Monday, April 26, 2010
Sorry. Not that kind.CityBusiness
Oil leaking from a sunken drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico oozed slowly toward the coast today, endangering hundreds of miles of marshes, barrier islands and white sand beaches in four states from Louisiana to Florida.
Listen, before anyone jumps to conclusions, can we get a second opinion from the oil luminaries on the right about whether this slick even exists? Perhaps the whole thing is just liberal optics.
Maybe "not one drop" of oil spilled-- it could happen! We sure heard
a coordinated chorus
of that misleading mantra
two years ago when gas prices soared. Back then a murder of conservatives came out in force, crowing about the Katrina "success story" in which either (take your pick) 1) NO major spills occurred or 2) "Not one drop" of oil was spilt. Of course, both of these claims are wildly misleading and mendacious, as all the "minor" spills that occurred after Katrina were equivalent in volume to SEVEN "major" spills (not to mention the Exxon Valdez-like 8 million gallons spilled from facilities within Louisiana's borders)... but why should Louisiana's coast get in the way of a good conservative talking point?
The CityBusiness article continues:
The areas, home to dolphins, sea birds, prime fishing grounds and tourist play lands, could be fouled later this week if crews can’t cut off an estimated 42,000 gallons a day escaping two leaks in a drilling pipe about 5,000 feet below the surface.
Tell those critters that if they survived the 700,000 gallons* of
rainbows spilled after Katrina, they sure as heck can handle the current situation. (Unless the pollution continues unabated for weeks, but maybe by then we'll have moved on to a different issue.)
* Seven hundred thousand can be safely rounded down to zero if you're a conservative, with almost
no political penalty.
Labels: Cons, oil
so your plan would to not drill. But how would that stop Cuba, Mexico, or, hell, Suriname from going into the gulf and making claims and starting to drill. The danger would not end if we didnt drill and in fact would likely increase since the oversight of say the cuban govt or the Suriname oil ministry is not as strigent as the US's even with our inspectors throwing wild sex and booze crazed parties.
I hope that our current president and his replacement in three years push strongly and invest hevily in new alternitive sources and rick-roll some of the obstuctionists in wind, solar, nuclear, and tidal energy farms. With both wind and solar at least the initial investment costs are about 20% higher (as I have heard) than say coal or natural gas. That is a gap that shouldnt be too hard to close especially with government backing (even to the point of the govt building the farms and then selling them or leasing them to power companies).
"so your plan would to not drill"
Outstanding induction, based on nothing.
I'm not opposed to drilling in itself, but when proponents lie about it and minimize its total risks and costs, that's an insult to the risks and costs that Louisiana endures on behalf of our oil-addicted nation. Oil drilling shouldn't be "sold" with lies, or framed as a long-term solution.
+ 1 Oyster.
The concern is not "if" we drill but "how" we drill. There are real human and environmental costs to this business, and they are ugly costs that people far away from oil fields and coal mines like to ignore.
Real conservatives would not shy from explaining the real costs of energy production. But these right-wing marketing majors we have today aren't about real costs and real policies. They are about selling a brand that removes the consumer from responsibility and the industry from accountability.
wow talk about no win here. First you say tell us the "real" costs and then you say the costs are too high. (see earlier posts by one oyster concerning off shore drilling)
Link to one that says "the costs are too high".