Oil Spill

Yes, the Americans have a history of double standards and of protecting their own. If a foreign company or person does something that affects Americans then Americans are very quick to throw stones, but if an American company or person does something that affects a foreign country then they're just as quick to close ranks. Although I think what has happened is terrible for the environment and all those poor creatures, I can't find it in me to be very sympathetic towards oil mad Americans. Actually, you might even say it could well be seen as poetic justice. Americans are so in love with oil, now they've got plenty of it! Sorry Yanks, but I can't help but think that. Like I said though, it's absolutely terrible for all that poor wildlife.

Obama's been emthasising the word "British" in the name "BP" in his statements to the US public seemingly in an attempt to stir up anti-British feelings.

 

Darth-Ghost, and to extend that, in 2001 they renamed themselves again. They changed from British Petroleum to just BP when they merged with Amoco, and really became no longer mostly British. So, it's a misnomer to refer to this spill as associated with British Petroleum, since that's a nonexistent company at this point, technically speaking.
I mention all this because Obama doing so is getting a negative reaction in the UK, according to a couple articles I found
Oil spill threatens to roil US-British relations - RealClearPolitics
Stop the Anti-British Rhetoric, Obama - The Daily Beast (note: this one is by someone who's got several ties to conservative media outlets, just fyi)


As far as more direct stuff, this is only one Congressman I'm aware of, but Anthony Weiner representing New York.
Weiner: Here's a viewer's guide to BP media briefings. Whenever you hear someone with a British accent talking about this on behalf of British Petroleum they are not telling you the truth. That's the bottom-line

 

Interesting story here about some of the problems going on:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379

 

"His beating up of BP has clinched his anti-British credentials on this side of the Atlantic. The anger here is palpable. Almost 10,000 British troops are fighting an unpopular war in Afghanistan alongside America, taking hundreds of fatalities and many more serious injuries. That alone, say the British, should be enough to still the president?s tongue."

Trouble is I find Americans have a very short memory, especially when it comes to us. They love us for a fleeting moment when we go to war with them and generally suck up to them, then they go straight back to slagging us off as the "Evil Empire" or "Big Villain". Maybe if we stop being America's lapdog, maybe that would help? No one respects a doormat, you know?

 

Believe me, as an American myself, I would love nothing more than for that to happen. I remember a time when I felt so proud of my state, but that was due to my ignorance. You are right that we Americans are a detestable and willfully ignorant people. I try my best to set myself apart from them, but realize that it's not going to be until our 21st century empire collapses that we finally figure out that we're not just going to be given respect by the rest of the world.

I do blame BP, who compromised safety for a larger paycheck; but their actions are just a symptom of a larger problem spawning from the US. Americans wanted cheap oil, so they would have been just as willing to compromise safety for saving a nickel on a gallon of gas. The only reason we're prominently saying 'British Petroleum' is because we're too hypocritical and arrogant to admit that we have a level of responsibility in all this. For some reason, shifting the blame onto someone else just makes poor us feel that we've done nothing wrong. Certainly we wouldn't want to think that our oil dependence had something to do with any of this, or else we might realize that things have to change. We certainly wouldn't want to have to give up our most prized American tradition, which is the automobile.

Am I right to hate my own state?

 

It's probably a bit late to start the Tony Haward resignation date pool.

 

Obama on the whole seems to have handled the situation as well as is possible. I'm not sure why he gets so much stick, is he really expected to single-handedly plug the oil himself?

He has made BP pay for the cleanup as they rightly should do, I don't see why the US taxpayers should pay out for it.

 

You are assuming that the people who are criticizing him are doing so because they believe he hasn't done enough--not that they're just trying to find a way to pin it on him.

As for the whole clean-up effort and such, the ones criticizing that are just being told what their corporate masters want. Cut them a break and let's apologize to BP. Like the GOP is wanting to do.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100618/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill

The oil erupting from the leak contains 40% methane (when usual oil deposits contain only 5%), "the worst methane explosion in modern human history." Methane depletes oxygen and creates dead-zones.

This is more evidence to the view the Deepwater Horizon drilled into pocket of methane, causing the fire and oil leak.

Scientists have previously discussed that a methane eruption could have caused the Permiam Mass Extinction which killed off 90% of all life on Earth, on land and in sea (whatever it was, it was more deadly than the extinction of the dinosaurs).

News keeps getting better and better, huh?

 

If a person slags all their friends off soon that person will find themselves friendless.

Best way to avoid anything like this ever happening again (as well as saving the Earth itself) is to convert your vehicles to bio fuels like Bio-ethanol. You don't have to revert back to horse and carts, just use some of that massive country of yours to make your own bio fuels. Not only will it provide a massive income for the U.S. as well as save the Earth, but it has the bonus of putting all the Arabs in the poor house! We won't do it first, I can tell you. I know how the morons up the top here think. It'll take the U.S. to take the lead before Mr. Duckhouse and Mr. Moat do anything like convert the country to sensible alternatives to oil.

 

Electric cars are the best alternatives, but not until the power stations they get energy from are themselves running on green energy.

Biofuel is good but the long-term implications of mass crop planting I don't think has been looked at much. Look at the damage Palm Oil plantations have done to surrounding ecosystems.

 

Let's also not forget how unlikely biofuel will replace oil. When it comes to corn ethanol, you can convert the entire US agricultural production towards this alternative energy and you'd still only be able to replace 30% of present demand at most. Even if you used something like switchgrass, it would represent sacrificing all food production for our energy demands.

And let's not forget how unsustainable such practices would be. You'd be far more likely to see the US increase its coal use than a 'clean' or renewable energy, as it's a more fruitful short-term solution in a weak economy. I don't agree with it, but I understand what's more likely to actually happen.

We US citizens think that fuel efficient and electric cars are going to solve everything? If it was only that easy.

 

And your solution would be?

 

The solution would require a vast renovation of the American way of life. Denser populations concentrated in a smaller area is both effective at reducing transportation dependence and facilitates the use of mass transit. Shorter supply lines means lower maintenance costs all ways around for roads, utility lines, and better coverage of civil services.

The best solution is REDUCTION, which unfortunately is a word that Americans have never learned. Reducing demand altogether just happens to be a permanent a solution that is always going to be more reliable than any anticipated future technology.

 

So in other words: Fantasyland. Gotcha.

I'm not saying you're not correct, your solution just ignores reality. And while you acknowledge it's not feasible then that does...what? Nothing. If you know it's never going to be taken seriously then you need to think of another way of doing things that works with what people are comfortable with.

 

And your solution would be?

 

Corn isn't good for biofuel. Simple as that. Other options are feasible, just not that one.

And Darth_Yuthura, given that, for example, concrete releases greenhouse gases, in what way would be the wholesale leveling, rebuilding, and reorganization of whole cities be more advantageous than increased energy efficiency?

Getting the grid over to renewable/nuclear should, imo, be top priority atm.

 

Totally off topic, but just wanted to point out that the Earth doesn't need "saving" and even if it did, we humans wouldn't be able to do it. Earth will carry on perfectly well for many billions more years, with or without us.

 

I'm pretty sure it's more the ecology of the earth in question. Though the commitment to that is always one of limited amounts.

Though I'm irked as well by acting like we're damaging more than we are.

 

And how does that help us now? I knew all this before you brought it up, so it's not as though I didn't ever consider mass extinctions and the destruction of ecosystems to be a natural part of the world. The problem is that recovery takes TIME; time of which we humans don't have.

 

Why do you think I was making such a big hype about Americans and their unwillingness to forget their ways of life? I knew this was not likely to ever happen, yet that's exactly what we'll have to do if we hope to endure peak oil moreorless intact. We simply cannot sustain our way of life, so to suggest otherwise would be foolish. Most will have to give up the automobile eventually, so it can either be done by choice or by having it forced on us. I don't know about you, but I think it would be better for Americans to realize that their children won't be living better lives than their parents.

I'm saying what has to be done. Anything less will ultimately have a negligible effect when it comes to reducing future oil demand. Asking for a more comfortable way of dealing with the problem is like asking for a raise without ever doing any work to earn it. The American way of life is unsustainable, as are many other cultures around the world; sacrifices are going to have to be made.

Ah... which is why the US has decided to abandon corn and switch to sugarcane and switchgrass? I'm sorry, but when did this happen? Last I heard, the US actually was expanding on its corn-ethanol production.

Because it's a one-time thing?

You pour concrete once and it vents all its greenhouse gasses up until it hardens. After that, it's done. You build a car and does the release of greenhouse gasses stop at the manufacturing plant? I would LOVE to see such a car work that way.

 

I agree with Yuthura's last two posts, although sadly I think FIDo is right: expecting Americans to reduce consumption is tantamount to fantasyland, unless we are forced to reduce consumption by gas that is no longer available or costs over $8 a gallon. Neither of those alternatives are good either. The government could just hike up the price of gas and it would be a disaster, because the cost of everything else would go up too. And lack of availability--here in North Carolina, two hurricanes, Katrina in 2005 and Ike in 2008, temporarily shut down the pipeline from Louisiana (whose name I can't remember right now), which provides most of our gas. We had gas lines resembling those in the 70s, we had gas stations out of gas--Labor Day weekend 2005, there was no gas anywhere in Charlotte.

The good that came out of that situation: public transit usage increased by a factor of 20 percent. The bad: people were getting in fist fights over gas. In Atlanta and in Taylorsville, in the NC foothills, people were murdered over gas.

As far as BP being "British Petroleum," I never knew that's what it stood for, until the news stories of the leak started appearing, although I did know of Amoco's merger with BP several years ago. I saw that Andrew Neill blog a few days ago, and I took him seriously up to the point where he started talking about how "Obama hates British people." Looked a little too much like Glenn Beck's claim that "Obama hates white people." Dude, really? I also don't think that giving the Queen an iPod or speaking out against British imperialism in Kenya makes him anti-British. Maybe he just thought the Queen would like some good music. And maybe he's against imperialism, which is not a bad thing to be against. As far as BP, if the rig belonged to another company, that company would be getting the same flack that BP is getting.

Ghost, that's scary about the methane. I've heard of several different scenarios in which this spill could bring down the planet, getting into the Gulf Stream is another one, and I'm not usually an alarmist but this scares the living **** out of me.

 

Okay, I'm a major alarmist and that story really makes me freaked out and made me even more mad that this happened!

 

Reducing energy consumption is not fantasy. It happened when gas passed $4 gallon in the U.S., but it really happened when we went into recession. The question is, a what point do high energy prices and tight supplies tip the economy into recession?

Western Europe as a whole has an economy that is much more resistant to fluctuations in oil prices as the result of social policy - high taxation of gas consumption and high levels of public investment in intercity rail and municipal light rail transportation over many decades created a society that is at present much less dependent on oil. Norway is flush with oil, but ingeniously they have kept their domestic oil consumption level for decades, so that even though North Sea oil production is in permanent decline, Norway will be one of the last standing oil exporters on the planet.

 

That's not what I was getting at. Obviously you could reduce consumption and demand if high prices give people reasons to buy smaller cars and drive fewer trips than if oil were cheaper; but when it comes to traveling long distances, the ideal solution is to concentrate origins and destinations as close as possible. If you were 26 miles away from your daily job, you would always travel over 50 miles a day. The question is how efficient your mode of transportation is. If you were only 5 miles away, you could potentially bike to your place of work. Or you could get a motorcycle, moped, or something that you might not otherwise drive at high speeds on a highway. And if that gets four or five times the mileage of a standard car, you could potentially reduce your fuel consumption in a month to the same as you would for a car on a single 26 mile daily commute.

Or just by living closer to where you work, you can immediately reduce your fuel consumption for commuting purposes to only a fraction of what it was before. Then you also have mass transit, less traffic congestion, demand for fewer cars, and the list goes on for what you can get in a dense city. The only issue is that Americans want privacy, which is why the single family detached home reigns supreme in the US. It's a death bomb for an economy. The main reason I believe city property tends to be more expensive (before gentrification) is because the central city tends to be the hub for all suburban locations surrounding the CBD of a city. When you have to provide utilities and services to those inefficient communities, suburbs tend to not pull their own weight in taxes. It would make more sense to increase taxes for communities that cost more to maintain and take the burden off denser locations, where population growth should be encouraged.

I am deeply concerned for the US once peak oil sets into place, as we depend on oil-based energy for over 90% of our transportation demands. That's crazy for us to have moved so far in that direction.