http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/[WORD TOO LONG]
http://tinyurl.com/2bm4nnr
Obama pledges permit review, end to cozy oil links
AP
By Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer – 58 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Declaring himself as angry as the rest of the nation, President Barack Obama assailed oil drillers and his own administration Friday as he ordered extra scrutiny of drilling permits to head off any repeat of the sickening oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Engineers worked desperately to stop the leak that's belching out at least 210,000 gallons of crude a day.
...
Obama, whose comments until now have been measured, heatedly condemned a "ridiculous spectacle" of oil executives shifting blame in congressional hearings and denounced a "cozy relationship" between their companies and the federal government.
"I will not tolerate more fingerpointing or irresponsibility," Obama said in the White House Rose Garden, flanked by members of his Cabinet.
"The system failed, and it failed badly. And for that, there is enough responsibility to go around. And all parties should be willing to accept it," the president said.
Obama's tone was a marked departure from the deliberate approach and mild chiding that had characterized his response since the huge rig went up in flames April 20 and later sank 5,000 feet to the ocean floor. Then came the leaking crude, the endangered wildlife, the livelihoods of fishermen at risk.
The magnitude of the disaster has grown clearer by the day and with it, the apparent need for a presidential response to choke off any comparison to the Bush administration's bungled handling of Hurricane Katrina along the Gulf Coast.
The Obama administration insists its response has been aggressive since Day One, and Obama sought Friday to leave no doubts. He said he shared the anger and frustration of those affected and would not rest or be satisfied "until the leak is stopped at the source, the oil in the Gulf is contained and cleaned up, and the people of the Gulf are able to go back to their lives and their livelihoods."
...
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperFor another thing, Obama only promoted offshore drilling as a political compromise due to the urgent need to pass legislation to address global warming. What was he supposed to do? Wait until 2013 at the earliest to address global warming, which will mean several more years of unchecked emissions?
It was a typo. When did Obama announce a mere proposal that could in the future expand off shore drilling again? EXACTLY.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html
Unlike the Bush plan, however, Mr. Obama’s proposal would put Bristol Bay, home to major Alaskan commercial fisheries and populations of endangere ...[text shortened]... l drilling in much of the newly opened areas, if it takes place, would not begin for years. [/b]
Due to the ignorance of conservatives and Republicans on global warming, combined with Republican obstructionism and abuse of the filibuster in the Senate, Obama's hands were tied and he had no choice but to go along with offshore drilling as a political compromise to attract a few Republican votes.
Originally posted by karnachzWhat's wrong with offshore drilling?
For another thing, Obama only promoted offshore drilling as a political compromise due to the urgent need to pass legislation to address global warming. What was he supposed to do? Wait until 2013 at the earliest to address global warming, which will mean several more years of unchecked emissions?
Due to the ignorance of conservatives and Republicans on ...[text shortened]... to go along with offshore drilling as a political compromise to attract a few Republican votes.
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, the safety regulations were apparently not adequate. That's not offshore drilling's fault, that's the U.S. government's fault. And even if you have good safety regulations, things will go wrong from time to time, that's just a fact of life (not sure when the last major accident on Norway's platforms was, though).
A lot of oil from it seems to wind up onshore.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt would make a lot more sense for the US to cut its excessive energy consumption than to insist on following a policy sure to cause various degrees of environmental disaster.
Well, the safety regulations were apparently not adequate. That's not offshore drilling's fault, that's the U.S. government's fault. And even if you have good safety regulations, things will go wrong from time to time, that's just a fact of life (not sure when the last major accident on Norway's platforms was, though).
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNot even the Europeans, who you seem to regard as vastly superior to us New World bumpkins, are immune from such accidents. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gKH21ZKRRYqBvlHS1Q-lBK51G_Fg
Well, the safety regulations were apparently not adequate. That's not offshore drilling's fault, that's the U.S. government's fault. And even if you have good safety regulations, things will go wrong from time to time, that's just a fact of life (not sure when the last major accident on Norway's platforms was, though).
Of course, the environmental worrywarts are making a lot of alarming predictions, but what would they know? http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51437
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, in my view it makes even more sense to both cut excessive energy consumption as well as extract valuable resources.
It would make a lot more sense for the US to cut its excessive energy consumption than to insist on following a policy sure to cause various degrees of environmental disaster.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe extraction of these "valuable" resources seems virtually certain to degrade and destroy other valuable resources so there seems to be no net gain; in fact, the contrary seems to be true.
Well, in my view it makes even more sense to both cut excessive energy consumption as well as extract valuable resources.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo what is the value of the oil extracted? And how much do these spills cost?
No. And given your demonstrable ignorance of the history of major oil spills (Norway's last major spill was only 2 1/2 years ago), for you to claim someone else is being "hasty" is rather laughable.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhat is the value of the oil extracted to who? The costs of these spills are a serious and unnecessary externality.
So what is the value of the oil extracted? And how much do these spills cost?
This might open your eyes (though you come across as increasingly dogmatic these days): http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2008/06/19/offshore_drilling_2
Originally posted by no1marauderI say the left should embrace a horse and buggy platform. Just run an add, "Help us help you curb your excessive energy consuption. Just hand over your SUV and set your thermostat at 55 degrees in the winter and 85 degrees in the summer and stop making air travel a lifestyle. And don't worry, we won't rely on your will power to curb your extravagent lifestyle, because we will simply make in unaffordable for you to continue it.
It would make a lot more sense for the US to cut its excessive energy consumption than to insist on following a policy sure to cause various degrees of environmental disaster.
If I may make a prediction, if they adopt this platform I'm sure could then rely on the Amish voting block for years to come.