That they agreed to it doesn't make it legal. There is some doubt that Obama has the power to do what he did. I'm honestly not sure of the answer to that question.
I don't like Obama. This changes nothing for me. I thought he was weak and incompetent long before this. My personal irritation is not so much at him, but at those who roasted Bush for years over Katrina suddenly discovering the limitations and problems of government and the massive bureaucracy it supports. Speaking of which...has he tried to blame Bush for this yet?
Bush wasn't roasted for the limitations of government in the response for Katrina. He was roasted because he:
- Stayed on vacation after the hurricane. This isn't really a fair criticism because it's not like he has to be in his office to take calls. I'm sure that he has television, phones and internet all at his ranch in order to keep connected, but the perception is that he didn't think it was a problem. This was reinforced when
- His go-to guy said that there were no problems in New Orleans even while all the cable news networks were showing the meltdown in the Superdome. So obviously, his man in charge wasn't watching TV or in communication with anyone who was.
- And then Bush praised his guy for doing "a heckuva job" suggesting that Bush was also oblivious to the problem - and that's why the vacation was a problem. It just compounded the appearance of unconcern.
Oh, and he also provided the right with unlimited ammunition for a snappy new nickname. I've lost count of the times I've seen some variation of Captain Kickass; President Kickass, and so on. Of all the times he had to talk about kicking ass, it had to be on the heals of a movie called Kickass. Talk about bad timing,
I won't lie, I think the kickass jokes are funny, but then I could just like saying kickass.
Obama's kickass line was pretty laughable. I've seen Obama do a credible job of looking angry, but he doesn't cuss worth a damn.
Ah, I see.
Punish a bunch of people who didn't cause the damage because their plan to deal with a potential disaster that had yet to happen turns out, in hindsight, not to work.
Besides making you feel better how is that anymore effective than the pundits anger Obama?
If the caused the spill in Utah. Fine, but punish them for damage they actually caused.
I would think that if we have learned one thing from the oil spill, it's that the regulations are woefully inadequate and poorly enforced. Why is it a bad thing to take a few months to try and look at the situation. Ok, we're not going to be able to fix decades of neglect, but maybe we can at least catch the most glaring errors.
And it's not like the other oil companies are blameless. They've pushed just as hard as BP for those lax regulations that allowed the spill.
Engage in the same behavior isn't productive nor fair, but with that said: I am all out of sympathy for a man and his Congress who still haven't left the Bush years.
We're talking about Republicans here, right? Honestly, they've been like that since Clinton. The main way that the Democrats haven't left the Bush years is that they're still willing to bend over backwards for the Republicans at the drop of a hat.
Gov. Bobby Jindal is doing a good job or at least trying Catsi. He's trying to use every method of cleaning up the oil spill even if the berms on the beaches might not seem much but it still helps for the time being. Jindal was also the one who was trying to prove to BP and the Govt that the vacuum pumps work good in collecting oil from the grass and mud in the marshes (which they do). Unlike Obama who turned down the boom supply aid ships a couple days after the disaster. Kevin Costner now has a good centrafuse vacuum pump that can separate 100% of the oil and water.
I said before that they should've approved the berms faster, but the berms don't help for the short term. It's the solution of someone desperate to do anything and getting to spend someone else's money to do it. I don't have a real problem with wasting BP's money on it, but I am concerned that BP might contest the need - particularly if they weren't thoroughly reviewed (which they haven't been and certainly wouldn't have been when I said to go ahead).
- They'll take nine months to construct. (I initially thought it would just be about six.) So oil is going to be washing over the marshes in Louisiana for four to seven months - plenty of time to be inundated.
- Sand doesn't catch the oil. It'll still seep through.
- It's tough to clean oil from sand. Either we'll have billions of tons of contaminated sand (instead of billions of gallons of oil) to dispose of or we'll just let it wash away and spread around.
- It'll probably wash away very soon. When you're trying to do this a beach renourishment program (which is a vast understatement of what this is), you need to take into account the wave action of the area, the currents and how the new berm will change that. Last I heard, we had pretty lousy data for that in most of the Gulf Coast. That kind of research and modelling takes time. Lots of beach renourishment programs have washed away in the first storm event because of a lack of proper planning. Spending a month before jumping into action doesn't count as proper planning (and they had the proposal "ready" well before that).
- There is a strong potential that it will cause additional damage, particularly if poorly planned. The changed currents can erode the marshes even faster or push oil through the narrower channels. The sand can wash away and bury seagrasses (if there are any left in the region) which aren't likely to be severely affected by the oil. (They aren't on the surface so won't get hit by the scum and shouldn't trap the rolling tarballs either.) However, burying seagrasses is pretty bad for them. The berms may also cause abiotic regions in the waters trapped behind them, killing the nurseries.
On the whole, I think that the odds of them being worse than the oil spill are very slim. Most of the potential damages that they'd cause would've already been done by the oil - although that also ties into them closing the barn door after the fox got in. I just think that any help from them will be minimal and I think that it's a missed opportunity.
What we should've done after Katrina is recognize that the degraded saltmarshes and lack of barrier islands have completely stripped the Louisiana coast of any protection and started planning for rebuilding barrier islands then. I understand why they weren't. It's a huge expense and with all of the other rebuilding expenses required by Katrina, the ecosystem and preventative systems are going to take a backseat. I don't blame Bush for that. I don't blame Obama either - although it would've been a good stimulus project along with getting further along in fixing the Everglades. The political mood just wasn't favorable for such a huge environmental project.
Maybe we'll get lucky and this rush job will do a decent job of restoring the coast. But I would rather have spent extra time to make sure that we did it right. I hope that the Mississippi restoration plan will do that. Maybe it can tie into the berms and fix some of the flaws.
Edited by Nick Soapdish, 22 June 2010 - 03:14 AM.