Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts

Saturday, January 24, 2026

More Uruguay

I posted about this last December, but I am posting this again since part of Trump's insane expansionism is based upon a continued reliance on fossil fuels. Energy independence makes more sense if we are talking about national security than relying on fossil fuels coming from other nations.

And Uruguay proves it can be done. 

 

Tuesday, December 9, 2025

Uruguay proves that energy independence is possible and good for the economy.

OK, time for a change from Palestine. And a bit of good news at that since this is indeed true.  On the other hand, the US politicians and media are so in the pocket of big money that you wouldn't know this.

Fact check this if you don't believe me.


And I can't believe the crap I am going through to get solar panels on my roof (and yes, the historical commission is a part of all that).

Actually, they did give approval since my house was built in 1980 and very modern, but there were still people who talked about "the historic character" is this area.

Tuesday, March 1, 2022

Stop Knocking the Green New Deal: Ukrainian situation shows need for energy independence

Very Amusing this:

Despite what the one right wing Pennsylvania Representative says: The Green New Deal is not an off switch for the economy. If anything, energy independence is a necessity.

And clean energy is the path to independence. That's GREEN energy for the Fox News Pundits and other right wingers who need to do a twelve step on their energy reliance.

In fact, the United States should have learned its lesson about this back in 1973, but the myth that fossil fuels are somehow inexhaustible manages to hold on. 

The article that relates to the picture to the left points this out: https://investorplace.com/hypergrowthinvesting/2022/03/clean-energy-is-the-way-to-independence-and-huge-gains/

As someone who should have looked toward a career relating to the environment, I can tell you that the fossil fuel industry is already working to transition to clean energy. Note the amount of ethanol in your petrol the next time you are at the pump.

I've put my money where my mouth is and invested in solar panels.

Hillary Clinton should have said that failure to make the transition to clean energy will put a lot of coal miners out of work. People need to start looking to jobs in the clean energy sector.

But the above article points out something that the fossil fuel junkies miss:

Why the huge outperformance in clean energy stocks? The Russian invasion of Ukraine underscores the world’s need for energy independence. And clean energy offers the only viable pathway to TRUE energy independence.

It’s inarguable that energy independence is the ultimate goal for every country. No government wants their energy supply to be reliant upon another country – especially if said country is Russia, which provides about 40% of Europe’s natural gas supply.

At the end of the day, every country wants to produce its own energy. It’s cheaper. It’s more reliable and creates more jobs. And, perhaps most importantly, it’s safer.

I can go in depth about how Russia's best weapon against the west is its reliance on fossil fuels since


wars are becoming more and more about energy resources.

Maybe if the likes of Greg Gutfeld would shut the fuck up with their ignorance and learn something we might have a decent discussion here. But knocking something without any real knowledge of the topic is dangerous.

It's also the American way.

It's long past time for change.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

9 Electirc Car Myths - Green, Green, It's Green they Say

In the past 12 months we have endured the BP Gulf Oil disaster, and the coal mine disaster in West Virginia.  With the unrest in the middle east, especially with the possibility of it spreading to Saudi Arabia, the potential for dramatically higher oil prices and gasoline prices is an increasing concern.

This may be the crisis which added to the disasters of 2010, finally pushes us to make real changes away from fossil fuels (and we might hope, away from the continuing Republican subsidies and tax breaks to those highly profitable industries to the detriment of our deficit as a nation).

To help push that change, if only in a small way, the Sierra Club busted 9 Electric Car Myths:   
Electric Vehicles: Myths vs. Reality

Myth 1: Switching to an electric vehicle will just mean that the same amount of pollution comes from the electricity generation rather than from the tailpipe — I'll just be switching from oil to coal.

Reality: According to a range of studies, an electric car leads to 35 to 60% less carbon dioxide pollution from electricity than the CO2 pollution from the oil of a conventional car with an internal combustion engine.[1][2][3] In some areas, like many on the West Coast that rely largely on wind or hydro power, the emissions are significantly lower for EVs. And that's today. As we retire more coal plants and bring cleaner sources of power online, the emissions from electric vehicle charging drop even further. Additionally, in some areas, night-time charging will increase the opportunity to take advantage of wind power -- another way to reduce emissions.

A caveat to consider, according to some studies, is that when coal plants supply the majority of the power mix in a given area, electric vehicles may emit more CO2 and SO2 pollution than hybrid electric vehicles.[4] Learn where your electricity comes from, what plans your state or community has for shifting to renewables, and whether you have options for switching to greener power.

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Holding BP Accountable for the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill; or, Deputy Dawg, er, Joe Barton compared to Senator Al Franken

From Senator Al Franken, in response to an inquiry from me, DG -
(also, a link to the text of the bill is provided by me, because I believe we should all read legislation, not have others predigest it for us):
Thank you for contacting me about the Environmental Crimes Enforcement Act. I appreciate learning of your support for this legislation.

Under current law, the criminal penalties for Clean Water Act violations are not as severe as the penalties for other white-collar crimes. Restitution for environmental crimes -- even those that take human life -- is discretionary, and only available under limited circumstances. As a result, corporations sometimes treat fines and monetary penalties as merely a cost of doing business to be weighed against profits.

The BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill has made it clear that environmental crimes can cause serious and widespread harm to people's lives and livelihoods, as well as to the environment. By all accounts, BP had no viable plan in place to deal with an accident of this magnitude, and I've been deeply disappointed by BP's neglect of safety and slow response to stopping the leak in the Gulf. BP must be held responsible for all costs incurred as a result of the oil spill.

That's why I cosponsored S. 3466, the Environmental Crimes Enforcement Act. This bill would direct the U.S. Sentencing Commission to increase sentences for criminal Clean Water Act violations and would make restitution mandatory for criminal violations of the Act. Should BP or others be found criminally liable in the Deepwater Horizon disaster, this legislation would allow the families of those killed to be compensated for wrongdoing and would help the people of the Gulf Coast rebuild their coastline, wetlands, fisheries, and livelihoods.

S. 3466 was introduced in the Senate on June 9, 2010, and was referred to the Judiciary Committee, which reported the bill favorably on June 24, 2010. I will continue to push for the passage of the Environmental Crimes Enforcement Act to ensure that polluters are held responsible and victims receive the compensation they deserve.

Thank you again for contacting me, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future on this or any other matter of concern to you.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

BP, Joe Barton.........and Deputy Dawg?

Rep. Joe Barton, R - Texas
Terrytoons Deputy Dawg and Ty Coon

The recent news cycles are full of clips of Rep. Joe Barton of Texas making his apologies to Tony Hayward during the Energy and Commerce Committee hearings on the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster.
There will be more to come, including repetitions in political ads before the 2010 elections.

Often, blog posts attempt serious consideration and discussion of current events. I wanted to diverge from that, with humor and a bit of whimsy.

If you haven't seen it yet so often your eyes have begun to roll independently in your head in self-defense:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp4ErRJuCbM
(or any of numerous other clips of the exact same thing)

Possibly it is because I've become bored with this same clip over and over, interspersed with the occasional Bachmann BP/big oil boot-licking clips, and the Boehner call for the government to pay for the disaster, that are being retracted, or spun like a centrifuge, and then subsequently denied (despite all too much evidence to the contrary).

Being a bit bored, I cannot help but notice the close resemblance between Barton in both appearance and voice to the famous Ralph Bakshi cartoon character, with which he made his debut in children's television animation 'cult classic'-- Deputy Dawg -- back in 1959. The irony of this is that, being a baby boomer born in 1949, Barton may have grown up watching Deputy Dawg cartoons as a child, in his hometown of Waco, Texas; and the cartoons are set in the (in reality) oil-spill affected Gulf state of Mississippi.

You can refresh your own recollection of Deputy Dawg, either with a nostalgia collection on DVD, or at a number of sites that offer free perusal of the old terrytoons Deputy Dawg episodes, like this one.

http://www.ovguide.com/tv/deputy_dawg.htm

It kind of makes you want to start casting other political figures from this disaster as Deputy Dawg characters - Catfish-poachin' Pelican, Peach Pluckin' Kangaroo, Vincent Van Gopher, Muskie Muskrat, Ali Gator, Mother Crane and Lil Whooper, Moley Mole, Possible Possum, Ty Coon, Pig Newton, the Russian Mischa Mouse, Homer, Penguin, Lynx, and the Deputy's boss, the Sherrif - and his family members, Missus Deputy Dawg, and newphew Deputy Elmer. Let's not forget Astronut, the amiable alien, another spin-off character.

Whenever the election year politics starts to wear on your nerves, and your mind starts to wander during hearings, debates, and endless ads, I hope you will enjoy privately imagining the politicos posturing in front of you as an appropriate cartoon character from your childhood, with special emphasis on similar characteristics and mannerisms. It is a diversion that lends itself to any political POV.


There is a certain, odd, even freakish resemblance between the human and the cartoon character....that is BP CEO Tony Hayward on the right.




I decided to make a revision to this post, with a better comparison between cartoon and political figure -- Senator Joe Lieberman, (I)CT, and another cartoon hound, Droopy Dog.

I trust I don't really need to label which is which.

Perhaps the greatest similarity is in the voices, which you can hear on this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zuPjhLHHFo&feature=related

It might help keep the inevitable ennui of politics from getting you down, while adding a certain useful perspective to the political season.

Friday, June 18, 2010

A Study in Contrasts: Black and White, Day and Night

There are two congressional representatives from Minnesota in the news for their role in the BP oil tragedy. They are James Oberstar and Michele Bachmann.

Their response to this American disaster provides a very clear insight into the important differences between them. That difference is made clearest by their own words.

From James Oberstar, serving in his 17th term in Congress, in his position as chair of the investigation into the BP spill, opened on June 9th with the following:

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES L. OBERSTAR

HEARING ON LIABILITY AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR OIL SPILLS UNDER THE OIL POLLUTION ACT OF1990 AND RELATED STATUTES

June 9, 2010

Today, we will examine the issues of liability and financial responsibility for oil spills under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and other related statutes.

The liability, financial responsibility, and insurance issues surrounding the Deepwater Horizon disaster are complex. Estimates suggest that losses associated with this casualty could result in between $1 billion and $3.5 billion in claims. These damages will far exceed the liability caps that apply to offshore facilities, with a limit of $75 million. In fact, if these predictions prove accurate, damages will exceed the amount available in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

The tragedy of the Deepwater Horizon shows the need for a comprehensive review of the liability concepts in the laws now in effect. Existing laws were developed from centuries of maritime history to deal with damages to persons and property from accidents involving seagoing vessels. A vessel carries a known quantity of oil or other cargo. There is a reasonable basis for estimating the worst possible case of damages that would result from release of all of the oil. This, in turn, establishes a basis for a liability cap and setting levels of required insurance.

By contrast, the Deepwater Horizon disaster demonstrates that when we are dealing with a facility for drilling rather than a merchant vessel, the amount of oil that can be released is highly unpredictable and can be astronomical. Deepwater Horizon also demonstrates that the technology for deepwater drilling is much riskier and uncertain than merchant vessel technology.

In short, Deepwater Horizon shows us that we need to develop a financial and liability program based on the technological complexities and realities of deepwater drilling, rather than simply adding to the concepts developed for vessels.

In addition to liability issues, the Deepwater Horizon tragedy demonstrates that for deepwater drilling complete reliance on industry does not provide the safety regime we need. The Federal Government has allowed the drilling industry to self police through certification, engineering and design; it is time that we take back control over all safety issues associated with deep sea oil drilling operations.

The issues for consideration in this hearing include raising or eliminating the cap on liability under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) for facilities and vessels, and raising the levels required for demonstration of financial responsibility. An important subsidiary issue is whether any changes should be applied retroactively to the Deepwater Horizon spill, and whether existing caps and insurance requirements are incorporated in existing leases and, if so, whether the government would be in breach of contract and liable for damages if liability or insurance requirements were raised.

With regard to the liability caps for facilities, one option is to remove the caps altogether. A major argument against liability caps is that these caps can reduce the incentives for operators to take steps necessary to ensure safety. In addition, liability caps that are well below the level of damages from a spill will mean that persons suffering damages will have to be reimbursed exclusively from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; if there are not sufficient amounts available in the Trust Fund, the injured persons will either not receive compensation or will have to be compensated by general revenue from taxpayers.

The argument in support of liability caps is that, without caps, only the largest companies will be willing to drill in the deepwater and run the risk of huge damages. This could lead to less competition for drilling leases and lower proceeds to the Federal Government for selling these rights. Limiting drilling to the largest companies may result in less drilling and the supply of oil may be reduced.

Somewhat different factors are involved when we consider raising or eliminating the caps for vessels. If smaller vessels, such as tug barges carrying home heating oil, are subject to a major increase in expenses for insurance, there may be a loss of shipping capacity that would be detrimental to consumers. Moreover, the potential damages from a spill from a vessel are more predictable than the losses from an uncontained well. The amount of oil carried by a vessel is known, while the amount of oil that would be release by a spill such as the Deepwater Horizon is highly speculative scientific guesswork.

While the caps for facilities have not been adjusted since OPA was enacted, the caps for vessels have been raised by law and administrative action to adjust for inflation.

The Deepwater Horizon tragedy also demonstrates a need for change in the trust fund that backs up individual responsibility for damage. If the costs of cleaning up an oil spill and the costs of claims for damages resulting from the spill exceed the limits in OPA, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is available to cover the costs. The Trust Fund is funded predominately by an eight-cents-per-barrel tax on crude oil received at U.S. refineries. The tax is paid by the refinery operators.

Currently, the Trust Fund has a balance of approximately $1.6 billion, with a cap on expenditures from the Trust Fund of $1 billion and $500 million for natural resource damages. The House has passed legislation to raise the tax on crude oil to 34 cents per barrel and to raise the caps on Trust Fund expenditures to $5 billion, with $2.5 billion for natural resource damages per incident. Still, the Coast Guard has informed us that it will run out of money to fight this disaster possibly next week because it will have exhausted the $100 million advance provided from the Trust Fund.

On May 13, 2010 Transocean filed a complaint in Federal court in Houston to limit its liability to about $26.7 million under a little-known statute – the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851. The Department of Justice has since filed a motion opposing Transocean’s petition. (enlarged type, my emphasis - note MILLIONS limit, compared to the $20 BILLION escrow fund negotiated by President Obama.)

The 1851 Act was put into place before ship owners had access to insurance to encourage American ship owners to invest in shipping, and to put the American shipping industry on an even footing with its competitors in Europe. The 1851 Act allows ship owners to limit their liability to the value of the vessel and her cargo.

Certainly, the claims for personal injury and death and economic losses that are coming forward and will continue to come forward as a result of the Deepwater Horizon casualty will far exceed the value of the rig or whatever was owed to Transocean by BP and others.

The history of the 1851 Act suggests that it was bad law from the start. Among other criticisms, Gilmore and Black noted in 1975 in The Law of Admiralty:

No doubt when more obscure statutes are drafted, the Congress will draft them, but it is difficult to believe that any future body of law makers will ever surpass this extraordinary effort … The only safe thing to do with such a statute is to repeal it.

As we reexamine existing liability laws, we should consider revisions to such laws as the Death on the High Seas Act and the Jones Act, which prevent persons injured on vessels from recovering non-economic damages generally available under tort law.

I look forward to the testimony of each of our witnesses and I thank you all for coming.


_______________________________________


In contrast, Michele Bachmann MISSED the vote on June 10th to Amend the Oil Pollution Act :
This legislation would allow the Obama administration to withdraw more money from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund in order to better respond to the Gulf of Mexico oil accident. The Senate approved the bill the previous day by voice vote, and the president is expected to sign it.
But Bachmann did find time to make this stupid statement, among her many interviews anywhere but in her home state, or on the job:
"The president just called for creating a fund that would be administered by outsiders, which would be more of a redistribution-of-wealth fund. And now it appears like we’ll be looking at one more gateway for more government control, more money to government. If there is a disaster, why is it that government is the one who always seems to benefit after a disaster, and that’s of course what cap-and-trade would be."

One representative from Minnesota, James Oberstar, is long serving, in his 17th term of office. The other, Michele Bachmann, is in her 2nd. I think this is an excellent example of who is politicizing a national disaster for their own gain, and utterly failing to represent their constituency in government; and who is doing the actual job they were elected to do with care, fairness, and distinction.
It is obvious why Oberstar is re-elected repeatedly, with usually around 60% of his vote; while Bachmann cannot manage even 50%, and relies on an enormous amount of donations from outside the state of Minnesota for her campaigns. With this kind of performance, why would anyone reasonable, in her own district, fund her election - or vote for her?

The contrast is as obvious as day and night, black and white.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Coal Cruel World - part II, Two Months After the Explosion

"Every social injustice is not only cruel, but it is economic waste."
William Feather

American Publisher and Author
1889 - 1981

In an NPR interview on 'Morning Edition' on May 27th, Frank Langfitt spoke with miners, former miners, and federal Mine Safety and Health Administration inspectors who told story after story of their experiences with the Massey Energy mine that was the site of a deadly explosion on April 5th, 2010.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127200527&sc=emaf

Miners and inspectors described chronic failures by Massey management not only to practice the required safety measures in the Upper Big Branch mine, but to attempt to deceive safety inspectors about compliance. In the interview miner Gary Quarles made the statement to a House of Representatives hearing on the disaster, "When an MSHA inspector comes onto a Massey mine property, the code word goes out, 'We've got a man on the property'".

Quarles son died in the Upper Big Branch mine disaster, one of the 29 miners to do so.

Former Massey miner, Mike Shull, told a similar story about responding to the inspector alerts by fixing violations, and complying with regulations just ahead of the inspectors. Shull described the leisurely response to inspection warnings: "You probably had an hour and 15 minutes to get ready, so we didn't move at no fast pace.[We]Just got things legal."

Another miner from Massey, Ron Flutey, Jr., described routine failures to hang the plastic curtains that were important to prevent coal dust circulating, which was important both to prevent explosions, and to prevent miners contracting black lung. In Fluty's vernacular speech, he said, "Usually didn't never hang no curtain unless somebody showed up".

Massey claims it cooperates with the government inspections; perhaps they have drastically different definitions of regulatory compliance. CEO Blankenship told senators in another hearing that Massey didn't put profit over safety, and "doesn't tolerate reckless behavior".

Statements from miners and inspectors would suggest they don't tolerate it, they require it.

Blankenship's claims didn't prevent a recent discovery by inspectors who prevented the alerting of mine staff, a discovery of miners who were not ventilating mines in violation of safety standards. Blankenship indicated those miners were fired. More likely the miners were being scapegoated, being blamed for carrying out the orders of management, with Blankenship claiming innocence, and ignorance of the violations.

As a result of the recent disaster, miners now have begun tipping off inspectors about violations. MSHA coal inspector Kevin Stricklin describes the new 'blitz' of inspections, "We captured the phone and we went underground and unfortunately in all three of these cases, we found the anonymous tips were true".

Blankenship claims Massey only hires miners who have the right attitude about safety. That would be in obvious contradiction to their safety record, and to the findings of inspectors once the 'alert' process used by Massey to circumvent useful safety inspections is disrupted.

It is useful to ask the question why would miners opt to avoid safety measures that are intended to keep them healthy and alive? Who would benefit from that? Massey would benefit by saving time and money not complying, putting greater coal production and profits ahead of lives.

To quote Inspector Ken Stricklin, speculating on why the miners would go along with the failure to follow safety regulations, "I think some of them must do it because they fear they won't have a job".

Another inspector, Terry Scarboro, who had inspected mines for 14 years, including Upper Big Branch and other Massey mines, made this statement, "Is there any way Don Blankenship doesn't know this is going on? No, there's no way. He knows it's going on. All management knows it's going on and the employees are guilty and they know it's going on."

Scarboro went on to describe the inspection policy of Massey and some other mine operators, "It's a cat and mouse game. You catch me, I'll fix it. If I can get ahead of you and fix it before you catch it, then you didn't see it."

In this cat and mouse game, apparently there are some rats, at least one 'big cheese', and 29 dead miners who got caught in the trap of this mining disaster.

Between June 2006 and the April 5th, 2010, the date of the disaster, the Upper Big Branch mine had over 500 citations for safety violations. Those would be the violations they were unsuccessful in hiding from inspectors. Of the 500, 300 were in the most serious category "significant and substantial". Of those 300 most serious safety citations, approximately 100 claim high negligence or reckless disregard for safety standards.

Earlier this week, the first attempt to inspect the mine by the civil and criminal investigations took place. The inspection was covered by the Beckley, West Virginia Register-Herald : www.herald-register.com/todaysfrontpage/x1358969217/Dangerous-gases-delay-mine-teams-at-Upper-Big-Branch

The FBI is conducting the criminal investigation looking into alleged "willful criminal activity" by the mines operators, directors, officers and agents, and includes possible bribing of inspectors. Presumably we may assume that bribery would be by the mine operators, and not the miners whose lives are protected by safety regulation. I'm waiting for CEO Blankenship to deny knowledge of that too, if the proof emerges of bribery, and then to fire somebody lower down as the next scapegoat.

Just as some companies have proven 'too big to fail', I'm waiting to see if Blankenship is 'too big' to jail, as a result of the criminal investigation and any subsequent prosecution. Blankenship seems to be positioning himself for denial of responsibility. With a big money political spending guy like Blankenship, the buck appears to only stop with him when it hits his bank account.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Drill, Baby, Drill; Spill, Baby, Spill; Burn, Baby, Burn; Now......................... Plot, Baby, Plot?

“The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working.”
- author unknown

"“In fact, one thing that I have noticed . . . is that all of these conspiracy theories depend on the perpetrators being endlessly clever. I think you'll find the facts also work if you assume everyone is endlessly stupid.”
- author unknown

"The popularity of conspiracy theories is explained by people's desire to believe that there is - some group of folks who know what they're doing”
- Damon Knight
American Science Fiction Author, Editor, Critic and Fan
1922 - 2002

“Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory.”
-Sir Bernard Ingham
Chief Press Secretary to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and
prominent opponent to wind energy
1932


Sarah Palin promoted the slogan "Drill, Baby, Drill!" during her 2008 Vice Presidential campaign as the Republican candidate. In April 2010, President Barack Obama came out in favor of off-shore drilling, reversing his earlier more pro-alternative and renewable energy / pro-environmental concerns position.

On April 20, 2010, two days before Earth Day, the Gulf of Mexico oil drilling rig Deepwater Horizon exploded, and subsequently sank into the gulf, killing 11. It appears likely to be one of the largest oil spills in history. Atttempts to control the volume of oil include controlled burning. President Obama now appears to be at least temporarily returning to his original more cautious position on off-shore drilling. Proponents of the practice, including Sarah Palin, have for the moment gone relatively silent.

Meanwhile, the conspiracy theorists on the political Right have gone out of their ever-loving minds; the further to the right, the crazier the conspiracies they promote while trying to politicize the disaster. I will provide the highlights of these conspiracy theories, but first...

A little background on Earth Day; Earth Day is a core part of at least some of these conspiracies, so a brief overview is germane. Back in 1970, a U.S. senator from Wisconsin, Gaylord Nelson, came up with the idea for a nation-wide environmental "teach-in" day in response to widespread environmental degradation. His proposal achieved an unexpected success, participation by an estimated 20 million people back in 1970. The celebration of Earth Day has spread to some 175 countries, and 500 million people. It is, in other words, no longer an event unique to the United States. Senator Nelson had the bright idea for this annual event, in part to emulate the college and university 'teach-ins' held in response to the Viet Nam war; and in part as a response to witnessing as a senator the damage done by an oil spill in 1969, near Santa Barbara, California and the lack of a government response.

Ah, history! The more things change, the more some things stay the same...just variations.

One of the key pieces of misinformation in some but not all of these conspiracy theories is the ignorance of the correct meaning of the acronym "SWAT". In the context of the oil rig explosion, it refers NOT to "Special Weapons and Tactics Teams, the type of law enforcement special ops personnel, garbed in bullet proof black clothing, bristling with sexy weapons and lethal skills. It refers to the personnel of the Minerals Management Service, the branch of the Department of the Interior responsible, among other things, for the management of safety and the environment in drilling for oil and natural gas on the federal Outer Continental shelf. The Federal Continental Shelf includes an area off the coast of the eastern United States covered by the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico off the southern United States, a large area under the Pacific Ocean off the western United States, an area around Alaska including land covered by the Gulf of Alaska, the Bering Sea, the Chukchi Sea, and the Beaufort Sea (sorry, but I love geography). The Department of Interior SWAT teams are assigned to check the blow out valves and other safety compliance and records - not shoot anyone. They are more geeks than 'gun bunnies'.

So, lets go through some of the right wing media 'talking heads' and their notions about the oil rig explosion conspiracies. Lets start with what many might consider the biggest - Rush Limbaugh. Rush has made not one but two different sets of comments on the explosion, the SWAT teams assignment, and the coincidence of the event taking place around the time of Earth Day. Rush states the rig blew up on April 21st, the day before - as he likes to deride it -'Erf Day', as an indication that the rig explosion might have been caused by sabotage carried out by environmental extremists. Except that the explosion and fire occurred on April 20th, if that makes any difference. And Rush claims that Earth Day was started because of the Cleveland River catching on fire - not the Santa Barbara oil spill. There was a Cuyahoga river fire in 1969, the year that Senator Nelson began working on Earth Day for April 1970; and it was related to an oil slick on the river along with debris and other pollution, but it was an ongoing problem, not related to a specific 'spill'. The same river had caught on fire before - in 1868, 1883, 1887, 1912, 1922, 1936, 1941, 1948, and in 1952 -- the 1952 fire was more extensive and costly than the 1969 conflagration. So while the river catching on fire did draw attention to the polluted state of the river, which in turn influenced federal clean water legislation in 1972, this was not a new experience for Cleveland, but rather more of a chronic problem that flared up from time to time - pardon the pun.

But we're talking here about Rush, so we can hardly expect a high threshold of fact to be characterize his rant. Rush goes on to claim that the rescheduling of cap and trade legislation is a red flag signalling that the environmentalists who opposed this kind of drilling because it was more dangerous than proponents advocating it would admit (and who were correct, as it turns out) also were in opposition to nuclear power proposals from President Obama. So Rush finds it plausible to float to his audience that this might be sabotage, instead of an accident. That environmentalist wackos would some how sneak onto an oil rig 42 miles out in the ocean - undetected; blow it up - remaining unscathed, where others were injured or killed; escape - again undetected; all with the intention of causing exactly the kind of damage they oppose. Lets us not forget, without taking credit for their sabotage, and skipping the opportunity to make their point clearly. This conspiracy has more holes in it than the Deepwater Horizon has oil leaks!

A more fact based cause and effect theory can be traced to more recent developments than the '69 river fire and earth day eco-commandos. Under the Bush administration, dating back just to 2003. Oil companies doing off-shore drilling were exempted from the requirements for additional safety measures that these same companies, like BP, are required to have in place by an overwhelming majority, virtually ALL, other countries in the world which have ocean drilling for oil. Experts indicate that had this equipment been in place this explosive fire and spill, and resulting complications would have been avoided.

According to a 2007 study by the Minerals Management Service, there were 39 rig blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico between 1992 - 2006, which suggests that while the explosion of the BP Deepwater Horizon rig, one of the largest ever constructed, is a bigger event than the others, it is far less rare than most of us were aware --- another important factual omission from Rush Limbaugh, as he insists we can do this kind of drilling safely.

By omission, I don't mean that Rush Limbaugh is deliberately withholding the information; I mean the man is profoundly ignorant, and doesn't care that he is inaccurate or uninformed. At least, he doesn't care enough to inform himself or his listeners with any information that doesn't suit his predetermined position.

Another little factoid that Rush either doesn't know or doesn't care about is that Haliburton, you know, that company that Cheney was CEO of from 1995 - 2000, was the company servicing the Deepwater Horizon, performing a job called 'cementing' that is connected to the probable cause of the explosion -------- along with 18 other instances of those 39 rig blowouts addressed in the 2007 Minerals Management Service study. But that doesn't make for a Rush approved conspiracy theory, so it is unknown or omitted, just like he omitted the information that BP did not prepare for anything resembling a major spill, in the arrogance that it simply couldn't and wouldn't happen.

Rush then goes on to quote his 'official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer' who according to Rush claims that the Gulf of Mexico and similar oceanic bodies of water simply take this in stride, oil leaks along the ocean floor all the time, and in Rush's words "the ocean's pretty tough, it just eats it up." Intelligent design proponent Dr. Spencer, affilardiated with the University of Alabama at Huntsville, may have to eat his words, which could be a good alternative to eating seafood out of the Gulf of Mexico any time soon, or for a long time to come. Huntsville is quite a ways inland, but it is looking as if all of the Gulf states will be affected, from Texas eastw to the gulf coast of Florida.

Limbaugh goes on to state that the oil spill from the Exxon Valdez in Prince William sound is all cleaned up - in Limbaugh's words, because "They were wiping off the rocks with Dawn dishwater detergent and paper towels and so forth. The place is pristine now." Except that it is not - but Rush doesn't want any legitimate opposition to the perils of drilling, so he leaves out those annoying facts, AGAIN.

The Exxon Valdez accident occurred in part because of Exxon being cheap - the ship was single hulled instead of double hulled, the captain was a drunk, the crew involved with piloting the ship were inadequately trained and had not had the mandated safety measure time off to rest, and equipment was in poor repair including a crucial Raycas radar system, among other factors.

According to the NOAA study in 2007, more than 26,000 gallons of crude oil remain in the contaminated shoreline, and is only declining at the rate of 4% per year -- far from the land or water 'eating it up'. Twenty years after the event, a number of studies show the area is still ecologically and economically devastated, and the effects of the spill are lasting far far longer than anticipated - by Exxon. Salmon and herring and other fishing industries have yet to recover from the damage, and tourism and sports industries are are still adversely affected, and a native American corporation, intended to help the various Eskimo groups had to file chapter 11 bankruptcy. There were even multiple suicides in the area attributed to problems from the spill. Not what anyone with a factually based reality could call 'pristine' in terms of clean up of that oil spill. But that's what you get when you listen or watch ol' Rush Limbaugh, much like the skewed information that comes from Fox News. Follow Rush here for yourself:
www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042910/content/01125113.guest.html

Much of this information about the Exxon Valdez spill after-effects, incidentally, comes from studies done by the state of Alaska, home of "drill, baby, drill" it's- all-safe Sarah Palin, who as governor of the state that did all of these studies should know better than most how UN-safe some of this drilling really is when an oil spill results. I would also expect that as Palin claims to have oil expertise, she would be - or SHOULD be - familiar with the largest oil spills in history, which involved larger amounts of oil, and which led to better understanding of oil spill consequences (both long term and short term) as well as triggering advances in clean up techniques. For those readers who are as unfamiliar with risks and damages from massive oil spills, I will refer you to lazy-style research, on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_spills. They provide a lovely graph.

And then there is my personal favorite, the conspiracy theory being promoted by right wing talking heads like Michael Savage, the claim that it was North Korea torpedoing the BP Deepwater Horizon. Some versions have this as an attack by North Korea on the United States for --- fill in the blank reasons. Other versions claim that because the South Korea industrial giant Hyundai corporation built the rig, that this was actually an attempt by North Korea to attack South Korea. It is rumored that South Korea / Hyundai is already contracted to build more of these rigs, so I'm unclear as to how giving them even MORE business, building a replacement rig, is a damaging attack; but heck, this is conspiracy theory thinking, not logic.

We have another right wing talking head, Alex Jones, who is promoting the conspiracy that the 'accident' is actually an intentional attempt to make oil more scarce so that oil speculation will be profitable again, and working in the 'one world government' paranoia angle.

Then we have Mark Levin, who helped Betsy McCaughey promote the death panel hysteria before Palin made it popular, who is positing that the oil rig was really blown up by terrorists, until he gets a caller who has a different convoluted theory - all very technobabble, which appeals to conspiracy fans - to explain what really happened. Geeze, I guess we don't need to wait for that investigation - talk radio has an unverified, unconfirmed CALLER to tell us all we really need to know.

I could go on with talking heads, pundits, and correlate all of the "internets" right wing conspiracy theories. As the oil spill spreads, I'm sure the theories will grow along with it, providing at least a few laughs for the rest of us sane people during this crisis. A few facts go a long way to 'explode' the conspiracies.

Friday, April 9, 2010

Coal Cruel World - Part I

"Politics, a strife of interest masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage."

"Corporation, an ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility."
- Ambrose Bierce
American journalist and satirist
1842 - 1914


A mining disaster is defined as a mine accident, including coal mining accidents, where there are five or more fatalities, according to the United States Mine Rescue Association's website, which identifies it as the largest mine rescue organization in the world. In the current mining disaster media frenzy, I found this web site one of the few sources that was both expert, and non-political :www.usmra.com

Context:

The same website identifies that the worst mine disasters in our history were around a hundred years ago where hundreds died in a single accident. Looking at approximately the last 50 years, where regulation and technology combined improved on those statistics, deaths in the worst mining disaster hovered around 100, plus or minus. From 1951 to 2010, the fatalities occurring in mining disasters started diminishing from triple digits. In 1951, only 10 disasters involved deaths in double digits, including the one this month in West Virginia, with the worst occurring in 1968, with 78 deaths. A dozen more disasters in the last 50 years involved loss of life in the single digits.

All of which suggests that while mining is inherently dangerous, despite the inherent dangers, it is possible to reduce these accidents dramatically. It may not be possible to completely eliminate fatalities; but as there are companies that have fewer accidents and do not have mining disasters at all, it seems reasonable to expect we can reduce accidents to fewer than we currently experience, and to eliminate or nearly eliminate mining disasters. But, only if we want to do so, if we decide it is important to do so.

Cross referencing Mining Disasters (not just accidents) with Mining Safety Legislation
using data from the Worst US Mine Disasters page of the USMRA, and the site History of Mine Safety and Health Legislation, from the US Department of Labor website

Disasters

through 1875
19 Coal Mine Disasters
no fatality data
no safety legislation

1876 - 1900
101 Coal Mine Disasters/ fatalities exceed 2000 / year
1891, legislation prohibited mines from employing children under 12,
first minimum ventilation requirements in underground mines;
only applied to mines in the US territories

1901-1925
305 Coal Mine Disasters/ no complete disaster fatality information;
*total fatalities for the 3 worst coal mining disasters in US history, 884
1910, legislation creating the Bureau of Mines, as part of the Dept. of' the Interior.

1926-1950
2 disasters* no stats available for all disasters, only the 2 worst, 1940 - 1950/274 fatalities*
1941, authority for inspections, Bureau of Mines
1947, first federal safety regulation

1951 - 1975
5 disasters /197 fatalities
1952 Federal Coal Mine Safety Act, limited enforcement provisions
1966 amended to apply to all underground mines
1966 Federal Metal and Non-Metallic Mine Safety Act,
first standards, expanded investigations and inspections
1969 Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act
strengthened health and safety standards, monetary and criminal penalties
addresses black lung

1976 - 2000
13 disasters /183 fatalities
1977 Federal Mine Safety and Health Act
Created the Mine Safety and Health Administration under the Dept. of Labor,
Created the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Expanded the rights and protection of miners,
produced a drop in fatalities from 272 in 1977 to 86 in 2000

2001-2010
5 disasters/ 64 fatalities +4
2006 Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act (MINER)

According to the Unites States Mine Rescue Association, "Mine accidents have declined dramatically in number and severity through decades of research, technology, and preventive programs. Today, mine accidents resulting in five or more deaths are no longer common. However, preventing recurrence of disasters like those of the past remains a top priority requiring constant vigilance by management, labor, and government."

What I found was that legislation typically occurred - almost exclusively occurred - as a result of outrage over the worst coal mining disasters; a few occurred in response to outrage at overall coal mining deaths. The conclusion from the disaster statistics, the fatality statistics, and the examination of legislation progressing chronologically, is that the Free Market mechanism is useless in providing protection to those who labor to do the dirty and dangerous work of mining. Regulation has made consistent differences not only in reducing disasters but in smaller coal mining accidents; it reduces not only fatalities, but injuries and illness. Allegations of putting profit ahead of safety have been made against some coal mining companies, including the Massey Energy Company which owns the Upper Big Branch Mine where the most recent disaster has occurred, in a mine with a list of safety violations as long as my arm, and a large amount of unpaid fines.

Is it possible, in the current divided Congress, to pursue better legislation, better enforcement? Certainly it is difficult. Republicans and Conservatives can be counted on, as they have at all of the other legislation, to claim it is anti-business, and that the free market should be allowed to prevail to solve all problems. They seem less willing to address the issue of people dying as the Free Market operates - or that it has failed to operate to benefit anyone except mine owners and operators in the long history of coal mining in the United States.

One of the questions to ask while writing a blog post is "what do I want" from writing this. I want effective regulation that protects miners. I want it to be as business friendly as possible, but it should also address the problem that we are as dependent on coal to provide electricity as we are dependent on oil for other industries. Since financial penalties appear to be less effective than we might wish, short term, I want to see jail time for the executives who make the decisions about safety compliance become one of the consequences for miners dying or suffering injuries in accidents, where mine operators are negligent in complying with safety regulations that cause the accidents and deaths.

President George W. Bush was criticized for being pro coal industry corporations, many of which were generous Republican doners, and lax on safety enforcement, including the 2006 Sago mine disaster. President Obama has chosen pro-union people for his administration, although they have not been appointed soon enough to be very effective so far, and huge problems exist which have not been addressed by the Obama administration. For this Obama should also be sharply criticized. People have died, in another of the worst coal mining accidents in our recent history. We need to take the politics out of safety regulation; we need to stop putting either profits or politics ahead of miner's lives.

The coal that was easier to extract from the ground has nearly all been removed and used. In the short term, mining the coal remaining, like the other fossil fuels, oil and natural gas, is going to be increasingly more dangerous to those who work to bring it to the surface; increasingly the extraction is becoming more dangerous to the environment of the communities where these resources exist underground. We also need long term solutions that address the increasing dangers, and the decreasing fossil fuel resources, switching over to safer renewable energy alternatives.

One of the renewable alternative resources pioneered by the University of Minnesota is a solution to two problems - energy, and cleaning our waste water. The U of MN came up with an algae that cleans waste water, and at the same time, produces a safe bio-fuel bi-product, a single solution to two problems at the same time. The cost of sewage treatment has been a large one to communities, and sewage is, clearly, one of the ultimate renewable resources. But even if we don't embrace this possibility as a solution, we need to look closely at our options, because every one of us who demands cheap electricity, much of which is produced by burning coal, is also a part of the coal mining disaster problem. We need to have the will to make the effort to be part of the solution.