Here's The Ugly Truth: Once the Oil Hits The Water, There's Nothing That Can Be Done

[Yavin4]

The ecology is changed for a long time to come, and it's going to take decades and extreme diligence to reverse the damaging effects. No amount of skimmers or supposed tankers that can suck up the oil can reverse the ill effects of this spill.

So, Obama can put on a flight suit and yell at BP through a bull horn, and that won't make one bit of difference.

Any criticism of Obama over this is just an opportunity for those that do not like him to take him down over something, anything.

This disaster is the fault of a political generational mindset that regulations are bad and should be avoided at all cost because they restrict "free markets". That mindset is prevelant amongst all politicians, Dems and Repubs alike.

[AtomicKitten]

1. Tweety's rightfully calling it Cheney's Katrina today. nt

[Yavin4]

3. Tweety Is An Emotional Juvenile

For years and years, there's been a parade of politicians on both sides that have used his various shows to promote deregulation, and he sat there and didn't challenge them.

As a result, we've had an economic collapse, a housing market collapse, mine disasters, and now this spill.

It's not the fault of any one politician, other than Reagan, who made deregulation a politically potent force in America for a generation.

[PBS Poll-435]

5. I wish Chris had run in the Primary for Arlen's Seat. nt

[AtomicKitten]

8. If by emotional you mean inconsistent, I'm with you on that. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

30. I just read your sig line...

was that actually one of the first posts?

[vaberella]

9. He finally got the memo that it's Cheney's fault?! Took a while. n/t

[NC_Nurse]

2. .

This just sucks. :-(

And what sucks even more is that the mindset you refer to isn't changing. Even with the scads of data we now have PROVING them wrong - these fuckers will continue with business as usual.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Are we going to be blaming Bush for the next 29 months?

It was Obama, and not Bush, who put industry's golden child Ken Salazar in charge of the Interior Department.

[AtomicKitten]

6. It was Cheney that decimated any semblance of regulation of big oil.

I know that doesn't fit into your narrative, but it is the truth.

Just like Obama had his Justice Department review Junior's executive orders, a legitimate hit on Salazar would be that he should have used the same diligence in reviewing the contracts under his purview.

[vaberella]

10. +Infinity. n/t

[Yavin4]

7. Again, It's Not Any One Politician

It's a generational mindset that caused this disaster, the mining collapse, the housing collapse, and the financial crisis.

Most politicians, both Dem and Repub, believe that deregulation is the way forward. Heck, even Jimmy Carter deregulated the airline industry.

When you deregulate, you put the nation at the mercy of the powerful.

[obxhead]

13. and it was Obama, not Bush who greatly expanded drilling areas.

Not only without a call for regulation to be tightened, but the exact opposite, a claim that it was safe.

Obama does not get a pass on this one, much as many want to ignore Obama's stance before the spill. Although he doesn't deserve all of the blame - Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush/Cheney all own this spill as well.

[mkultra]

51. sorry, cheney set the policy that put this well in the ground

his closed door energy task force with oil execs are where the lack of regulation was set.

[MadMaddie]

18. President Obama was not the one in the closed door meeting

with Cheney. Till this day we still do not know who attended except members from the Energy sector. These companies gained corporate welfare from the Cheney cabal.

So you are damn straight we are going to blame who is responsible for destroying most if not all of the regulation that was in place to stop this kind of thing from happening.

There are 30,000 other rigs on U.S coasts what will be your response when 5 or 10 go at the same time. Will it be President Obamas fault?

30 years of Corporate greed and litterally no one to stop them from being sloppy and not responsible for the damage they have done and everyone wants to blame the guy that has been in the White House for 1.5 years.

Just curious was the government supposed to stockpile back equpment for these "Free Market" companies? I thought that a company makes or breaks itself? Would you want more of your tax dollars spent to make sure that if companies fail we pick up the bill?

[Bluenorthwest]

39. He is the one that has kept Cheney's actions and meetings

secret, and told us all we had to forget the past and look the other way or whatever his line of crap was. Something about justice being a desire for revenge, and how we had to turn the page. We turned the page. The next one said 'Obama is the President, and the buck stops there."
What did he think the next page would say?

[AtomicKitten]

41. Nonsense. Cheney judge-shopped til he found one

that ruled he can keep his Energy Commission records secret.

You are conflating historical events in the process of your knee-jerk criticism.

Edited for links:
The Supreme Court ruling: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001965100_cheneypapers25.html
Sierra Club lawsuits: http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/lawsuits/0173.asp

[4lbs]

53. And it was BushCo and their Congress that deregulated the oil industry, weakened the EPA,

and put do-nothings in the federal government to look the other way on safety inspections.

[BeFree]

11. Eh? "Nothing that can be done"

So, your idea is do nothing?

Gawd.

Have you ever, even once, even in your dreams, snorkeled in the KEYs?

If you had you wouldn't even think of quitting. :unfuckingbelievable:

[Oregone]

15. Knee-jerk partisan protection of the president

When people say "nothing" can be done, they are just talking absolute shit


It also conflicts with what is currently being done, almost implying its just for political show (why would their sacred infallible president do that?!?)

[Yavin4]

19. Again, I'm Citing Actual Environmental Experts

Who studied the Exxon Valdez spill. The ecology has been destroyed, and it will take decades and careful diligence to restore it.

This is not something that can be fixed with skimmers.

[HughMoran]

25. You're more right than those who suggest it's just a matter of having the right tools.

The 'right' tools to stop this from being an ecological disaster failed - it was called a 'blowoff preventer' and it failed. We can attempt to minimize the disastrous effects, but current technology can to little more than make a dent in the problem - no matter how loudly or often we scream at the top of our lungs.

[Oregone]

27. "This is not something that can be fixed with skimmers"

Who said you can fix the problem with skimmers?

You can't *fix* shit at this point. You can make an effort, such that less oil stays in the environment to reduce the catastrophe. And that something is better than the nothing you seem to suggest

[Yavin4]

28. I'm Not Suggesting, Nor Have I Suggested, Doing Nothing

Which is something that you keep insisting that I said, when I didn't say it.

I said that this is disaster was going to take decades to clean up. That once the oil hits the water there's nothing that you can do about it in the short term. NOTHING.

So, yelling at Obama and the constant bashing accomplishes NOTHING.

[Oregone]

31. You are dead wrong

"once the oil hits the water there's nothing that you can do about it in the short term"

They can remove as much of it as possible

And thats not "nothing"

[Yavin4]

16. Okay, I'm Listening To Actual Environmental Experts

Who spent years studying the Exxon Valdez disaster. When oil gets into the water, it kills the ecology, and there's nothing that can be done about it in the short term.

My idea is to not do anything at all. Rather, it's going to take decades to clean up the water and restore the ecology. Decades. Even then, it won't be restored 100%.

[BeFree]

29. That's better

And more accurate than your OP let on.

True, this catastrophe is unlike nothing we have experienced. That means we have never had the reason to do what must be done to change things for the better.

Glad to see it was just not a clear message in the OP.

[obxhead]

12. They may not immediately reverse the effects, but they can reduce

the effects. Every drop that is removed from the water is a drop that doesn't make it to the beaches, marshes, rivers, and bays.

I understand the frustration, but this is just ammo that the oil industry will use to explain why they should just walk away and let nature run it's course.

[Oregone]

14. Agreed

People are taking major liberties here to carry water for the president. I'm sorry, but there could be a whole lot more skimming and containment than is currently happening here. No...there is something that can be done to at least some of the oil before it hits the shore. Right now, more can be done. Until there is nothing else that can be done, criticisms should be welcomed.

If Obama strapping on a cod piece and announcing more intervention would get just a few thousand more barrels of oil skimmed up before land fall, Id be all for it.

[obxhead]

22. Maybe we round up the execs an politicians, wrap them in shamwow

suits, and go trolling through the oil. Whatever it takes, get as much as we can before it does even more damage and becomes even harder to collect onshore.

[Yavin4]

17. The Real Damage Being Done is Beneath the Surface

The mistake that you're making is believing that if you keep it off the beaches and away from the marshes, then you're accomplishing something.

That's wrong. The real damage is being done below the surface.

The only thing that can be, and should be done now, is to make BP 100% accountable for restoring the Gulf and paying off claims.

This is a decades long fix, not something that can be done over night on your TV.

[obxhead]

21. of course it's not going to happen overnight

and not a single post I have made on the subject has pointed to that opinion.

Yes there are vast amounts of oil hidden below the surface due to posinous dispersant and mixing of the oil and water by pressure. Yes it is hard to collect. Yes it will take decades and even then still have an effect on the ecology. Never have I claimed the opposite.

Throwing one's hands up and saying nothing can be done or even should be done is utter fucking nonsense and nothing more than an oil industry meme to avoid responsibility. BP, Transocean, and Halliburton all need to be held accountable for their failure. Our government must be held accountable for deregulation and failed inspection process as well.

[Yavin4]

26. Environmental Experts Will Tell You and Are Probably Telling Obama

That once the oil hits the water, there's nothing that can be done other than take decades to clean it out.

[obxhead]

32. And I would look for the pay stubs of those experts

for a oil industry stamp as well.

[TheKentuckian]

20. tired cop out

The damage can be mitigated by skimming and suctioning. Barriers can be put up. There are harm reduction strategies that can have some beneficial partial effects that reduce the strain of the event.

Even more true is most bad situations can be made worse and time will tell that letting BP do as the pleased in response will prove a terrible judgment. In fact, I think a lot of people know this and want to pretend that it had to play out that way to duck the buck for Obama.

Having people that put wildlife and the environment first in charge of the overall clean up and containment aspect of this would have had a meaningful impact but that was not done for what were perceived as "pragmatic politics" at the time.

Hell, we'll likely find the engineering decisions (not necessarily the engineers) BP has made were poor and profit centered and that wiser heads would have chosen more wisely with unvarnished data which BP has kept to the vest.

It is a strawman/red herring to say that once the spill happened it was over because response will continue to directly impact severity.

[Yavin4]

23. On What Basis Are You Making This Claim?

There are no harm reduction strategies because most of the harm is happening well below the surface.

Also, the wildlife and environmental people will tell you that there's nothing that can be done.


However, bash and blaming Obama for this also does nothing to help the ecology.

[TheKentuckian]

34. mhmmm sure. that might have got you through this night but not many more

The noise you so desperately want to ignore will get louder and clearer.

BP does not have this and yes better handling could have helped reduce the harm.

[jeanpalmer]

35. Why isn't it explained to the people

that there are no harm reduction strategies. Seems to me that's something the head of the government does have an obligation to explan. People have a right to be informed about something that important. It might stir debate and bring people forward who have ideas about harm reduction. But instead people have been kept in the dark.

[TheKentuckian]

36. because that isn't true. we can't just "fix it" but we can make it less bad

and we can compound the damage, which has happened.

[Yavin4]

37. What Is "Less Bad"?

How do you measure "less bad"? You can siphon off a percentage of the oil. But the ecology is still severely damaged and will be damaged for decades to come.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. Bad, worse, worst.

Those words exist in our language for a reason. Less damage to the environment is better than more damage, and it is not true that once there is some damage, you might as well let it roll on.

[Yavin4]

45. See My Analogy Post Below

Thank you.

[David Zephyr]

24. K&R.

Thank you for posting a grown up thread rooted in realism.

[amborin]

33. Wrong! faulty logic! Dutch skimmer ships were only recently permitted, after told NO 1 month ago

getting any amount of oil removed helps; the skimmer ships could have helped, starting much earlier; better and bigger booms should have been procured and placed; the EPA should not have been dissed re: dispersants;

your logic is very faulty; you're saying all amounts of oil are equal and all responses to it are equal; but that is just plain wrong;

[Yavin4]

38. Again, Skimmers Cannot Save The Ecology Which Is A Highly Fragile System

It's not just a matter of skimming oil off the surface. All matter of damage to the ecology was happening as soon as the oil hit the water.

You have toxic chemicals in that water which severely damages the habitats of the species which need it to survive. Already, the food chain, reproductive systems, and daily life of that eco-system is damaged.

The only solution to this is long term. We have to make a concerted effort to restore that ecology over the decades to come, and BP needs to be on the hook for that restoration.

There is no way to make this disaster, "less bad", in the shor term.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. The damage is still occuring, kid.

So sorry, but stopping the gusher does in fact make it better. Of course it does not solve the ecological disaster, no one thinks that it will. But to suggest that slowing or stopping the flow would not be better than the flow continuing unchecked is nuts, nuts, nuts.
As long as more oil flows, there is more damage to the ecology. More clean up, more years, more billions. It is not a binary choice. It is not 'one drop might as well be the whole well'. Stopping it sooner is better than later. Slowing the flow is better than not slowing it. Any barrel not going into the Gulf is one that will not have to be cleaned off of beaches and wildlife, etc. That is pretty simple stuff. Less damage is better than more damage. Less damage does not mean 'everything is fixed' it means what the words say-less damage.
I find word games on this issue to be out of place.

[Yavin4]

44. Did I Ever Suggest or Say, "slowing or stopping the flow would not be better"

Show me where I said or implied that?

[Bluenorthwest]

47. You claim that it can get no worse by the flow continuing

You say it can not be mitigated by ceasing the ongoing damage. I think you do not understand the meaning of the words you are writing. If you say 'stopping the flow does not make it less bad' you are saying that the ongoing flow does not make it worse. That is far more than an implication. You are repeatedly saying that the amount of oil no longer matters, as the damage is done, where I am saying that the amount does matter, because the damage continues to worsen.
You say that even more oil will not make it worse. You may not realize you are saying that, it seems, but this is English and that is what you have been typing here. More oil makes it even worse, makes the clean up longer, harder, more expensive. Worse. Not as good. It is not 'well, there is some oil, so there might as well be tons of oil'. This is not a stained sweater we speak of.

[Yavin4]

49. Find the Quote Where I "claimed", " it can get no worse by the flow continuing"

Did I say that the oil should keep on spilling? You are making up a strawman argument.

Let me my position clearly: Stopping the flow does nothing to mitigate the damage done to the ecology in the near term. Yes, the flow needs to be stopped, but just like I stated in my analogy post, the damage has already been done.

[amborin]

50. every drop removed is one less drop that harms

[Yavin4]

43. Here's An Analogy

Let's say that millions of gallons of toxic waste were dumped into the streets in the city of San Francisco, and that dumping went on for weeks. Also, the people of San Francisco could not be evacuated from the waste.

How could that situation be made any "less bad" in the very short term? Even if you stop the dumping immediately, the damage from the first million gallons to the city and its people would devastating. It would take generations to restore the city back to its normal self.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Who is talking about the very short term?

This is about your claim that more oil is the same as less oil, in terms of damage done, damage that is still in fact being done. The forest on fire will not be restored by stopping the fire, but there will be less forest damaged.
You are holding on to a very odd idea. In your SF scenario, are you really claiming that stopping the flow would not be better than the flow continuing, just because stopping the flow does not cure the damage already done? You are saying that any damage allows for all possible damage, like saying if you have a cold, you might as well drop dead, being in bad health and all.
You are conflating the actual flow with the clean up after. You are also claiming, incredibly, that cleaning up a larger mess is as easy as cleaning up a smaller one.
Get over your false notion that people think stopping it cleans the Gulf. And your false notion that more oil into the Gulf is not more damaging. The more that flows, the larger, longer and more expensive the clean up will be. The more oil, the worse the damage.
This is just a daft row you are hoeing. The damage is still being done, so stopping it today means tomorrow's damage does not get added to the rest.

[Yavin4]

48. Man, You Are Reading Far More Into My Post Than What I Actually Said

You, and others on this thread, keep making the same mistaken argument that stopping the flow or reducing the flow somehow mitigates the damage.

My overall point, as stated in my analogy, is that the DAMAGE was already done with the first million or so gallons spilled.

Yes, stop the spill so that more areas are not damaged, but just like I stated in my analogy. Even if you stopped dumping the toxic waste immediately, catastrophic damage has already been done.

[bettyellen]

52. so....the "new damage" you now (finally) acknowlege isn't significant? are you fucking kidding?

worse bullshit parsing of words. so fucking deiberately obtuse.

[Vattel]

54. You're kidding.

You are now saying that your point all along was that the damage already done can't be fixed in the short term, but new damage can be prevented? So then the question becomes, "Is enough being done to stop the oil spill from causing more damage?" And we're back at square one.