I saw a harrowing news report yesterday showing a bird (? a pelican - I couldn't tell) covered in oil unable to move - the look in the birds eye was crying out "please help me".
Forget the bickering, lets sort the disaster, fight over the money later.
I know hundreds of people are doing what they can, as is BP (whatever that stands for, British or not) this is a huge problem, hundreds of birds and animals and sealife creatures will die.
Col: From a Louisiana resident, thank you! This is IMHO exactly correct. And the odds are it was either a pelican, a heron, or a seagull that you saw, given the birds that frequent the oil-soaked marsh area. You are right, it is heart-wrenching to see the dead birds and those still living but forever traumatized.
I see the spill-related reports as local news both on TV and in the local news rag. Not once have I seen any incident on any local newscast or any description in the newspaper that involved burning any flags. Of course, I might have missed a brief article, but if so, the referenced incident must have been very isolated in order for me to have missed it. In which case, the writer of the "news" article that triggered this thread was making a VERY faulty generalization.
The articles that have come out locally make it clear that this was yet another example of poor government oversight, just like Katrina's damage to drainage canal levees was the result of poor inspection by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
In this case, the Minerals Management Services folks are responsible for oil-drilling rig testing and safety inspections. It has come out that the responsible (?) parties skipped a couple of expensive safety tests that would have revealed hydraulic leaks in the safety shutoff cap that was supposed to be able to completely stop the flow in case of a blow-out. It uses something called a "ram valve" that totally blocks the pipe in multiple places.
They also ignored some gas bursts coming up the pipe that should have warned them of a problem, and they further skipped a test that would have verified (or in this case, disproven) the integrity of the concrete sheath that had been formed in that well.
I agree that the USA tends to use more oil than some. I make no excuses. Our nation is built on transportation of goods from point A to point B and we have a fairly large area to cover with that transportation. Transportation takes energy and we already use "hub" systems as much as possible to minimize the number of vehicles taking long routes.
Personally, I do my best to by an energy-efficient vehicle that meets my needs but not much more than that. I don't drive a small car but the one I drive doesn't have the biggest engine. It has enough to carry the loads I sometimes have to carry and that's it. I fully agree that a Hummer or other land barge is a bad joke. Sports cars that can drive 160 Mph when most states have 70 Mph speed limits represents another bad joke. But so far, market forces haven't completely killed production of those vehicles. The credit crunch MIGHT get ride of Hummer as a personal vehicle, though the military still needs the original version for combat transportation.
As to the Bhopal incident, I agree that Union Carbide acted reprehensibly. Environmental and human tragedies caused by greed that leads to cutting safety corners is unacceptable when it happens. There should be NO monetary cap on the cleanup cost, and the liability cost should only have a cap AFTER the cleanup is complete - and I DO mean complete.
I blame the US Republican party's
laissez-faire attitude towards business as being responsible for the world-wide credit problems and lax regulatory safeguards. They tend to reduce the requirements on businesses so that they can make more profit. Not ONLY because business likes this, but because Republicans traditionally want to reduce the cost of government by downsizing it. But they take it to the point that there are no longer enough people to do an effective job in maintaining proper oversight or inspections. And that is why I'm not a registered Republican.
I see the problem as polarization of the two main parties so that middle-of-the-road solutions that balance safety and profitability are never addressed. I honestly think we would do better to have at least four or five political parties so that we would be FORCED to maintain a sense of compromise.
There, I've vented. Hope I made some sense to at least some of you.