Slashdot Mirror
Congress' Gulf Oil Spill Response Given a 'D' By Commissioners
ananyo writes "Many of the problems that led to the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill have not been addressed, say the members of a commission set up by U.S. President Barack Obama to study the disaster. The group released a report today (PDF) on progress towards its 2011 recommendations for preventing future disasters and improving spill response. The U.S. Congress fares worst in the new report, earning a 'D' rating for its failure to enact any meaningful legislation in response to the disaster. The Restore Act would allocate 80% of any fines that BP pays for the spill under the Clean Water Act to restoring the environment and economies of the states in the Gulf of Mexico, but the act has stalled in the House of Representatives. The Obama administration did better, with a B, thanks in part to new drilling regulations, while the oil industry's efforts to improve safety saw it awarded a C+."
They scored an "A" on fund-raising from oil companies.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
In a related note, BP gave Congress' an A+ on their response to the oil spill.
Obama's administration gave itself a 'B' . . . dude needs to learn how "patting yourself on the back" is supposed to work.
The administration ought to get an 'F', given that they've approved Shell to drill in the Arctic Ocean. You think it's tough to clean up a spill in the nice temperate Gulf of Mexico? Wait until we have a midwinter blowout up there, with no idea how to clean it up or even stop it.
You'd think they'd at least learn something. Apparently not.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
... for doing nothing. This was, as I understand it, more a problem of lax regulation than lack of regulation.
I don't like the "but we must do SOMEthing" philosophy. Most problems are caused by solutions.
In other news, the commissioners were given an 'A+' on their use of overly simplified letter grades for summarizing complex issues.
The real problem was crooked regulators. The regulatory agency was responsible for both collecting leasing fees from the oil companies as well as regulating them. Holy conflict of interest Batman!
With that sort of setup no wonder the regulations were laxly applied. And of course the regulatory agency was frequently taken to parties stocked with all sort of goodies by the oil companies. Including prostitutes.
http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Oil-Spills/U.S.-To-Restructure-Offshore-Drilling-Regulatory-Agency-In-Wake-Of-Oil-Spill.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Ocean_Energy_Management,_Regulation_and_Enforcement#Gifts.2C_gratuities_and_the_revolving_door
.... it is funny that the accident in the Gulf of Mexico was in part responsible for a very harsh response to a tiny spill just south of the equator:
http://www.economist.com/node/21542179
If anything, other countries have tried to learn from this disaster and the way it was handled.
That's not at all what he said; I am not sure where all of this "free market" crackdown is coming from on Slashdot recently, particularly when it's not mentioned anywhere else. His point is that the actual regulators--the government people--were just as corrupt as the people doing the drilling in this case. What legislation should be passed by the government to prevent government corruption? Anti-corruption laws? Those exist.
Besides, the entire fiasco was not even as serious of a problem for BP as it should have been, beyond PR, thanks to the way that the administration forced them to handle it financially. Practically half of BP's escrow turned into a tax write-off (read: effectively funded by US taxpayers) for them rather than an expense for doing something incredibly stupid, and bad. Me thinks there was a bit of bias in the entire "study" in missing a $10 billion practical-expense that the government incurred as a result of BP's escrow account that was supposed to be entirely their own money (and the ~$20 billion was, but the $10 billion tax write off thanks to their spending sure made that a lot more palatable for a company that actually has that much money sitting around).
It's terribly shocking that a committee setup by the President would give him the best grade while avoiding an A to act like it was not biased.
"I...I...I...I...My...I...My...I....I...I..." etc.
Pay attention now. Obama uses personal pronouns less than any modern president. Yes, there has been empirical analysis on the topic. In particular, I refer you to the work of James W. Pennebaker, a social psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin, who specialises in the use of pronouns.
None of this matters, of course, because political discourse continues to devolve to "four-legs-good, obama-bad" for the right. One might reasonably think that the left is just as bad, and they are pretty bad; however, this is simply not true. And for that, I refer you to the obama hate machine, which chronicles just how bizarre republican vitriol has become in the last 4 years.
And your comment is a perfect case in point. In the absence of any real criticism, we have nonsensical and factually inaccurate ad-hominems. There is plenty to criticise Obama about without making stuff up.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
So you mean private individuals whose position comes on them creating some reason to justify their employment?
How exactly is the problem with government as a whole, as opposed to the privatization of government into the hands of those who benefit not by doing their job properly, but who have corrupted the process for their own benefit?
What does that tell you? Which party is the one who continually claims that outside individuals are somehow going to be better? Whose ideology is that?
I dunno... maybe these people:
http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/page/commission-members
are all supporters of Obama... but after reading their bios, I find no reason to believe they're more or less supportive of Obama than your average businessmen or scientists, other than they were selected while Obama was in office. If fact, there's 2 co-chairmen; one's a democrat and the other's a republican. All members seem to be experts in their various fields, specifically marine ecosystems, engineering and oil extraction/spill cleanup (a couple of Exxon Valdez veterans on that list; sounds very useful and logical to me).
Briefly perusing the meeting minutes, it seems they've been up to a lot more than grading Congress and Obama's administration, anyway. If you have a problem with what they're doing, this site's where to go to learn more, and it's surprisingly full of info.