying: "It's no big deal that Chicago is burning to the ground. That's like losing a square 1/8 of an inch on the top of your desk." (Yes, I did the math.)

Except it's worse than that because, Rush, the oil isn't going to disperse homogeneously into the entire volume of the Gulf. It's going to float on top (or near the top, for the most part). And where is most of the life in the Gulf? Near the top. See the problem?

Posted by: Dryodora | June 17, 2010 3:00 PM

Ungh. Talk about connecting on a personal level - I used to go drinking near there; The legendary Flora-Bama lounge is in Orange Beach (Straddles the Florida-Alabama state line). I stood on the beach watching my friend get married.

Also, to avoid stepping on toes of any southerners/south-bashers, I should note that I am a GAY CANADIAN ATHEIST, and I lived on Dauphin Island, Alabama for three years while attending graduate school in marine science. There does seem to me to be a larger percentage of racist, ignorant folks than other areas I've been, but your results may vary. There are a ton of awesome folks too, and a lot of great culture, history, music and food. I miss the place terribly, especially now. :(

Posted by: Robert H | June 17, 2010 3:15 PM

@57

I am flat out running out of reasons to oppose nuclear power

Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | June 17, 2010 3:29 PM

In the short term might be the only choice.

That's the thing that worries me, is that we're drawn to a single solution to replace fossil fuels. Fossil fuel is so uniquely cheap, dense and available, that I can't see there being a single easy solution; we may well need to take into account the possibility that the age of cheap energy is coming to a definite end. If we wind up relying on Nuclear energy to replace coal and oil, I think we might wind up with the exact same problems all over again: Struggle for control over nuclear resources, toxic waste from mass consumption, consumer demand overriding consumer safety, and of course, the eventual decline of easy-to-mine nuclear materials.

I think the short term solution will have to be one that involves many different technologies. Personal PV in areas where it's practical, wind farms where they are practical, a combination of electric and biofuel for vehicles, and nuclear/hydroelectic to stabilize the variable nature of those systems.

More than that, we probably need to rethink our relationship with energy, and work towards public policies and technologies that encourage efficiency, such as much stricter codes on home-building, and encouraging land use for denser, walkable, public transportation-accessible urban area, rather than designed in a way that essentially requires an automobile to make them livable.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | June 17, 2010 3:33 PM

It's going to float on top (or near the top, for the most part).

Except for the bits that sink to the bottom, and cover the ocean floor in sludge, due in part to the use of dispersants.

Good-bye, shrimp. Good-bye, crab. Good-bye, little leafy things that grow from the ocean floor in shallow water.

Of course, Prince William sound is all better now. Yep. No more oil problems in Alaska. No-siree-bob. It's like nothin' ever happened.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | June 17, 2010 3:41 PM

Really, if I can be serious for a moment, I am flat out running out of reasons to oppose nuclear power. It wouldn't be your parents' nuclear power, or plants run by companies motivated only by profit; don't take me wrong.

Seems like it's working fine in France and Japan, though.

It might be helpful to take a couple of points into consideration.

1) Our current lifestyles are not sustainable, period, end of story.

2) One must understand the consequences of the exponential function. Infinite growth is not possible on a finite planet.

There is a book and it can be downloaded for free, it might be a good place to start:

Sustainable Energy — without the hot air

Copyright David JC MacKay 2009.

Could our current once-through use of mined uranium be sustainable? It’s hard to say, since there is such uncertainty about the result of future exploration. Certainly at today’s rate of consumption, once-through reactors could keep going for hundreds of years. But if we wanted to crank up nuclear power 40-fold worldwide, in order to get off fossil fuels and to allow standards of living to rise, we might worry that once-through reactors are not a sustainable technology.

If fast reactors are 60 times more efficient, the same extraction of ocean
uranium could deliver 420 kWh per day per person. At last, a sustainable
figure that beats current consumption! – but only with the joint help of two
technologies that are respectively scarcely-developed and unfashionable:
ocean extraction of uranium, and fast breeder reactors.

The fuel for producing Nuclear Energy is also a non renewable resource...

Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com | June 17, 2010 4:03 PM

If only we could those resposible for the oil spill ride the wave.

----

The conspiracy theorists are busy at work.

Posted by: Tulse | June 17, 2010 4:05 PM

The fuel for producing Nuclear Energy is also a non renewable resource...

Thorium can also be used as a nuclear fuel, and it is far more abundant than uranium (and has some other nice features, such as not being naturally radioactive, and producing less long-lived waste). There's currently a fair bit of research into developing thorium-fueled reactors.

Posted by: archaeus225 | June 17, 2010 4:31 PM

This really pisses me off. I haven't lived in the US for a few years now, but I grew up on the beaches on that coastline. Most every summer as a kid was spent on that strip of beaches between Gulf Shores and Panama City.

It really sickens me to see that happening. Let's worship capitalism and laugh at environmentalists more, right?

Posted by: nomen-nescio.myopenid.com | June 17, 2010 4:31 PM

@69:

My main concern is that there is, as of yet and AFAIK, no adequate means of disposing of spent nuclear fuel.

there are several, actually. the most politically palatable is to bury it deep.

no, i don't mean Yucca Mountain deep; that particular plan has several aspects to it that ping my bullshit detector. i mean deep as in the Swedish and Finnish final storage projects, google them up for yourself. key differences: solid, reasonably dry bedrock to bury it in, and waste buried in sealed, rustproof containers inside sealed, filled-in tunnels designed to stay dry and stable for millennia.

(oh, and they've been saving up funds to finance these projects with since the power plants first opened. because utilities elsewhere can actually see the inevitable outcome of running their plants, years in advance. fancy that.)

more technically useful, and more final, would be reprocessing and reusing the stuff. most of it's still fissionable, after all, meaning most of it can be cleaned up and fed back in --- if not into the exact same reactor, then into another, designed for the specific purpose of turning nuclear "waste" into electricity. unfortunately, this is politically impossible for fear of plutonium.

A billion gallons of coal slurry is horrible; we see above one of the lesser effects of up to 2.5 million gallons of oil pouring into the Gulf daily; the consequences of massive amounts of radioactive waste let loose in the environment is beyond reckoning.

it would be, except that nukes really don't put out what you'd call "massive" amounts of waste to begin with. certainly not when compared to coal burners! nuclear waste is nasty stuff, but for the amount of electricity it generated there's really very little of it --- and better yet, it's all in known, predictable, controllable locations. it might be very hard to render safe, but it's (comparatively) trivial to render stationary and to keep from leaking out.

...provided, anyway, that we don't let profit-crazed corporations like BP or the Tennessee Valley Authority have free rein in choosing how they do it. the nuclear industry is strictly regulated for a reason, and if it had got away with the sort of "oversight" the petroleum industry's apparently saddled with, i don't doubt we would have had many more three mile islands by now.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 17, 2010 4:36 PM

nomen-nescio.myopenid.com #83

the nuclear industry is strictly regulated for a reason, and if it had got away with the sort of "oversight" the petroleum industry's apparently saddled with, i don't doubt we would have had many more three mile islands by now.

It isn't Three Mile Islands we have to worry about, it's Chernobyls.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | June 17, 2010 4:44 PM

The only thing missing from that picture is Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann surfing that wave in a red, white and blue bikini.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893 | June 17, 2010 4:51 PM

What turned me around on Yucca Mountain was the Penn and Teller show on it. I know BS is a popular show around here, so others have seen it as well. That show explains pretty well how Yucca Mountain works.

They put it there because it's seismically stable, doesn't get much rain, and is fairly secure (for now, recognizing that countries really don't last forever).

I remember seeing a show on how this commercial ship dismantling shop in Russia disposed of old submarines. As I understand it, there's an island near the coast where they're taking all nuclear waste and simply stashing it.

These methods contrast starkly with Yucca Mountain. If we were just taking our waste and throwing them onto an island in the Puget Sound, then I wouldn't suggest wider use of nuclear power.

How are the Japanese and French dealing with nuclear waste?

For our own part, in CA, we build large electricity plants so we can move water from Northern California, which is ruining the Delta. Why not just build, say, one nuclear plant that can run a desalination plant, going to great lengths to mitigate the impacts of the water intakes? Southern Cal could use the electricity when it doesn't need the water, too.

Or, even better: Just use less water.

(Don't even get me started on the problems coal mining and burning cause...)

Posted by: Tulse | June 17, 2010 5:04 PM

What turned me around on Yucca Mountain was the Penn and Teller show on it.

I wouldn't depend on getting my science from a pair of magician-comedians. For example, they had another show on how dubious climate change is.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2010 5:05 PM

Electric cars would be great, but developing them now is skipping a step. They won't do much good since most of our electricity comes from fossil fuels.

you've bought into one key aspect the automobile industry has been spinning for years.

In fact, electric cars would be MUCH cleaner and better than gas burning autos.

why?

Should I explain the difference between point and non-point sources of pollution?

If I don't, suffice it to say that a point source of pollution is orders of magnitude easier to control.

Posted by: daveau | June 17, 2010 5:10 PM

WTF, Mikko?

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2010 5:12 PM

Did Professor Myers' plane fly to Oslo on solar power?

Is your brain powered by alcohol?

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2010 5:20 PM

It's going to float on top (or near the top, for the most part).

actually, past oil spills in the tropics have indicated that heavier hydrocarbons will become trapped in sediments and re-released every time those sediments are disturbed.

...and that was with oil spills that were literally a drop compared to this gusher.

No, this is an unmitigated disaster that the entire gulf coast, and, given that it likely will be picked up by the gulf stream, potentially much larger area, will be feeling for decades.

They are STILL finding oil deposits in the sediments from the Exxon Valdez spill, for example, and that is readily searchable in google.

The tropic spill research I mentioned earlier is more obscure, but you will be able to find the references easily enough at your local uni.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | June 17, 2010 5:44 PM

What turned me around on Yucca Mountain was the Penn and Teller show on it.

Which shows how fucking stupid you are. Penn Gillette a libertarian ideologue and propagandist, a Fellow at the Cato Institute (as he says, his credentials being that he graduated from clown school).

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | June 17, 2010 5:50 PM

As a Brit, this has to be one of those 'hang head in shame, crawl under nearest rock' moments that UK citizens experience from time to time when some of our fellow Brits do things that are so crass and stupid that it reflects badly on the entire nation.

Tony Hayworth is a case in point. That men is utterly incapable of opening his mouth without making an already horrendous situation even worse by showing an utter lack of empathy for the victims of BP's gross greed and incompetence.

While Obama's principle motivation in making such a public showing of going after BP is doubtless to pull his political fat out of the fire before the November mid-term elections, I find myself incapable of mustering any sympathy for the company whose corner-cutting and greed lead directly to the worst ecological disaster in US history, not to mention the ruination of countless livlihoods.

I have but one concern in relation to the treatment of BP; it would be very unfortunate if BP became a lightning rod for all the public approbrium that should be directed at the whole corrupt edifice that is the petrochemical industry. BP is symptomatic of a far more widspread rot and, while it would doubtless be gratifiying to simply stick the boot into BP and have done, I would bet money that the failings of BP are replicated, to a lesser or greater degree, across the entire oil industry.

A massive tightening of the regulation of oil exploration on both sides of the pond might be a first step, but this disaster amounts to one more reason to ask why it is that, at the dawn of the 21st century, we are still so dependent on dirty and inefficient fossil fuels for our energy production? It is time for a far better funded and organised effort to develop sources of clean, alternative energy that are credibly capable of replacing fossil fuels entirely. The oil companies will not like it, but it is high time that the influence of petro-chem lobbies was curbed in any case.

I will go and crawl under my rock now...

*slinks off*

Posted by: truth machine, OM | June 17, 2010 5:56 PM

While Obama's principle motivation in making such a public showing of going after BP is doubtless to pull his political fat out of the fire before the November mid-term elections

Yeah, forcing them to put up $20 billion has nothing to do with it.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2010 5:58 PM

BP is symptomatic of a far more widspread rot and, while it would doubtless be gratifiying to simply stick the boot into BP and have done

sadly, looking at the example of Exxon, I seriously doubt that even putting the boot to BP will actually happen.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | June 17, 2010 6:01 PM

BP is symptomatic of a far more widspread rot and, while it would doubtless be gratifiying to simply stick the boot into BP and have done

Who said anything about have done?

I would bet money that the failings of BP are replicated, to a lesser or greater degree, across the entire oil industry.

No shit, Sherlock.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2010 6:05 PM

Some people are trying hard

6874 6875

for what it's worth.

:)

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2010 6:11 PM

What exactly is your point?

you are being rather dense today, it seems.

here, let me translate for you:

"people who fly/drive/boat/use any kind of fossil fuel in any capacity whatever, are hypocrites if they complain about this disaster"

are you sure you haven't seen this asinine argument before?

It's just like the "Al gore drives a big car, so where does he get off talking about global warming!" bullshit.

It has no point, other than to demonstrate that the person who says it is a complete ass.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | June 17, 2010 6:16 PM

I think it's just a little hypocritical to piss and moan and about BP, and then make that really important trans Atlantic flight to Europe.

And I think you're a fool who doesn't understand what hypocrisy is. By your formulation, one can be less hypocritical simply by remaining silent.

hy·poc·ri·sy (hĭ-pŏk'rĭ-sē) n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

2. An act or instance of such falseness.

Posted by: Holbach | June 17, 2010 6:20 PM

I haven't heard much comment from the religious hordes over the cause of that Gulf disaster, whether it was the devil or their god who would permit such a catastrophe. Bill Donohue seems to be more concerned in having his gnome of a religious cretin put up in lights than having his god undo the incredible disaster.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | June 17, 2010 6:25 PM

That we all use the shit. We suck it up everyday. And it won't change unless we're willing to make real sacrifices. I think it's just a little hypocritical to piss and moan and about BP, and then make that really important trans Atlantic flight to Europe.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2010 6:33 PM

Well, I'm kinda dense, so, please, someone try, to enlighten me on solving these problems without making real sacrifices.

strawman.

Posted by: semopcoes | June 17, 2010 6:37 PM

Oil was put under the sea by the big guy in the sky as a reward for the good old boys. John D. Rockefeller Sr. said as much. States scrape off revenues. Industry distributes obscene salaries and profits. Owners and executives lobby reduced regulation and liability. When the sh*t hits the fan, all whine that they have been hurt because some incompetent called THEY screwed up. The facts indeed show that no one did do enough, and that the proximate cause was a general irresponsibility of industry, somewhat misleadingly painted as BP. However, even under ideal conditions screw-ups will occur, with, in the case of oil, unacceptable consequences (not to mention the collective insanity of pumping oil while denying any significance of atmospheric CO2). NOAA’s May climate summaries should be available in a day or two at the following link (Click the third link under “Global Products”): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/. Just wait til the surf really gets up.

Posted by: montaigne66 | June 17, 2010 6:42 PM

strawman

No, I'm serious. I mean, I can fix or build just about anything I or my family needs, but I'm just a high school graduate, who reads when he has time, but that's the extent of my education. All I think is it would take the kind of sacrifices that we aren't willing to make, or aren't able to make, to fix these problems. We'd have to give up a lot.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | June 17, 2010 6:48 PM

Well, I'm kinda dense, so, please, someone try, to enlighten me on solving these problems without making real sacrifices.

No one said anything about trying to solve these problems without making real sacrifices -- that's why this is a strawman. The issue is your charge of hypocrisy, and I've explained why it's mistaken.

I'm afraid I'm nowhere near an airport. I'm not as off the grid and self sufficient as possible, but I'm fairly close.

But you're sitting there using a computer, which uses energy and took energy to produce. And you could have complained about PZ's flight in the thread where he talked about it, but instead you brought it up here, and charged him with hypocrisy -- suggesting that it is wrong of him to complain about the spill. That's just wrongheaded -- dense indeed.

Posted by: montaigne66 | June 17, 2010 6:49 PM

montaigne66's #112 is itself hypocritical since he's sitting at a computer using energy while complaining about its consequences (but that's not hypocritical,

I put my life savings, and borrowed for the rest, into four solar panels and two mini wind turbines. They generally make much more than we need. I can't really "retire" now, but for us, it was worth it.

But I am a hypocrite up to a point. I use oil, but I use as little as possible. I haven't traveled more than 150 miles from my home in over ten years.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | June 17, 2010 6:54 PM

...Because forcing such a payoff will in no way shape or form help the President's political standing in the nation...

Ah, sorry for intruding on your unfalsifiable thesis.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | June 17, 2010 7:01 PM

Some people *looks* think that doing the right thing and putting pressure on BP can't be coincidental to furthering political interests, but instead must ONLY be motivate by political interest.

*looks back*

I never said I wasn't a cynic, but I also never said that Obama was motivated only by political interest. Having said that, it is certainly a consideration, and may well be a greater consideration that doing the right thing. The man is a politician, after all. It is not as though he is unaware how to play an audience...

If he can take BP to task and get a boost in the polls, its a win-win for him. I don't think anyone could credibly accuse the President of being politically naive.

Some Americans are complete idiots.

True, and every single one of them who has their majority also has a vote. That is the political reality that the President has to deal with. The fact that the blame being levelled at him is unfair is not sufficient to stop the political harm it could cause. Damage limitation is only prudent at this point.

Posted by: montaigne66 | June 17, 2010 7:03 PM

My apologies, truth machine, I didn't read the post you mentioned. I don't spend a lot of time online, but that disturbingly beautiful photo of the surf caught my eye.

And I didn't mean to suggest that it's wrong to complain about the spill. It's messed up beyond measure and I'm sure it will be messed up long after I'm dead.

But I think it's hypocritical to be so vociferous about it, while using so much oil based fuel for something that isn't that important.

I'm way over the amount of time I allow myself for daily internet usage. I'm sure if I return tomorrow there will be far too many comments to go into. Sorry. Good luck to everyone.

Posted by: Darreth | June 17, 2010 7:08 PM

I just put 2 and 2 together and came up with this:

The US will NEVER, EVER, EVER leave Afghanistan. If the call to get off oil ever amounts to anything, we need their lithium now more than ever.

Posted by: daveau | June 17, 2010 7:18 PM

Did Professor Myers' plane fly to Oslo on solar power?

Yeah, what's up with that? Where are the flying solar powered jet cars we were promised 50 years ago?

It is going to take a long time to develop reasonable alternatives to jet flight, or most of the other oil dependencies we have. The point is to start moving toward that, instead of just giving it lip service. If we had moved when Nixon* originally suggested it during the oil crisis, we'd be there by now. In the meantime we should be doing what we can on an individual level to minimize our environmental impact.

I would also point out to the Alabama haters out there that, sure, there are plenty of yards with pickups up on blocks, there are mistrustful, under-educated people and areas where I wouldn't venture off the highway if I wasn't from around there, but there are also plenty of well-intentioned, hard working, literate regular people who don't fit your stereotypes. Plus, have you been there? It's beautiful. This disaster is none of their own doing. Maybe for now, this is a gulf coast disaster, but if that oil is anything near the volume it appears to be, it will affect the entire country, and perhaps the world, for decades to come.

*Still an asshole, though.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | June 17, 2010 7:26 PM

I suggest that you moderate your certainty about things for which you have inadequate evidence.

OK. How about...

"I consider it likely that a not insignificant part of the President's calculus behind his public statements in relation to BP and its role in the current Gulf of Mexico oil crisis is motivated by a desire to manage public opinion ahead of the mid-term elections. This is not a prejorative statement; such political 'damage limitation' is an action that any politically competent President would consider at this juncture.

This should not be taken to imply that the President is not also motivated by a genuine, personal sense of outrage at the ecological and economic harm caused by the disaster, and the lives lost on the Deep Horizon rig."

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | June 17, 2010 7:47 PM

That's reasonable -- but I find what you consider to be of little concern to me.

That is fair. I hope you will not take it amiss if I recipriocate that sentiment.

Being motivated by outrage is not the point -- trying to do something about the gulf coast economy and the effect on the people there is.

You have got me there. I cannot be certain, lacking evidence as I do, but I would accept that the President is probably genuinely concerned for the well being of the affected communities.

You say Obama is a politician -- as if all politicians do is try to win elections. Obama is also a policy maker and executive.

Another fair point, but it would be a strange First Term President who was wholly disinterested in a Second Term, would it not? Populism is always a temptation around election time...

My mistrust of politicians may be skewing my opinion. In the UK we just recently found out the degree to which our politicians had their hands in the cookey jar, and the Con/Lib coalition is already breaking its promises. In Britain we have something of a crisis of political trust at the moment, though I accept that it is wrong to allow the UK's political problems to colour my opinions about the politics of other societies.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | June 17, 2010 7:58 PM

I hope you will not take it amiss if I recipriocate that sentiment.

Of course -- I don't expect anyone to care about what I think, only what arguments I make. Your position is that Obama cares primarily about the elections in November, and your evidence is that he's a politician. As I said, that's an unfalsifiable thesis.

but it would be a strange First Term President who was wholly disinterested in a Second Term, would it not?

Could you possibly offer a more stupid strawman?

Posted by: truth machine, OM | June 17, 2010 8:07 PM

My mistrust of politicians may be skewing my opinion.

And my view is informed by the fact that, as a member of the local Sierra Club executive committee, I am aware of a very large number of positive positions and initiatives taken by Obama on the environment before and since he became President, and that he has been taking a lot of input from the SC and acting on some of its recommendations -- although not enough. Some people say he's no better than Bush, but I know that on this issue they are worlds apart.

Posted by: ckitching | June 17, 2010 8:37 PM

They may be fucking bat shit crazy, but the tea-baggers do know how to stage a protest and get attention for their cause. Did I just say that out loud? I need a drink.

So does Greenpeace (who may also be considered bat shit crazy). The difference is that the media coverage of Greenpeace is either derision or utter disregard while the tea-baggers generally get relatively respectful treatment. The enviro-hippies are anarchists looking to destroy stuff, while the tea-baggers are patriots concerned with the political future of the country, even when they're caught destroying stuff. Liberal media, my ass.

Posted by: bullofthewoods | June 17, 2010 9:18 PM

I have lived on this part of the gulf coast for over a half a century now and I grieve for the loss of wildlife and clean water and beaches as if a member of my family had died.My heart breaks for the people who earn their living from the sea,both the fisherman and in the tourist industry.It will never be the same. i also know, better than most how backward and god soaked it can be, however there are many more who are just good people trying to get by. For all you SHITSTAINS who are hating on us all I suggest you drop to a knee,pucker up and kiss my ass,right where it draws up like a tobacco sack.you slimy bastards.And no, don't come visit, we don't want you here either.

Posted by: Robert H | June 17, 2010 9:55 PM

but it would be a strange First Term President who was wholly disinterested in a Second Term, would it not Hayes and Coolidge come to mind. LBJ almost gets on the list; he chose not to run but he I trust he desired another term. And yes, I know Coolidge and LBJ both came to the presidency through succession prior to their being elected, but both had an opportunity to run for another term and chose not to..

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | June 17, 2010 11:36 PM

@29 Carlie

By the way - where are all the libertarians we usually have around to explain to us how the unfettered free market with no government controls on what companies can do and how is the best thing evah?

I love the libertarian rant about the magic of lawsuits. "You can't pollute a river is somebody owns it!" Right. Sure.

BTW, BP has started protecting itself from lawsuits. One trick is to forbid the former fishermen it hired for the clean up to wear respirators, even their own. If they admit in any way that the fumes are toxic, they're on the hook for billions in liability.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2010 12:05 AM

Wow. That's idiotic. It's not like the fact that huffing gasoline can cause severe problems is not relatively common knowledge.

no, in this case, what they (BP) are worried about is the brand of surfactant they used on the oil spill early on.

apparently, that brand is no longer in common use because of repeated evidence of respiratory irritation.

In fact, the feds themselves pulled most of the volunteer boats out of the area because of reports of respiratory distress.

What's really unfuckingbelievable is that AFTER all the research decades ago showing that using surfactants on oil spills causes MUCH more harm than good, they went ahead and did it anyway.

it's a double face palm.

http://brotch.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/double-facepalm.jpg

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | June 18, 2010 12:23 AM

"My main concern is that there is, as of yet and AFAIK, no adequate means of disposing of spent nuclear fuel. A billion gallons of coal slurry is horrible; we see above one of the lesser effects of up to 2.5 million gallons of oil pouring into the Gulf daily; the consequences of massive amounts of radioactive waste let loose in the environment is beyond reckoning."

Sorry if this has been pointed out but there's no way of either disposing or CONTAINING waste from oil or coal...we shoot it right into the air. With nukes we can at least contain it in one place away from people.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2010 12:25 AM

With nukes we can at least contain it in one place away from people.

theoretically, anyway.

Posted by: Marella | June 18, 2010 3:53 AM

When I first saw this I thought it was some kind of geological feature like Wave Rock in Western Australia!

http://www.oz-greetings.com.au/geology/article/55/-b--wave-rock---b-

Such a tragedy, but the thing that really worries me is the map that PZ posted (maybe last week) of all the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, IIRC there were about 2,500 of them!! So it would appear to be only a matter of time before it happens again, and again. Terrifying.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2010 4:18 AM

I'm sick of hearing various officials and executives get hogtied and spanked over this.

it didn't happen if there aren't pictures.

seriously. Who the FUCK has been hogtied and spanked?

nobody, that's who. Nothing but rhetoric so far, so you being "sick of it" already doesn't bode well for your future tolerance when this shit ends up in court.

We have hundreds of years of future history books to squabble over who needs what blame.

so your opinion on any given police force must be that it is entirely unnecessary, since history will prove not only to determine the guilty parties, but also act as sufficient deterrent?

yeah, I thought not.

no, blame indeed needs to be pursued, AND things need to be fixed.

both things need to happen.

frankly, I have yet to see either, looking back on any previous result of massive negligence in the oil industry, and in the officials responsible for regulating it.

Tired of it?

fuck no.

it has NEVER HAPPENED.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2010 4:25 AM

This is a future where Americans hold politicians accountable for doing their job and in which safety regulations are viewed as good for the community and for profit over the long term.

ask yourself why that isn't already the case.

or is it?

Was Nixon held responsible for his actions?

If yes, then was Reagan?

Clinton?

Bush?

How about old Joe Barton there?

He was forced to apologize for his asinine remarks.

was that holding him responsible?

*shrug*

It's just not as easy as you seem to think.

*sigh*

I understand your motivation, but I don't think you're being very realistic.

Posted by: defides | June 18, 2010 5:37 AM

We had long excerpts on BBC R4 from yesterday's Congressional Committee session with the CEO of BP.

Jesus, those Congressmen and women are a bunch of grandstanding windbags, aren't they?

After 90 minutes of that I think I would have been volunteered responsibility for the deaths of Jimmy Hoffa and JonBenet Ramsey, never mind an oil spill.

You'd think they'd be anxious to get to the part where they ask the questions, so that the purpose of the committee can be put in process, but apparently not.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2010 5:57 AM

So - why are companies being allowed to drill for oil in 5,000 feet of seawater before anybody has worked out efficient methods of dealing with the statistically-improbable but eventually-likely screw-ups that will happen?

fine question.

actually, there ARE regulations in place, they are just never enforced, even in the permit process.

*more sigh*

he people who are really at fault are the citizens of a nation...

that are in the vast, vast majority completely ignorant of how this stuff works, and prefer to remain so.

hence, why the US has a republic instead of a democracy.

so does the UK.

so does most of Europe.

there are basic, fundamental issues to address that go far beyond this particular disaster.

can't see this as changing them, frankly.

fuck, I could be wrong.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | June 18, 2010 6:12 AM

ING says "Sorry if this has been pointed out but there's no way of either disposing or CONTAINING waste from oil or coal...we shoot it right into the air. With nukes we can at least contain it in one place away from people."

Not actually true. Most coal-fired plants now have scrubbers that take out much of the fly ash that contains the mineral matter. Fly ash poses a pretty nasty disposal problem on its own, but it is not quite the same as storing canisters of radioactive waste so hot (both in terms of radioactovity and temperature) that they cause contact metamorphsis with the surrounding rock.

The main problem with both fly ash and radioactive waste is groundwater. There's pretty much no way to keep it out of aquifers in the long term.

Nukes also suffer from two additional factors:
1)proliferation threats
2)The Homer Simpson syndrome--in which stupid people operating critical technology bypass multiple failsafes and cause accidents. This has figured as a cause in every major nuclear accident to date.

Of course with fossil fuels there's a small matter of rendering large regions of the globe uninhabitable due to climate change.

Life in the Anthropocene.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | June 18, 2010 10:03 AM

I can fix or build just about anything I or my family needs

Posted by: tamakazura | June 18, 2010 11:40 AM

So, ichthyic, you got anything to contribute other than and ? You accuse me of being unrealistic and not understanding the situation. So, what would be a realistic approach going forward and keeping in mind that corporations do actually put food on the table for families across the world, that is, when they aren't eating babies and raping the planet for fun.

Posted by: Q.E.D | June 18, 2010 12:32 PM

So, what would be a realistic approach going forward and keeping in mind that corporations do actually put food on the table for families across the world, that is, when they aren't eating babies and raping the planet for fun.

OK, So you're a Corporate apologist "what's good for Corporations is good for America", it's all our fault for not having better government, better regulations and being nimbys. What we need to do is to let BP Outsource the disaster response to us.

Fuck. that. shit. Your stupid reductio ad absurdum about corporations eating babies papers over the fact that the legal fiction of corporate personhood is part of the problem. Some Corporations currently have GDPs larger than some Nations States, privileged access to government, free speech rights and the right to give unlimited money to politicians, they cannot be jailed despite recidivist criminal behaviour and they can theoretically live in perpetuity. All of this relies on the legal fiction of corporate personhood.

Corporate money and influence has succesfully captured congress who respond to their interests rather than those of US citizens because the former fund their re-election campaigns. The Oil Majors pushed for and receigved deregulation, defunding of regulators and oil lobbyists appointed to regulatory agencies by successive Republican Administrations for 30 years (and Bill Clinton). Corporate money and influence created the conditions for this disaster and has made it less and less possible for citizens to do what you suggest they should have.

The solution is to let corporations do what they do: make stuff, sell stuff and employ people but reform the law and revoke the legal fiction of personhood. Citizens need to reassert that the people are the masters of government and will not suffer corporations making any competing claims. Corporations would behave differently if they had less power and they knew they existed at the sufferance of the law that can rescind their right to operate or even exist.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | June 18, 2010 12:41 PM

Icthyic@160:

This guy has the top seat on the House Energy Committee, btw.

Minor nit to pick, Barton is the ranking (top) Republican on the House Energy Committee. Henry Waxman is the chair. Barton would be the top guy if the Republicans held the majority in the House.

A funny moment about 2:40 into this video shows Bart Stupak shooting eye daggers at Barton during his retraction. Meanwhile Barton just looks shifty eyed and squirmy.

Posted by: tamakazura | June 18, 2010 1:43 PM

I'm actually fine with reversing corporate person-hood, and I believe in tight regulation as well. Regardless of what Libertarians seem to think (and they don't seem to think about it too hard), we don't want the gilded age back. That was a bad thing. And before we point the finger at china for some of the crap that goes down with worker and environmental abuses there, we ought to remember that that was us 150 years ago and have a little humility.
That being said, the knee jerk reaction, especially on the left, is to demonize the corporation when disasters like this happen. The tendency of the right is to whistle and look the other way. Reality check: This happened because of a corporate culture encouraging profits over safety which encouraged a midlevel manager to cut corners to make himself look good on paper. There was no intent to "rape the planet", it was a selfish, careless decision without a thought towards impact or risk on the ground. Most people whining on here might have done the same in the situation. At least that's what all those Stanford studies about the Banality of Evil seem to have shown us.
This also happened because Americans know that we are going to need to move away from oil, know that we have to reduce energy consumption, and do nothing about it! We sit on our asses and whine or in our hummers. Same difference.
People get the government they deserve. We have a government that can talk the talk but will hop in bed with the oil industry at the slightest provokation.
Much like people on the internet who will hug trees and chastise BP over this accident but then go hop in the car to go pick their kids up from soccer practice.
We can sue the crap out of BP, and we can demonize the corporations all we want, and it might feel really good and patch up the lives of some fishermen, and best of all it will take little to no effort from us! But it won't solve the problem of oil consumption or regulatory corruption. It won't save the fish or scrub off the ducks, nor will it make deep sea drilling any safer.

Posted by: tamakazura | June 18, 2010 2:07 PM

Point well made amphiox. I've never understood the corporate world's willingness to shoot itself in the foot for a quick buck. They should be happy to obey the laws and regulation--it prevents things like this, which is obviously going to cost BP a lot more than it would cost to say, inspect a BOP or to actually pay attention to drill mud backflow before a blowout happens...

Posted by: twistedicecream | June 19, 2010 2:22 AM

Kids this is what happens when you dump your tye dye runoff into the ocean.

Seriously it reminds me of the time I tye-dyed a pillow case.

Posted by: negentropyeater | June 19, 2010 6:59 AM

No one will make sacrifices before they have stated that the problem is real, and serious.

Why talk of sacrifice?

Is giving up on the gas guzling SUV a sacrifice? Is giving up on the purchase of a 27th pair of jeans a sacrifice? Is giving up on changing one's mobile phone for the 10th time in the last decade a sacrifice?

An insatiable appetite for glory leads to sacrifice and death, but innate instinct leads to self-preservation and life. Jose Marti

Maybe if we could just tone down our insatiable appetite for glory and focus instead on our innate instinct for self-preservation we wouldn't have to think in terms of sacrifice.

The real sacrifice is that of those who are going to be affected by this tragedy.

Posted by: danielm | June 20, 2010 5:26 AM

Q.E.D@176 Sarcasm doesn't translate well to ascii, so if you were being (even half) sarcastic, then I missed it, *shoom* over my head. Is there a Poe for that?

Anyway, if your "plan" wasn't just intending to make only BP bend over and hold it's ankles and would infact totally restructure the entire oil-drilling (let's say natural resource acquiring) system then it might make sense, but it could never happen because the US is owned by big oil, not the other way around...or let's say that government representatives are owned by special interest groups, and as much as it's a good idea, theft of private ownership by the government is rarely a good idea.

As long as you weren't blathering about the evils of BP and planning to only punish them for getting caught whilst ignoring that the rest are likely just as negligent, I can somewhat agree with your crazy plan, as I agree that certain activities should be performed by a government to the betterment of the people, like healthcare, education, transport, security and energy distribution. I'd easily add energy acquisition to that list...of course, you get called a dirty lefty liberal if you say such evil things 'round here.

One gripe though - I never said "you" were at fault, nor "we", that was the other guy.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | June 21, 2010 3:25 PM

Q.E.D@176 Sarcasm doesn't translate well to ascii

Jonathan Swift wrote in EBCDIC?

(For the uneducated and stupid, that was sarcasm.)

Posted by: truth machine, OM | June 21, 2010 3:39 PM

Sorry if this has been pointed out but there's no way of either disposing or CONTAINING waste from oil or coal...we shoot it right into the air.

Anyone with an IQ over 25 should be able to find the logic error in this statement.