It is yet another big week for clean energy. The President is having a group of bipartisan senators over to discuss how to get a clean energy bill moving that addresses the source of the gulf spill. One guy who won't be attending is Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) after he apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward for the “tragic” mistreatment his company has suffered. Here are Barton's now infamous words:
That's right, forcing BP to pay for the damages it has caused is not justice, it's a “shakedown.” Incredible.
In response, numerous lawmakers from both parties expressed strong disgust at his comments. Unfortunately, that irritation didn't extend to everyone as a few seemed to share Barton's perverse perspective, in which BP is the victim and the rest of us are the perpetrators. Or something.
For instance, Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) called the $20 billion escrow account a “redistribution of wealth fund.” That's right, according to Bachmann, forcing BP to pay for the damages it caused is some sort of socialist scheme. As for the tens of thousands of Gulf Coast residents who depend on fisheries and tourism for their livelihoods? In Bachmann's world, apparently, they deserve nothing. “Let them eat cake,” perhaps?
Meanwhile, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and his Big Oil buddies continued to block legislation aimed at eliminating the $75 million liability cap on BP for economic damages stemming from the oil disaster that it caused. Apparently, protecting the mega-profits of a giant oil company is priority #1 for Inhofe et al, even as tends of thousands of Gulf Coast residents see their lives and livelihoods crumbling around them. Priorities, priorities, I guess.
Look, I am all for open markets and free enterprise. But, in addition to the chance to make enormous profits, doesn't doing business in a responsible manner also entail owning up to your obligations, not to mention your egregious mistakes? I mean, if I run up a bill on my credit card, I have to pay it. If I walk into a store and start smashing up the merchandise, the “Pottery Barn rule” is highly likely to kick in – “you break it, you buy it.” In fact, I would go so far as to call this a basic principle of doing business. In Senator Barton's world, in contrast, the “Pottery Barn rule” only applies to the “small people,” not to multibillion-dollar corporations like BP.
In the face of this heart-breaking and rage-inducing catastrophe, we don't need business-as-usual from Big Oil Barton and Company. Instead, we need something bold and transformational. We need comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that will break our addiction to oil, transform our economy, enhance our national security, and guarantee that oil disasters like this one never happen again.
Fortunately, even as a few lawmakers are busy apologizing to BP, others are hard at work trying to put America on a safer, cleaner path. Last week, Democratic senators held a caucus meeting on clean energy and climate legislation, and tomorrow they will hold another one. President Obama's get-together is Thursday. These gatherings are important, as they will help determine the Senate's path forward.
I am hoping that the meetings don't yield anymore ridiculous quotes a la Barton or Bachmann. My fingers will be crossed that after all the lawmakers have had a chance to be heard, they will move beyond rhetoric and lay out their plans for passing comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation this summer. Because action is what we need now from our elected representatives. If they fail to take that action, they will owe us all an apology.
… and this is part of the language that the environmental movement needs to understand and use: All environmental issues are about accountability, responsibility, and the rule of law.
<
p>As Heather says, you break it, you bought it. But that should go for the climate, as well as the Gulf of Mexico; for the air, as well as sea water. It’s time for the entire fossil fuel industry (coal too) to “man up” and take responsibility for the harm it’s causing to other people.
<
p>You don’t get to dump your trash all over my lawn and tell me it’s about “freedom”. And when the cops come to tell you to pick it up, or give you a fine, or put you in jail, you don’t get to complain about “big government.”
<
p>Wonky people like to talk about “pricing in externalities” and whatnot. Posing it as a complex moral or technical issue, though, simply buys into the problem. It’s a hell of a lot simpler than that.
<
p>The Bush administration had a policy of non-enforcement of the law in any number of areas: Finance, the environment, labor, and so forth and so on. Let’s just call it what it is: Lawlessness. If laws don’t mean anything, or can be enforced at the whim of the chief executive … what exactly are we, then? Not a democracy.
<
p>I hope and believe that some day we’ll look back at this era of corporate rule, and find it as quaint and grotesque as past absurdities, like dictatorship or Jim Crow.
Why are we not even attempting to promote local farming.
Why are we not going for localized power generation.
Why is alternative energy always suppressed, case in point Cape Wind.
<
p>BP being a big corporation can just fold up shop and declare bankruptcy, freeing up the big bonus guys who can go on to other areas of life and screw them up too.
<
p>I can tell how this is going to play out though. Tax the crap out of everybody to lower western lifestyles. That was the goal of Big Al the divorced Gore and Hayward gives the globalists a big early Christmas present, a far more concrete reason for “green” people exploitation.
<
p>Same thing as not closing our borders.
Isn’t this the way our corporations have treated the people of other countries for a century? The shoes are now on our feet. The people that we elected to represent us are paid by the people that harm us. Already the backpeddling starts. and dollars to donuts, by the time this ends the taxpayers will be the only ones paying the piper. (And this is just to setup an escrow account!) I hear no call to investigate the profit making rumored to have gone on just before the blowout. The lying just keeps going.
<
p>We could use some free enterprise. Some responsibility. “Your break it you own it.” In a free market all the people have the same rights, the same responsibilities. Under our present corporatist system only the wealthy, politically connected rule. (Anyone wonder why Halliburton will have the cleanup job? Think about that.)
<
p>Get yourself into trouble in the USA and call on your pols to bail you out with the monies gleaned off the small people and government favors. Whatta system… Oh well, we do get to see the pols shamelessly fawning over their corporate masters. (And they call themselves, “leaders”. {gag}
<
p>Isn’t anyone outraged that the Coast Guard is serving as the police for a foreign power on our own shores?
<
p>Welcome to the new underdeveloped country, the USofA.
<
p>“Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility.” –Ambrose Bierce
Re: Rahm on Barton’s “philosophy.” I just wanted to add the point that every major wing of the conservative movement has articulated this same position quite clearly. I’m not going to bother with all the links, so use Google if you don’t believe me:
<
p>Talk Radio: Rush Limbaugh;
Congressional GOP: 115-strong (House) Republican Study Committee;
Libertarians/Tea Party Crushes: Rand Paul;
Deep thinking young turks: Reihan Salam;
Pompous pseudo-intellectual hacks: George Will wasn’t available, so Roger Kimball stepped up to the plate.
“Center-right” journos: Michael Barone.
<
p>All of them! It’s in their blood. I think if you tried to explain how all these different types could have the same response to the fund, you’d have a pretty good definition of conservatism today.
Exploding with dynamite and even nuking the well have both actually been suggested!
the nuclear idea is wacky because, amongst other things, it violates more than one international test-ban treaty.
<
p>But the dy-no-mite! idea? Well, it’s an idea. Brainstorming is cool. I have no idea if it’s at all reasonable, but I don’t find ideas bad. Fact is, it wasn’t merely suggested as an idea, but rather presented as if it had been vetted and would certainly work. That’s a major no-no.
I don’t know if this is true, but I don’t trust the government or its corporate masters either. I’ve seen the results of a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE) where the pressure of a gas keeps a container burning until such time as the pressure equalizes with the outside air and an explosion occurs. In this case will a pressure change lead to the solid methane in the well cavity turning vapor? If so, are we looking at a disaster of incredible proportions?
<
p>“A half-truth is a whole lie” –Yiddish Proverb
<
p>
merely suggesting that dynamite might work — engineers must consider it. Nuclear is absolutely not the right idea, engineering be damned.
So often political power does what is expedient rather than what is necessary. This is another bomb crazy administration.
<
p>Right now it looks as if the administration won’t be bombing the oil spill, just letting the disaster widen to use as a bargaining chip in the cap & trade tax fight. Thus skimmers aren’t coming in to tackle the mess either from domestic or foreign sources.
<
p>Part of the policy of not letting a crisis go to waste, I guess.
<
p>“Work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.” –Laurence J. Peter
You’re claiming that Obama’s administration is intentionally withholding resources specifically to make the problem worse. Really? Seriously… claiming that Obama is intentionally allowing it to be worse so he can work on cap-and-trade? Really? Really?
<
p>
<
p>And come on — you’re citing LeMieux? Really? He’s a member of the Drill Baby Drill party. He rails against government spending. He rails against regulatory power. Heck, within the first minute he takes a cut at “big government” but then immediately claims that, when it comes to fixing the problems caused by private industry and Drill Baby Drill, the government isn’t big enough.
<
p>
The administration is giving itself credit for using crisis to advantage. The press laps this up and treats it as a new way of thinking. Heck, they should have looked to Lyndon and the Tonkin Gulf crisis. Or the sinking of the USS Maine, for that matter. There’s also a tiff over giving federal troops or LEO to counter an invasion of banditos in Arizona.
<
p>They all play extortion games and label it politics. We The People are just the pawns. You’ll only find “Pollyanna” in the library, written by Eleanor Porter.
<
p>“Pollyanna Whittier: Nancy, you know that man?
Nancy Furman: What man?
Pollyanna Whittier: The man at the train station. The one who was just here. Well, what was he to Aunt Polly?
Nancy Furman: Oh. You might say they used to be friends. Sort of.
Pollyanna Whittier: Do you think he’s gonna marry Aunt Polly?
Mrs. Tillie Lagerlof: Who’s gonna marry her?
Nancy Furman: She means Dr. Chilton.
Angelica: Fat chance of that! Who’d want to marry old pickle-faced Harrington?
Pollyanna Whittier: Nancy, are you and George gonna get married?
Nancy Furman: We hope to, someday.
Pollyanna Whittier: Oh, I am glad. I think everyone should be married. And maybe, when you do get married, Aunt Polly will see how happy it makes you, she’ll be very glad to get married herself, then.
Angelica: Glad this, glad that. Do you have to be glad about everything? What’s the matter with you, anyway?
Nancy Furman: Oh, lay off her, Angie. She’s not hurting you.
Angelica: The way she goes on…
Mrs. Tillie Lagerlof: That’s enough! You heard her. Stop picking on the girl. Take that sherbert out and serve it the way you should.” –Eleanor Porter
<
p>