PDA

View Full Version : Poop The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated?


Donger
04-20-2011, 12:13 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110419/hl_time/08599206603100

Carl Safina headed down to the Gulf Coast just days after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20, 2010. A veteran of the Exxon Valdez spill - and the head of the Blue Ocean Institute, a nonprofit that focuses on marine health - Safina wanted to see the Gulf oil spill up close, to document something he was sure would be an environmental catastrophe. Researching what would become the book A Sea in Flames - which goes on sale April 19 - Safina spent time with Gulf fishermen and ecologists, toured oiled beaches and spoke to people involved in the cleanup. As long as the oil kept spilling, just about everyone had the same opinion: the spill would be truly catastrophic for the Gulf and its coast. "We didn't know how it would stop or when it would stop," says Safina. "Gulf fishermen who'd invested their lives in the industry were convinced they'd never fish again."

Yet nearly a year after the spill began, it seems clear that the worst-case scenario never came true. It's not that the oil spill had no lasting effects - far from it - but the ecological doomsday many predicted clearly hasn't taken place. There is recovery where once there was only fear. "A lot of questions remain, but where we are now is ahead of where people thought we'd be," Safina says. "Most people expected it would be much worse." (See TIME's exclusive pictures of the BP oil spill.)

As we approach the anniversary of the spill, Safina's judgment is becoming the accepted wisdom: it could have been worse. That isn't to minimize what did happen in the Gulf of Mexico. Roughly 4.9 million barrels of oil blew out of BP's broken well and bled into the water, with a portion of that crude making landfall along the coastline. Add in the unknown effect of 1.84 million gallons (7 million L) of chemical dispersants, much of which were applied directly to the well deep below the surface of the ocean - something that had never been done before. Even the cleanup might have had an impact on the environment, thanks to the burning of oil on the surface of the Gulf, and the tens of thousands of workers who trampled along the sensitive wetlands of Louisiana, corralling crude wherever they could. Scientists caution that a single year isn't long enough to draw any final conclusions about an environmental insult so huge.

Yet the damage does seem so far to have been less than feared. Take the oil itself: scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated last August that much of the oil had remained in the Gulf, where it had dispersed or dissolved. Many environmentalists attacked the report for underplaying the threat of large underwater oil plumes still active in the Gulf, yet later independent scientific studies indeed found that oil had largely disappeared from the water. Turns out we can thank bacteria. Scientists from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; University of California, Santa Barbara; and Texas A&M University traveled to the site of the blown well and found that microbes had digested much of the oil and methane that remained in the water. By autumn, the levels were back to normal. "It's very surprising it happened so fast," John Kessler, an oceanographer with Texas A&M, told me earlier this year. "It looks like natural systems can handle an event like this somewhat on their own." (See pictures of crabbing in the Gulf after the BP disaster.)

Indeed, for all the work and the billions poured into the cleanup, nature itself - and luck - played a very big role. Fortunate ocean currents kept some of the oil from ever reaching shore, while the decision to increase the flow of the Mississippi River provided an additional pushback. As a result, while parts of the southern Louisiana coast were hit hard by the oil - and crude can still be seen in the marshes - much of the Gulf Coast was spared heavy oiling, and the spill never curled around Florida as forecasters feared in the early days. Around 8,000 birds were identified as killed by the spill, though researchers suggest that at least eight times as many likely died but were never found. Even so, that would be far less than the 250,000 birds estimated killed in the aftermath of the Valdez spill, even though that spill was far smaller. Local conditions mattered - the Valdez spill occurred in the relatively compact Prince William Sound, maximizing the impact on birds in the area, while the BP spill spread out over some 1,600 miles (2,580 km) of the Gulf Coast.

The Gulf's valuable fisheries also seem to have escaped the worst damage. John W. Tunnell Jr., the associate director of the Harte Research Institute at Texas A&M, estimated in a report that the region's shrimp fisheries would rebound to normal within two years, while blue-crab populations would be back to normal this year and commercial fish species such as red snapper and grouper largely escaped any negative impact. (Oyster beds, hit hard by the oil, might take up to a decade to recover, however.) It's possible that the lengthy moratorium on fishing in much of the Gulf during the worst days of the spill - when up to 84,000 sq. mi. (217,600 sq km) were off limits - may have even given some fish species a much needed break from exploitation, allowing them to recover in population. (See a video about evictions due to the BP oil spill.)

Nonetheless, 1,000 sq. mi. (2,600 sq km) of water over the original Deepwater Horizon site are still off-limits, and we won't really know how quickly fishing will rebound until boats are back in the water in large numbers, reporting back to scientists. (The herring fishery in Alaska's Prince William Sound seemed fine after the Valdez spill, only to collapse three years later.) The already overfished bluefin tuna saw some of its spawning areas in the Gulf hit by the oil and dispersants, though it looks like the fish managed to weather the worst of the accident. In recent weeks marine biologists have found unusually high numbers of dead dolphins washing up on the Gulf Coast - the fate, some scientists suspect, of many of the species' young born during the spill. And Samantha Joye, a marine scientist at the University of Georgia in Athens, found evidence of dead invertebrates - starfish and even coral - on the bottom of the Gulf, along with oily, sticky bacteria. "These are keystone species to the ecosystem," Joye said at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in February.

Indeed, that's the challenge for any scientists trying to tally up the ecological cost of the oil spill. We simply don't know enough about what has happened - and what may happen in the years and decades to come. "The Gulf spill is far from over," says Doug Inkley, senior scientist with the National Wildlife Federation. A year has passed, but we may only be at the beginning.

Discuss Thrower
04-20-2011, 12:16 PM
Teedubya in five...four...

blaise
04-20-2011, 12:16 PM
Maybe Obama finally found out whose ass to kick.

DaFace
04-20-2011, 12:21 PM
The article would be more powerful if it weren't so old. But generally, I'd say that things are drastically better there than everyone thought they'd be.

Donger
04-20-2011, 12:24 PM
The article would be more powerful if it weren't so old. But generally, I'd say that things are drastically better there than everyone thought they'd be.

Not me.

And, I posted the wrong darn article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110419/hl_time/08599206603100

Donger
04-20-2011, 12:24 PM
"The environmental impact of this is going to be devastating.

This hurts everyone."

DaFace
04-20-2011, 12:26 PM
Not me.

And, I posted the wrong darn article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110419/hl_time/08599206603100

Ah. You should update the OP. It makes a much better argument.

Donger
04-20-2011, 12:48 PM
Ah. You should update the OP. It makes a much better argument.

Done.

chiefsnorth
04-20-2011, 12:53 PM
Are environmental disasters ever not exaggerated?

patteeu
04-20-2011, 01:02 PM
Are environmental disasters ever not exaggerated?

Great rhetorical question.

Saul Good
04-20-2011, 01:06 PM
Are environmental disasters ever not exaggerated?

They should get their shit together like the people who predict pandemics.

Sincerely,

Monkey pox
Mad cow disease
Swine flu
Bird flu
Hoof and mouth disease
SARS
and
West Nile

Saul Good
04-20-2011, 01:09 PM
Are environmental disasters ever not exaggerated?

Generally, things are just as bad as the scientists say.

Signed,

Global warming
Global cooling
Acid rain
Ozone depletion
Silent Spring
Population bomb
Nuclear winter

DMAC
04-20-2011, 01:11 PM
When I went hiking in the gulf, I spoke with a few business owners who said they were struggling due to tourists thinking that oil was on the shore line.

This couldnt be farther from the truth, though.

teedubya
04-20-2011, 02:18 PM
Corexit is healthy. I put some on my salad today.

And BTW, there are still large oil plumes under the surface, every time a big storm hits, this shit gets washed onto the shore.

Out of sight, out of mind...

Donger
04-20-2011, 02:20 PM
Corexit is healthy. I put some on my salad today.

And BTW, there are still large oil plumes under the surface, every time a big storm hits, this shit gets washed onto the shore.

Out of sight, out of mind...

Upon reflection, would you say that you exaggerated the destruction?

Mr. Laz
04-20-2011, 02:34 PM
Michael Jasny’s Blog (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mjasny/)

BP Oil Disaster at One Year: Assessing Impacts on Marine Mammals

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/media/photo-mjasny-contributor.jpg Posted April 14, 2011 in Reviving the World's Oceans (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/issues/reviving_the_worlds_oceans/), Saving Wildlife and Wild Places (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/issues/saving_wildlife_and_wild_place/)
<dl class="tags"><dt>Tags:</dt><dd>biogems, bp, deepwaterhorizon, gulfcoast, gulfspill, oceannoise, offshoreoil, whales</dd></dl> Share (http://addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250) | |
At least since the 1969 Santa Barbara blowout, we have tended to understand the environmental calamity of major spills through images of oiled wildlife lying dead or in agony along the shore. But animals whose bodies are recovered in a die-off are sometimes said to represent only “the tip of an iceberg”: simply the ones that, by chance, have stranded and been discovered and then reported to authorities. In the Exxon Valdez case, where serious impacts on killer whales, sea otters, and shorebirds took years to manifest themselves (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5653/2082.abstract), the government came up with a multiplier to account for the numbers of undiscovered dead animals that the oil giant was liable for. In the Gulf of Mexico, the multiplier for some marine mammal species could be very high. According to a recent study, on average, only one in fifty (http://www.reefrelieffounders.com/drilling/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Williams.etal_.2011.Underestimating.cetacean.mortality_DeepwaterHorizon.BP_.incident.Conservation.Le tters.pdf)whales and dolphins that die at sea are recovered on the Gulf’s shores.
For marine mammals, the most immediate danger from the Macondo spill was from oiling and inhaling toxic fumes, which can cause brain lesions, disorientation, and death. Going forward, the mechanisms of harm are subtler. As we have seen from the Exxon Valdez (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5653/2082.abstract), oil can work up the food chain, accumulate in body tissue, induce cascade effects across an ecosystem, and impact wildlife populations for decades afterwards. For now, concern for marine mammals has centered on three particularly vulnerable species: bottlenose dolphins, sperm whales, and Bryde’s whales.
Bottlenose dolphins
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mjasny/assets_c/2011/04/stranded%20turiops-thumb-250x374-2530.jpg (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mjasny/assets_c/2011/04/stranded%20turiops-2530.html)The BP disaster happened at a terrible time for the Gulf’s bottlenose dolphins, at the beginning of their reproductive cycle when the coastal population comes nearer to shore. Many observers witnessed (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mjasny/dolphins_in_oil.html) them swimming in and around the spill, demonstrating their inability (seen during previous spills) to avoid sheens and emulsified oil. More than one hundred (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/cetacean_gulfofmexico2010.htm) bottlenose dolphins were found dead in the months following the blowout. Now a second die-off (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/cetacean_gulfofmexico2010.htm) has plagued this year’s calving season, with more than 150 additional animals stranded – nearly half of them stillborns or neonates who seem to have been unable to take their first breath. Though some of these animals were visibly marked with Macondo oil, it is not clear what role the spill may have played in the recent strandings, and demonstrating a link is likely to be difficult (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mjasny/three_urgent_questions_about_t.html). Regardless, the latest die-off is extremely concerning to residents and biologists alike. The dolphin communities that have made their homes in the Gulf’s bays, sounds, and estuaries are small and semi-isolated (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ao2009dobn-gmxb.pdf), and the death of even a few babies can have outsized effects on the group.
Sperm whales
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mjasny/assets_c/2011/04/Sperm%20whale-thumb-300x184-2533.jpg (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mjasny/assets_c/2011/04/Sperm%20whale-2533.html)Sperm whales have long been attracted (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ao2009whsp-gmxn.pdf) to the underwater canyons that extend into the Gulf of Mexico, south of the Mississippi Delta. The waters there are both deep and nutrient-rich, and for the Gulf’s small sperm whale population they constitute a sort of nursery, inhabited by groups of breeding females and calves and immature males who are seldom seen outside of it. Unfortunately, the same waters, which ten years ago became one of the principal targets of deepwater drilling, also played host to the Macondo well. In the wake of the spill, a juvenile was found floating dead (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/us/18whale.html) in the water – a rare find suggesting the loss of many other whales (http://www.reefrelieffounders.com/drilling/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Williams.etal_.2011.Underestimating.cetacean.mortality_DeepwaterHorizon.BP_.incident.Conservation.Le tters.pdf). Acoustic monitoring by Cornell’s Bioacoustics Research Program (http://www.birds.cornell.edu/brp/) confirms that at least some sperm whales remained in the Mississippi Canyon last summer. It is unclear what long-term effects the oil and dispersants may have on these deep-foraging, endangered animals.
Bryde’s whales
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mjasny/assets_c/2011/04/Brydes%20whale-thumb-300x180-2536.jpg (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mjasny/Brydes%20whale.jpg)Bryde’s (pronounced “Brutus”) whales are by far the Gulf’s most commonly occurring baleen whale species, but their numbers are surpassingly small. Even before the spill fewer than fifty of the whales were thought to remain, according to NOAA’s stock assessments (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ao2009whbr-gmxn.pdf), and these few have been sighted almost exclusively within a single location, the DeSoto Canyon, which lies offshore between Mobile, Alabama and Panama City, Florida. Bryde’s whales rely on their baleen to filter food, putting them at substantial risk of oil ingestion. No one knows how the whales weathered the spill; indeed, they stand as poster children for our astonishing lack of knowledge about the Gulf’s offshore species. Remarkably, we lack even the basic genetic information needed to determine whether they are indeed, as several biologists have theorized (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ao2009whbr-gmxn.pdf), a desperately small, distinct, and isolated population – information that is plainly critical to their conservation.
Life Goes On?
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mjasny/assets_c/2011/04/Platforms%20and%20pipelines-thumb-407x161-2544.png (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mjasny/assets_c/2011/04/Platforms%20and%20pipelines-2544.html)The northern Gulf is one of the most industrialized stretches of ocean on the planet. Its waters are dense with shallow and, increasingly, deepwater platforms, some with undersea structures that themselves can extend dozens of miles around a central hub. Ships and helicopters traverse the area to service them, and a variety of activities potentially disruptive to wildlife, from drilling to explosive platform decommissioning, take place daily.
According to most biologists, the most disruptive of these activities are probably seismic surveys, the industry’s primary tool for offshore exploration in the Gulf and elsewhere, whose high-powered airguns regularly pound the water with sound louder than virtually any other man-made source save explosives. These surveys have a vast environmental footprint (http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/files/seismic.pdf), disrupting feeding, breeding, and communication of some marine mammal and fish species over tens or in some cases even hundreds of miles. For the Gulf’s sperm whales, they mean less food: even moderate levels of airgun noise appear to seriously compromise (http://www.marinebioacoustics.com/files/2009/Miller_et_al_2009.pdf) the whales' ability to forage. In an average year, BOEMRE approves (https://www.gomr.boemre.gov/WebStore/pimaster.asp?appid=5) more than 60 seismic surveys in the northern Gulf, none of which has undergone review under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. No one knows how the cumulative impacts of this nearly constant disruptive activity will affect wildlife already compromised by the spill.
The Way Forward
• Congress and the Obama administration should adopt the recommendations (http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/OSC_Deep_Water_Summary_Recommendations_FINAL.pdf) of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.
• Congress should establish a research fund to ensure that vital research on Gulf marine mammals continues once Natural Resource Damage Assessment (http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/about/nrda.html) funds expire.
• The administration should strengthen mitigation requirements for seismic surveys and other activities that are currently impacting the same vulnerable species affected by the spill.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mjasny/assets_c/2011/04/ngulfofmexico_strandings-thumb-500x386-2538.jpg (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mjasny/ngulfofmexico_strandings.jpg)
Credits: Stranded bottlenose dolphin/ Jerry Cope. Platforms and pipelines/ BOEMRE. All other photos and graphics/ NOAA.

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 02:40 PM
Whether it's been exaggerated is, to my mind, missing the point.

It was a cluster**** of environmental disaster. The gulf still feels the effects of it.

Whether it was as disasterous or less disasterous as some folks have claimed is splitting hairs. It was disasterous nonetheless.

The focus should be on how to prevent this from happening again, not "precisely how horrendous was this horrendousness?"

Donger
04-20-2011, 02:42 PM
Whether it's been exaggerated is, to my mind, missing the point.

It was a cluster**** of environmental disaster. The gulf still feels the effects of it.

Whether it was as disasterous or less disasterous as some folks have claimed is splitting hairs. It was disasterous nonetheless.

The focus should be on how to prevent this from happening again, not "precisely how horrendous was this horrendousness?"

No, it was just a big oil spill.

BigMeatballDave
04-20-2011, 02:46 PM
Corexit is healthy. I put some on my salad today.

And BTW, there are still large oil plumes under the surface, every time a big storm hits, this shit gets washed onto the shore.

Out of sight, out of mind...Until you give up your vehicle with its ICE, no one will hear your cries.

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 02:46 PM
No, it was just a big oil spill.

It was a historically nasty oil spill that decimated a ton of wildlife and significantly punctured the gulf's economy.

Arguing about its scope is a way to deflect yourself from considering how to prevent these spills from occurring again.

donkhater
04-20-2011, 02:51 PM
BTW, oil IS organic

Donger
04-20-2011, 02:51 PM
It was a historically nasty oil spill that decimated a ton of wildlife and significantly punctured the gulf's economy.

Arguing about its scope is a way to deflect yourself from considering how to prevent these spills from occurring again.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Valdez was worse on critters. And, sure it hurt the local economies, especially the tourist industry, thanks to people exaggerating the damage.

As long as we drill for oil, there will be spills. If you don't like that fact, don't use the product.

DaFace
04-20-2011, 02:51 PM
Whether it's been exaggerated is, to my mind, missing the point.

It was a cluster**** of environmental disaster. The gulf still feels the effects of it.

Whether it was as disasterous or less disasterous as some folks have claimed is splitting hairs. It was disasterous nonetheless.

The focus should be on how to prevent this from happening again, not "precisely how horrendous was this horrendousness?"

I think it's the SCALE of the exaggeration that is precisely the point. No one will argue that it was a major environmental disaster. However, if you were to plot the disaster on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is "WORLD ENDING CHAOS" and 1 is "DAFACE TAKES A POOP IN THE OCEAN", people were acting like it was going to be about a 9, and the reality is more like a 5 (from what we can tell right now anyway).

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 02:52 PM
BTW, oil IS organic

Fire's organic, too. Your point?

Just Passin' By
04-20-2011, 02:55 PM
It was a historically nasty oil spill that decimated a ton of wildlife and significantly punctured the gulf's economy.

Arguing about its scope is a way to deflect yourself from considering how to prevent these spills from occurring again.

Most people are able to note damage while fixing a problem, just as they can walk and chew gum at the same time. I'd imagine even government employees are capable of it.

Donger
04-20-2011, 02:55 PM
Decimated a ton of wildlife?

As of November 2, 2010, 6,814 dead animals had been collected, including 6,104 birds, 609 sea turtles, 100 dolphins and other mammals, and 1 other reptile.

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 02:55 PM
I think it's the SCALE of the exaggeration that is precisely the point. No one will argue that it was a major environmental disaster. However, if you were to plot the disaster on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is "WORLD ENDING CHAOS" and 1 is "DAFACE TAKES A POOP IN THE OCEAN", people were acting like it was going to be about a 9, and the reality is more like a 5 (from what we can tell right now anyway).

You just admitted it was a major environmental disaster.

It decimated gulf wildlife and caused great economic pain throughout the gulf.

So what does it matter if it was a 5 or a 7 or a 9? Why should I care so much about how bad the major environmental disaster was, when it was nevertheless a major environmental disaster?

Saul Good
04-20-2011, 02:56 PM
Fire's organic, too. Your point?

You are a treasure trove of ridiculous misinformation.

Donger
04-20-2011, 02:56 PM
I don't think it was a major environmental disaster.

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 02:56 PM
Decimated a ton of wildlife?

As of November 2, 2010, 6,814 dead animals had been collected, including 6,104 birds, 609 sea turtles, 100 dolphins and other mammals, and 1 other reptile.

If you don't think that's anything more than a fraction of what was killed by the spill, I don't know what I can do for you.

It put several species on the endangered list, and almost made one or two extinct.

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 02:57 PM
You are a treasure trove of ridiculous misinformation.

Fire's not organic?

Fire isn't naturally created by the earth and its weather?

Ebolapox
04-20-2011, 02:57 PM
Fire's organic, too. Your point?

no it isn't. fire, technically, is a burning of any material. can be organic or inorganic material. organic refers to carbon-based. fire is NOT carbon based.

Just Passin' By
04-20-2011, 02:57 PM
You just admitted it was a major environmental disaster.

It decimated gulf wildlife and caused great economic pain throughout the gulf.

So what does it matter if it was a 5 or a 7 or a 9? Why should I care so much about how bad the major environmental disaster was, when it was nevertheless a major environmental disaster?


How are you defining your term? A good rainstorm can be an environmental disaster.

Saul Good
04-20-2011, 02:59 PM
You just admitted it was a major environmental disaster.

It decimated gulf wildlife and caused great economic pain throughout the gulf.

So what does it matter if it was a 5 or a 7 or a 9? Why should I care so much about how bad the major environmental disaster was, when it was nevertheless a major environmental disaster?

Maybe because if it was a 9, we should scrap the ICE today, and if it was a 3, we try to avoid it in the future while moving on with our lives.

Donger
04-20-2011, 02:59 PM
If you don't think that's anything more than a fraction of what was killed by the spill, I don't know what I can do for you.

It put several species on the endangered list, and almost made one or two extinct.

Source?

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 02:59 PM
no it isn't. fire, technically, is a burning of any material. can be organic or inorganic material. organic refers to carbon-based. fire is NOT carbon based.

Fire can be created naturally by the earth and its weather.

So therefore, if some ends up in some place where the earth is in no way prepared for it, big whoop, right?

Same with oil. I see your point completely.

Donger
04-20-2011, 03:00 PM
Fire's organic, too. Your point?

:spock:

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 03:00 PM
How are you defining your term? A good rainstorm can be an environmental disaster.

Well since any definition I conjure will be criticized, how about you share your definition of an environmental disaster?

Saul Good
04-20-2011, 03:00 PM
Fire's not organic?

Fire isn't naturally created by the earth and its weather?

Somewhere, Jeff Foxworthy is laughing.

Donger
04-20-2011, 03:00 PM
Destroying hundreds of miles of shoreline and shrugging it off as "just crude" is ludicrous and the person who makes that statement should be called out.

Saul Good
04-20-2011, 03:03 PM
Fire can be created naturally by the earth and its weather.

So therefore, if some ends up in some place where the earth is in no way prepared for it, big whoop, right?

Same with oil. I see your point completely.

The point is that oil, being organic, can be broken down by the environment.

Saul Good
04-20-2011, 03:06 PM
Source?

Post 30 of this thread

Just Passin' By
04-20-2011, 03:07 PM
Well since any definition I conjure will be criticized, how about you share your definition of an environmental disaster?

That would be foolish, since I'm not the one making the claim. If we're to agree on the scope of the problem and the urgency of finding a solution, we need to be somewhat in agreement on terms. For example, here are some environmental disasters. Which are "major" to the point that we must focus solely on preventing them in the future, at the exclusion of everything else:

Hurricane Katrina
Japan's recent quake/tsunami/nuclear plant problem
Manmade alterations of the Mississippi River
Yosemite forest fires
Gulf oil spill
Overgrazing of grasslands on multiple continents
Overdevelopment of some Amazonian regions
Large cities
Tornadoes
Beach erosion
Expansion of deserts
Desert reclamation
Human population growth

Saul Good
04-20-2011, 03:08 PM
Well since any definition I conjure will be criticized, how about you share your definition of an environmental disaster?

Fukushima

Saulbadguy
04-20-2011, 03:08 PM
Sheep. All of you.

Saulbadguy
04-20-2011, 03:09 PM
Upon reflection, would you say that you exaggerated the destruction?

:LOL:

Donger
04-20-2011, 03:14 PM
Valdez: 100,000 to as many as 250,000 seabirds, at least 2,800 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbor seals, 247 Bald Eagles, and 22 orcas, as well as the destruction of billions of salmon and herring eggs.

Saulbadguy
04-20-2011, 03:15 PM
Valdez: 100,000 to as many as 250,000 seabirds, at least 2,800 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbor seals, 247 Bald Eagles, and 22 orcas, as well as the destruction of billions of salmon and herring eggs.

Does that count the underwater sea plumes and impending oil hurricanes?

DaFace
04-20-2011, 03:16 PM
You just admitted it was a major environmental disaster.

It decimated gulf wildlife and caused great economic pain throughout the gulf.

So what does it matter if it was a 5 or a 7 or a 9? Why should I care so much about how bad the major environmental disaster was, when it was nevertheless a major environmental disaster?

Congrats on pointing out the obvious. I never said it wasn't. I said that it wasn't near as bad as everyone made it out to be.

Donger
04-20-2011, 03:18 PM
Does that count the underwater sea plumes and impending oil hurricanes?

I just feel badly for the guy who had to count all those dead fish eggs.

One Mississippi. Two Mississippi. Three Mississippi.

Saul Good
04-20-2011, 03:19 PM
Show's over. Move along. /pulls the mob of of Direckshun's lifeless and barely recognizable body

Donger
04-20-2011, 03:24 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how Direckshun can call this spill "a cluster**** of environmental disaster" and then argue that the point isn't about the level of horrendousness of it.

In the same post.

Saul Good
04-20-2011, 03:29 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how Direckshun can call this spill "a cluster**** of environmental disaster" and then argue that the point isn't about the level of horrendousness of it.

In the same post.

Cognitive dissonance

bevischief
04-20-2011, 03:38 PM
http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/

It is worse than is shown in the media do to a gov't news black out.

Otter
04-20-2011, 03:51 PM
I look at it as we're taking one for the team.

Our offspring will soon be able to ingest radioactive unrefined oil soaked meats and vegetables the same way we can eat an egg mcmuffin with hot dogs and bacon for breakfast. If there happens to be some cool X-Men like mutations in the process that's just an added bonus. When John Elway's clone goes to throw a touchdown pass to 1/2 horse 1/2 Shannon Sharpe against the Chiefs on the road to Super Bowl 82 and my boy shoots it out of the air with his cyclopes eyeball laser I'll place my arm around him, smile to myself and think "I'm glad I ate that radioactive oil soaked Tuna!".

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 03:56 PM
Destroying hundreds of miles of shoreline and shrugging it off as "just crude" is ludicrous and the person who makes that statement should be called out.

?

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 03:57 PM
The point is that oil, being organic, can be broken down by the environment.

Yeah, and fire can dissipate.

Doesn't mean that it can't cause a shit ton of disaster in the mean time.

Donger
04-20-2011, 03:58 PM
?

Sorry. That is a quote and prediction from oldandslow. Just an example of people predicting the damage that would be caused by the spill.

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 04:02 PM
That would be foolish, since I'm not the one making the claim. If we're to agree on the scope of the problem and the urgency of finding a solution, we need to be somewhat in agreement on terms. For example, here are some environmental disasters. Which are "major" to the point that we must focus solely on preventing them in the future, at the exclusion of everything else:

Hurricane Katrina
Japan's recent quake/tsunami/nuclear plant problem
Manmade alterations of the Mississippi River
Yosemite forest fires
Gulf oil spill
Overgrazing of grasslands on multiple continents
Overdevelopment of some Amazonian regions
Large cities
Tornadoes
Beach erosion
Expansion of deserts
Desert reclamation
Human population growth

So you're saying that you agree that this was a major environmental disaster?

I guess I miss your point.

keg in kc
04-20-2011, 04:04 PM
Environmental damage?! Of course not!

http://www.friendlyfire.be/Iraqi%20Information%20Minister.jpg

Just Passin' By
04-20-2011, 04:04 PM
So you're saying that you agree that this was a major environmental disaster?

I guess I miss your point.

Your own post

Whether it's been exaggerated is, to my mind, missing the point.

It was a cluster**** of environmental disaster. The gulf still feels the effects of it.

Whether it was as disasterous or less disasterous as some folks have claimed is splitting hairs. It was disasterous nonetheless.

The focus should be on how to prevent this from happening again, not "precisely how horrendous was this horrendousness?"

is extremely confusing, so I'm looking for clarification. You call it a clusterfuck of an environmental disaster, yet you say that the question of exaggeration misses the point. You say that the focus must be on how to prevent it again, rather than on how bad it was, yet you call it a clusterfuck, which is clearly intended to point to how bad it was. To the observer, it seems as if you're trying to have it both ways. So, in order to get a clearer picture on what sort of disasters are so bad that we can't take time to look at the extent of the disaster and must only focus on prevention, I'm trying to get your definition. Since you wouldn't give me one, I tossed out some examples for you to evaluate.

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 04:05 PM
Congrats on pointing out the obvious. I never said it wasn't. I said that it wasn't near as bad as everyone made it out to be.

I guess I'm wondering, then, while you argue that it was a major environmental disaster, and I'm arguing it was a major environmental disaster, that arguing exactly how severe a major environmental disaster it was isn't just splitting hairs.

It's in our interest to commit to preventing major environmental disasters, regardless of how severe. Because they're all severe.

Saul Good
04-20-2011, 04:05 PM
Yeah, and fire can dissipate.

Doesn't mean that it can't cause a shit ton of disaster in the mean time.

I totally agree. In this case, several birds were killed which is unfortunate.

bevischief
04-20-2011, 04:05 PM
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1828&category=Environment

keg in kc
04-20-2011, 04:06 PM
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1828&category=EnvironmentYou know a discussion's gonna get good when somebody brings Linda Moulton Howe into it.

Donger
04-20-2011, 04:06 PM
Environmental damage?! Of course not!

http://www.friendlyfire.be/Iraqi%20Information%20Minister.jpg

Of course there was damage. But the point is that the damage was no where near the level that most people thought there would be. Exxon Valdez was a smaller spill but caused significantly more damage. Why? Because the volume of water into which the crude spilled was much less.

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 04:07 PM
I'm asking you which of those are major to the point that we must focus on them to the exclusion of all other thoughts and ventures.

I think that's a poor definition of "major environmental disaster," because I don't think we should respond to any of those "to the exclusion of everything else," short of a Texas-sized meteor hurling towards earth.

I don't think Katrina repair should have been done to the exclusion of everything else, for instance. I think it should be made a Grade A priority. As should the prevention of future gulf oil spills.

Donger
04-20-2011, 04:08 PM
I guess I'm wondering, then, while you argue that it was a major environmental disaster, and I'm arguing it was a major environmental disaster, that arguing exactly how severe a major environmental disaster it was isn't just splitting hairs.

It's in our interest to commit to preventing major environmental disasters, regardless of how severe. Because they're all severe.

It wasn't a major environmental disaster.

BigMeatballDave
04-20-2011, 04:09 PM
Stop using the product, or STFU

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 04:09 PM
Show's over. Move along. /pulls the mob of of Direckshun's lifeless and barely recognizable body

Ever seen "Hannibal"?

http://img.listal.com/image/402800/600full-hannibal-photo.jpg

DaFace
04-20-2011, 04:10 PM
I guess I'm wondering, then, while you argue that it was a major environmental disaster, and I'm arguing it was a major environmental disaster, that arguing exactly how severe a major environmental disaster it was isn't just splitting hairs.

It's in our interest to commit to preventing major environmental disasters, regardless of how severe. Because they're all severe.

OK, let me ask the question this way:

1. Should the severity of a disaster impact the amount of media coverage given to the event?
2. Should the severity of a disaster impact the amount of governmental resources allocated to preventing the damage of a disaster?

If the answer to both questions is no, then you're right - it doesn't matter how major it is. If the answer to either question is yes, then the severity makes a difference.

BucEyedPea
04-20-2011, 04:11 PM
BTW, oil IS organic

...and mostly biodegradable as a result. This is why it broke up after that big storm. Smashes it to smithereens. Getting that storm was a good thing. I read a similar thing happened with the Valdez oil spill too. That is most of it cleaned itself up. I think the dispersants used are more harmful.

Just Passin' By
04-20-2011, 04:11 PM
I think that's a poor definition of "major environmental disaster," because I don't think we should respond to any of those "to the exclusion of everything else," short of a Texas-sized meteor hurling towards earth.

I don't think Katrina repair should have been done to the exclusion of everything else, for instance. I think it should be made a Grade A priority. As should the prevention of future gulf oil spills.

I didn't give a definition. I asked for your evaluation. Also, if we can't even take the time to evaluate the extent of the damage on a message board, which is what you were essentially arguing earlier, we're obviously looking at disasters which require 100% focus of everyone. I'm just trying to see which disasters reach that level in your mind.

bevischief
04-20-2011, 04:14 PM
I lived in the area most affect so far, it is a very poor part of the country. No one will step up on the world stage to tell the truth. What is happening down there is sad.

bevischief
04-20-2011, 04:15 PM
...and mostly biodegradable as a result. This is why it broke up after that big storm. Smashes it to smithereens. Getting that storm was a good thing. I read a similar thing happened with the Valdez oil spill too. That is most of it cleaned itself up. I think the dispersants used are more harmful.

This.!

chiefsnorth
04-20-2011, 04:15 PM
Of course there was damage. But the point is that the damage was no where near the level that most people thought there would be. Exxon Valdez was a smaller spill but caused significantly more damage. Why? Because the volume of water into which the crude spilled was much less.

And how is Prince William Sound doing today, 20+ years later?

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 04:18 PM
OK, let me ask the question this way:

1. Should the severity of a disaster impact the amount of media coverage given to the event?
2. Should the severity of a disaster impact the amount of governmental resources allocated to preventing the damage of a disaster?

If the answer to both questions is no, then you're right - it doesn't matter how major it is. If the answer to either question is yes, then the severity makes a difference.

I'm not really interested in question #1, because arguing that the media pays too much attention to stuff (Anna Nicole Smith) and not enough attention to other stuff (financial regulation reform) is too obvious. This is the same media that single-mindedly made a national sensation out of some whacko burning Korans, so of course the media is never going to cover things respective to how they should be covered.

As for #2, yes. But if we're both in agreement that the oil spill was a major environmental disaster (and we are), then we both agree that substantial governmental resources should be committed to it. Now we could get into the nitty gritty and try to split hairs about exactly how many oil separation machines we fly down to the coast, but that's too minute of a conversation for me to spend much time on. I'll trust the experts on that more than you or I.

Donger
04-20-2011, 04:18 PM
And how is Prince William Sound doing today, 20+ years later?

I don't know.

BucEyedPea
04-20-2011, 04:20 PM
I don't know.

Even with the word "prince" in it? ;)

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 04:21 PM
I didn't give a definition.

Yeah, you did:

For example, here are some environmental disasters. Which are "major" to the point that we must focus solely on preventing them in the future, at the exclusion of everything else

That's a definition. And claiming that a major environmental disaster is one in which we must work on to the exclusion of everything else is a poor way to define the issue.

Also, if we can't even take the time to evaluate the extent of the damage on a message board, which is what you were essentially arguing earlier, we're obviously looking at disasters which require 100% focus of everyone.

If that's your purpose in the thread, have at. I just read the purpose as to basically decry anybody claiming that spilling nearly 600,000 tons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico is not a major environmental disaster. Which is false on its face.

BucEyedPea
04-20-2011, 04:23 PM
Donger wouldn't you say the reactors in Japan created far more damage?

bevischief
04-20-2011, 04:25 PM
http://worldvisionportal.org/wordpress/

teedubya
04-20-2011, 04:25 PM
http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/

It is worse than is shown in the media do to a gov't news black out.

Exactly. No since arguing with the Oil Industry shill...

Donger
04-20-2011, 04:26 PM
If that's your purpose in the thread, have at. I just read the purpose as to basically decry anybody claiming that spilling nearly 600,000 tons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico is not a major environmental disaster. Which is false on its face.

Why? Unless you can state your definition of a "major environmental disaster" with quantifiable examples and correlate them to what happened in the Gulf, I'm going to presume that you are just being dramatic.

For example, you claimed that this spill "decimated a ton of wildlife" and "put several species on the endangered list, and almost made one or two extinct."

Donger
04-20-2011, 04:26 PM
Donger wouldn't you say the reactors in Japan created far more damage?

Damage to what?

Just Passin' By
04-20-2011, 04:26 PM
Yeah, you did:



That's a definition. And claiming that a major environmental disaster is one in which we must work on to the exclusion of everything else is a poor way to define the issue.

Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word "definition", but I did not offer one. I offered examples of environmental damage and have asked for you to tell me which are a "major environmental disaster" in your mind, where the amount of damage is irrelevant and only efforts to prevent future incidents must be worried about, precisely because you won't offer your definition of the term.



If that's your purpose in the thread, have at. I just read the purpose as to basically decry anybody claiming that spilling nearly 600,000 tons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico is not a major environmental disaster. Which is false on its face.

You are using a particular definition of "major environmental disaster". Not everyone will use that definition, which is precisely why I asked you for your definition. Donger, for example, has disagreed with your claim, saying that it wasn't a major disaster.

Donger
04-20-2011, 04:27 PM
http://worldvisionportal.org/wordpress/

LMAO

That's even funnier than the others.

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 04:29 PM
Why? Unless you can state your definition of a "major environmental disaster" with quantifiable examples and correlate them to what happened in the Gulf, I'm going to presume that you are just being dramatic.

For example, you claimed that this spill "decimated a ton of wildlife" and "put several species on the endangered list, and almost made one or two extinct."

I'll describe 600,000 tons of oil being spilled into the Gulf of Mexico as a major environmental disaster.

If you want to say that spilling 600,000 tons of oil isn't major, that's on you.

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 04:31 PM
Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word "definition", but I did not offer one.

What was that shit that I just quoted then, saying that "we should focus on them to the exclusion of everything else"?

Not a definition?

Deberg_1990
04-20-2011, 04:31 PM
How come nobody ever complains about how many people die or have died from coal mining related activities??

BucEyedPea
04-20-2011, 04:31 PM
Damage to what?

To the environment: the air, ground ( thus into the food) and water due to the radiation in Japan where preggo mom's had to leave just to protect their unborn.

Donger
04-20-2011, 04:32 PM
I'll describe 600,000 tons of oil being spilled into the Gulf of Mexico as a major environmental disaster.

If you want to say that spilling 600,000 tons of oil isn't major, that's on you.

No, like I said, it's just a big oil spill. What specific damage was done that makes you call it a major environmental disaster? Human deaths? Animal deaths?

If you can't or won't, I guess we'll just have to accept that "it's gooey and icky!" meets your criteria.

Just Passin' By
04-20-2011, 04:32 PM
What was that shit that I just quoted then, saying that "we should focus on them to the exclusion of everything else"?

Not a definition?

Portion of a request made in response to your earlier commentary

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 04:33 PM
No, like I said, it's just a big oil spill.

Have at it.

Saul Good
04-20-2011, 04:33 PM
I'll describe 600,000 tons of oil being spilled into the Gulf of Mexico as a major environmental disaster.

If you want to say that spilling 600,000 tons of oil isn't major, that's on you.

It is because it is. Good argument.

I'd say it's a major spill. Fortunately, the damage turned out to be relatively minor. The explosion itself was a bigger disaster than the oil that spilled.

BucEyedPea
04-20-2011, 04:35 PM
It is because it is. Good argument.

I'd say it's a major spill. Fortunately, the damage turned out to be relatively minor. The explosion itself was a bigger disaster than the oil that spilled.

Yeah, the explosion killed a few people. The spill didn't.

Donger
04-20-2011, 04:35 PM
To the environment: the air, ground ( thus into the food) and water due to the radiation in Japan where preggo mom's had to leave just to protect their unborn.

I'm not sure I can answer that. The long-terms effects of Fukushima are probably worse than the long-term effects of the spill. In terms of overall nastiness? Probably Fukushima.

Donger
04-20-2011, 04:35 PM
Have at it.

Icky and gooey it is.

BucEyedPea
04-20-2011, 04:36 PM
I'm not sure I can answer that. The long-terms effects of Fukushima are probably worse than the long-term effects of the spill. In terms of overall nastiness? Probably Fukushima.
I'd have to agree.

Donger
04-20-2011, 04:41 PM
It is because it is. Good argument.

I'd say it's a major spill. Fortunately, the damage turned out to be relatively minor. The explosion itself was a bigger disaster than the oil that spilled.

Absolutely it was a major spill. That's quantifiable.

chiefsnorth
04-20-2011, 04:42 PM
I'll describe 600,000 tons of oil being spilled into the Gulf of Mexico as a major environmental disaster.

If you want to say that spilling 600,000 tons of oil isn't major, that's on you.

But you havent said what makes that major other than "it's seems like a lot of oil".

An estimated 779,000 m3 of oil was spilled into the Gulf which contains 2.5 10^15 m3 of water. This is rougly 1 m3 oil for every 3,209,242,619 m3 of sea water.

jspchief
04-20-2011, 04:43 PM
Of course there was damage. But the point is that the damage was no where near the level that most people thought there would be. Exxon Valdez was a smaller spill but caused significantly more damage. Why? Because the volume of water into which the crude spilled was much less.So is it possible the over reaction mobilized the action that helped keep the damage in check?

You won't find me disputing that environmentalists or news media exaggerate. But to me, I think the world may be a little better off when we err on the safe side of these things.

BucEyedPea
04-20-2011, 04:46 PM
So is it possible the over reaction mobilized the action that helped keep the damage in check?

I think mother nature could have done the job without any dispersants.

Donger
04-20-2011, 04:47 PM
So is it possible the over reaction mobilized the action that helped keep the damage in check?

You won't find me disputing that environmentalists or news media exaggerate. But to me, I think the world may be a little better off when we err on the safe side of these things.

It helped some, sure. I haven't seen any data on how much crude they actually captured. I do know that good ole wave action cleaned up a lot more crude in PWS than did human intervention.

I think we can all agree that this wasn't a good thing. It wasn't. I'm not happy or pleased it happened.

Donger
04-20-2011, 04:48 PM
But you havent said what makes that major other than "it's seems like a lot of oil".

An estimated 779,000 m3 of oil was spilled into the Gulf which contains 2.5 10^15 m3 of water. This is rougly 1 m3 oil for every 3,209,242,619 m3 of sea water.

That's a valiant effort which I applaud, but you need to realize that emotion trumps cold, hard mathematics for some.

Pants
04-20-2011, 04:48 PM
It helped some, sure. I haven't seen any data on how much crude they actually captured. I do know that good ole wave action cleaned up a lot more crude in PWS than did human intervention.

I think we can all agree that this wasn't a good thing. It wasn't. I'm not happy or pleased it happened.

Of course you're not happy, you lost 600,000 tons of that sweet, sweet crude. The lives of those birds are on YOUR hands, Donger.

Donger
04-20-2011, 04:50 PM
Of course you're not happy, you lost 600,000 tons of that sweet, sweet crude. The lives of those birds are on YOUR hands, Donger.

Yeah, it was what, 5,000,000 barrels spilled and lost? $5 billion dollars lost.

burt
04-20-2011, 04:57 PM
Decimated a ton of wildlife?

As of November 2, 2010, 6,814 dead animals had been collected, including 6,104 birds, 609 sea turtles, 100 dolphins and other mammals, and 1 other reptile.

and that was goqueer.....

chiefsnorth
04-20-2011, 04:57 PM
That's a valiant effort which I applaud, but you need to realize that emotion trumps cold, hard mathematics for some.

Of course, the truth is more complicated because it takes time for oil to disperse, some was cleaned up, where some of it went is unclear.

I'm guessing you could put oil into a fishtank every day at a rate of one part per 3 billion, and the fish wouldn't even notice.

Mr. Laz
04-20-2011, 06:46 PM
If you want to read more ...


The Best Writing on the BP Oil Spill (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/04/best-writing-bp-oilspill-journalism.php)
by Chris Tackett, Little Rock, Arkansas (http://www.treehugger.com/author/chris-tackett-san-francisco-1/) http://www.treehugger.com/images_site/feed-icon-10x10.png (http://www.treehugger.com/feeds/authors/chris.xml) on 04.20.11

What We Read and Learned from The Deepwater Horizon Disaster

A year ago today, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/bp-gulf-oil-spill-timeline.php) in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers and setting off a chain of events that would eventually become the worst oil spill in the history of the United States. In order to better remember this terrible disaster and remind us of the lessons we should have learned in the aftermath, we're building a list of the best writing about the BP oil spill. Below is a start to that list, but I hope you will help us expand it by suggesting your own additions.
Some of the best pieces of journalism are visual, and we'll gladly accept a photo or video suggestion, whether it's an early report from just days after the initial explosion, an update from months into the cleanup process, or a great overview from just this week. Post submissions as a comment below, on Twitter with the hashtag #OilSpillJournalism (http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23OilSpillJournalism) or email me at chris at treehugger dot com to suggest an additional link to add. We'll update the list as new submissions are received.

The Best Writing on the BP Oilspill 2010

Abrahm Lustgarten, "Chemicals Meant To Break Up BP Oil Spill Present New Environmental Concerns. (http://www.propublica.org/article/bp-gulf-oil-spill-dispersants-0430)" ProPublica, April 30, 2011.
Joseph Romm, "Is BP's remedy for the spill only making it worse? (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/05/05/oil_dispersants_poisoning_gulf)" Salon, May 5, 2010.
Ariel Schwartz, "Former Shell Oil Chief, Engineer: Supertankers Could Save the Gulf, So Why Won't BP Listen? (http://www.fastcompany.com/1646820/could-the-gulf-oil-spill-could-cleaned-up-by-supertankers)" Fast Company, May 13, 2010.
Elizabeth Kolbert, "Oil Shocks: BP and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/05/31/100531taco_talk_kolbert)" The New Yorker, May 31, 2010.
Marian Wang, "Former Valdez Cleanup Worker Warns of Toxic Dangers in the Gulf. (http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/former-valdez-cleanup-worker-warns-of-toxic-dangers-in-the-gulf)" ProPublica, June 4, 2010.
Karl Tate, "Infographic: Tallest Mountain to Deepest Ocean Trench. (http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/infographic-tallest-mountain-to-deepest-ocean-trench-0249/)" Our Amazing Planet, June 7, 2010.
Tim Dickinson, "The Spill, The Scandal and the President. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=0)" Rolling Stone Magazine, June 8, 2010.
Ariel Schwartz, "Read This Before You Volunteer to Clean Up the BP Oil Disaster. (http://www.fastcompany.com/1657625/read-this-before-you-volunteer-to-clean-up-the-bp-oil-disaster)" Fast Company, June 8, 2010.
David Roberts, "Retrofitting 75,000 houses would save as much energy as in the Gulf spill. (http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-14-retrofitting-75000-houses-save-as-much-energy-as-gulf-spill/)" Grist, June 15, 2010.
Christie Wilcox, "Reflections on the Gulf Oil Spill - Conversations With My Grandpa. (http://scienceblogs.com/observations/2010/06/cleaning_up_oil_spills.php)" Science Blogs: Observations of a Nerd, June 15, 2010.
Joe Romm, "Conservatives to Obama: Leave BP alone! (http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/17/barton-bp-apology-tragedy/)" Climate Progress, June 17, 2010.
Sean Flynn, "BOOM. (http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201007/oil-spill-rig-workers-coast-guard-crewmen?printable=true)" GQ Magazine, July 2010.
Ben Jervey, "How Much Oil Spilled in the Gulf? Less than Six Hours' Worth. (http://www.good.is/post/how-much-oil-spilled-in-the-gulf-less-than-six-hours-worth/)" GOOD, July 21, 2010.
Jeff Goodell, "The Poisoning. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-poisoning-20100721)" Rolling Stone, July 21, 2010.
Mac McClelland, "Mainstream Media Helps BP Pretend There's No Oil. (http://motherjones.com/rights-stuff/2010/07/mainstream-media-helps-bp-pretend-theres-no-oil)" Mother Jones, July 28, 2010.
Philippe Cousteau, "Dispatches from the Oil Spill. (http://www.treehugger.com/author/philippe-cousteau/)" TreeHugger, May 24 - July 29, 2010
Brian Merchant, "Why the BP Spill Hasn't Invigorated Environmentalism. (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/07/bp-spill-new-environmentalism.php)" TreeHugger, July 29, 2010.
Brian Merchant, "Breaking: BP Spill is Over, Oil is Gone, Problem Solved. (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/07/breaking-bp-spill-over-oil-gone.php)" TreeHugger, July 30, 2010.
Brooke Jarvis, "A Crisis of Democracy: Riki Ott on Real Solutions to the BP Oil Spill. (http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/a-crisis-of-democracy-real-solutions-to-the-bp-oil-spill)" YES! Magazine, August 23, 2010.
Julia Whitty, "The BP Cover-Up. (http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/09/bp-ocean-cover-up)" Mother Jones, Sept./Oct. 2010.
Jennifer Washburn, "Big Oil Goes to College. (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/big_oil.html)" Center for American Progress, October 14, 2010.
Abrahm Lustgarten, "Furious Growth and Cost Cuts Led To BP Accidents Past and Present. (http://www.propublica.org/article/bp-accidents-past-and-present)" ProPublica, October 24, 2010.
Terry Tempest Williams, "The Gulf Between Us. (http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/5931)" Orion Magazine, Nov/Dec 2010.
David Barstow, "Deepwater Horizon's Final Hours. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/26spill.html)" The New York Times, December 2010.

2011
Riki Ott, "Diary of a Disaster: 6 Months in the Gulf. (http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/diary-of-a-disaster-6-months-in-the-gulf)" YES! Magazine, January 11, 2011.
Farron Cousins, "What Was Missing From the Oil Spill Commission's Report. (http://www.desmogblog.com/what-was-missing-oil-spill-commissions-report)" DeSmogBlog, January 14, 2011.
Janet Raloff, "Gulf Floor Fouled By Bacterial Oil Feast. (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/70043/title/Gulf_floor_fouled_by_bacterial_oil_feast)" Science News, February 20, 2011.
Bryan Walsh, "A New Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico--and Insight into the Causes of the Old Spill. (http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/23/a-new-oil-spill-in-the-gulf-of-mexico%E2%80%94and-insight-into-the-causes-of-the-old-spill/)" TIME, March 23, 2011.
Story Corp, "Stories From the Gulf. (http://www.nrdc.org/storycorps/)" NRDC, Bridge the Gulf, Planet Green (http://planetgreen.discovery.com/videos/stories-from-the-gulf), April 2011. (DVR alert: Watch on Planet Green, Saturday, April 23rd at 2:30 pm e/p.)
Kate Sheppard, ""Safety" Bonuses for Deepwater Horizon Rig Owner? (http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/04/safety-bonuses-deepwater-horizon-rig-owner)" Mother Jones, April 4, 2011.
Antonia Juhasz, "BLACK TIDE: The Devastating Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill. (http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-93197.html)" April 2011.
Chris Kromm, ""WHAT SPILL? Congress has done 'virtually nothing' to address issues raised by BP disaster. (http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/04/what-spill-congress-has-done-virtually-nothing-to-address-issues-raised-by-bp-spill.html)" The Institute for Southern Studies, April 11, 2011.
Rep. Ed Markey, "Opinion: Safety helps energy independence. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53206.html)" Politico, April 15, 2011.
Rocky Kistner, "Gulf Residents: Please Take our Dolphins and Turtles Away. (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rkistner/gulf_residents_please_take_our.html)" Switchboard, from NRDC, April 14, 2011.
Suzanne Goldenberg, "Emails expose BP's attempts to control research into impact of Gulf oil spill. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/15/bp-control-science-gulf-oil-spill)" The Guardian, April 15, 2011.
Katie Howell, "A Year After BP's Oil Spill, Congress Sits Idly By. (http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/04/15/15greenwire-a-year-after-bps-oil-spill-congress-sits-idly-29261.html)" The New York Times, April 15, 2011.
Craig Pittman, Sick fish suggest oil spill still affecting gulf. (http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/wildlife/sick-fish-suggest-oil-spill-still-affecting-gulf/1164042)" St. Petersburg Times, April 17, 2011.
Campell Robertson & John Schwartz, "Victims of Gulf Oil Spill Feel Caught in Legal Limbo. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/us/19spill.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)" The New York Times, April 18, 2011.
Daniel J. Weiss & Valeri Vasquez, "Fossil Fuels: A Legacy of Disaster. (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/fossil_fuel_legacy.html)" Center for American Progress, April 19, 2011.
Kate Sheppard, "10 Reasons to Still Be Pissed Off About the BP Disaster. (http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/04/bp-anniversary-top-ten)" Mother Jones, April 19, 2011.
Eric Niller, "BP Oil Spill Anniversary: Where Are We Now? (http://news.discovery.com/earth/bp-oil-spill-anniversary-110419.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1)" Discovery News, April 19, 2011.
Brian Handwerk, "Gulf Oil Spill Surprises: 6 Things Experts Got Wrong. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/04/110420-gulf-oil-spill-surprises-science-nation-anniversary/)" National Geographic, April 19, 2011.
Editorial page staff, "The Deepwater Horizon's first victims were our people: An editorial. (http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2011/04/the_deepwater_horizons_first_v.html)" The Times-Picayune, April 20, 2011.
Dahr Jamail, "BP's criminal negligence exposed. (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/04/2011420104533120290.html)" Al Jazeera English, April 20, 2011.
Rep. Ed Markey, "One year after the BP oil spill, drilling is no safer. (http://www.grist.org/article/2011-04-20-one-year-after-the-bp-oil-spill-drilling-is-no-safer)" Grist, April 20, 2011.
Jessica Marshall, "BP-Like Spill in Arctic Would Be Disastrous. (http://news.discovery.com/earth/bp-oil-spill-arctic-drilling-110420.html)" Discovery News, April 20, 2011.
Jeff Donn, "3,200 Gulf wells unplugged, unprotected. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GULF_OIL_SPILL_ABANDONED_WELLS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-04-20-06-17-16)" The Associated Press, April 20, 2011.
Brian Merchant, "The BP Gulf Spill Was Our Fault, and We're Going to Do it Again. (http://utopianist.com/2011/04/the-bp-gulf-spill-was-our-fault-and-were-going-to-do-it-again/)" The Utopianist, April 20, 2011.

Donger
04-20-2011, 06:49 PM
If you want to read more ...


The Best Writing on the BP Oil Spill (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/04/best-writing-bp-oilspill-journalism.php)
by Chris Tackett, Little Rock, Arkansas (http://www.treehugger.com/author/chris-tackett-san-francisco-1/) http://www.treehugger.com/images_site/feed-icon-10x10.png (http://www.treehugger.com/feeds/authors/chris.xml) on 04.20.11

What We Read and Learned from The Deepwater Horizon Disaster

A year ago today, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/bp-gulf-oil-spill-timeline.php) in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers and setting off a chain of events that would eventually become the worst oil spill in the history of the United States. In order to better remember this terrible disaster and remind us of the lessons we should have learned in the aftermath, we're building a list of the best writing about the BP oil spill. Below is a start to that list, but I hope you will help us expand it by suggesting your own additions.
Some of the best pieces of journalism are visual, and we'll gladly accept a photo or video suggestion, whether it's an early report from just days after the initial explosion, an update from months into the cleanup process, or a great overview from just this week. Post submissions as a comment below, on Twitter with the hashtag #OilSpillJournalism (http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23OilSpillJournalism) or email me at chris at treehugger dot com to suggest an additional link to add. We'll update the list as new submissions are received.

The Best Writing on the BP Oilspill 2010

Abrahm Lustgarten, "Chemicals Meant To Break Up BP Oil Spill Present New Environmental Concerns. (http://www.propublica.org/article/bp-gulf-oil-spill-dispersants-0430)" ProPublica, April 30, 2011.
Joseph Romm, "Is BP's remedy for the spill only making it worse? (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/05/05/oil_dispersants_poisoning_gulf)" Salon, May 5, 2010.
Ariel Schwartz, "Former Shell Oil Chief, Engineer: Supertankers Could Save the Gulf, So Why Won't BP Listen? (http://www.fastcompany.com/1646820/could-the-gulf-oil-spill-could-cleaned-up-by-supertankers)" Fast Company, May 13, 2010.
Elizabeth Kolbert, "Oil Shocks: BP and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/05/31/100531taco_talk_kolbert)" The New Yorker, May 31, 2010.
Marian Wang, "Former Valdez Cleanup Worker Warns of Toxic Dangers in the Gulf. (http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/former-valdez-cleanup-worker-warns-of-toxic-dangers-in-the-gulf)" ProPublica, June 4, 2010.
Karl Tate, "Infographic: Tallest Mountain to Deepest Ocean Trench. (http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/infographic-tallest-mountain-to-deepest-ocean-trench-0249/)" Our Amazing Planet, June 7, 2010.
Tim Dickinson, "The Spill, The Scandal and the President. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=0)" Rolling Stone Magazine, June 8, 2010.
Ariel Schwartz, "Read This Before You Volunteer to Clean Up the BP Oil Disaster. (http://www.fastcompany.com/1657625/read-this-before-you-volunteer-to-clean-up-the-bp-oil-disaster)" Fast Company, June 8, 2010.
David Roberts, "Retrofitting 75,000 houses would save as much energy as in the Gulf spill. (http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-14-retrofitting-75000-houses-save-as-much-energy-as-gulf-spill/)" Grist, June 15, 2010.
Christie Wilcox, "Reflections on the Gulf Oil Spill - Conversations With My Grandpa. (http://scienceblogs.com/observations/2010/06/cleaning_up_oil_spills.php)" Science Blogs: Observations of a Nerd, June 15, 2010.
Joe Romm, "Conservatives to Obama: Leave BP alone! (http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/17/barton-bp-apology-tragedy/)" Climate Progress, June 17, 2010.
Sean Flynn, "BOOM. (http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201007/oil-spill-rig-workers-coast-guard-crewmen?printable=true)" GQ Magazine, July 2010.
Ben Jervey, "How Much Oil Spilled in the Gulf? Less than Six Hours' Worth. (http://www.good.is/post/how-much-oil-spilled-in-the-gulf-less-than-six-hours-worth/)" GOOD, July 21, 2010.
Jeff Goodell, "The Poisoning. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-poisoning-20100721)" Rolling Stone, July 21, 2010.
Mac McClelland, "Mainstream Media Helps BP Pretend There's No Oil. (http://motherjones.com/rights-stuff/2010/07/mainstream-media-helps-bp-pretend-theres-no-oil)" Mother Jones, July 28, 2010.
Philippe Cousteau, "Dispatches from the Oil Spill. (http://www.treehugger.com/author/philippe-cousteau/)" TreeHugger, May 24 - July 29, 2010
Brian Merchant, "Why the BP Spill Hasn't Invigorated Environmentalism. (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/07/bp-spill-new-environmentalism.php)" TreeHugger, July 29, 2010.
Brian Merchant, "Breaking: BP Spill is Over, Oil is Gone, Problem Solved. (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/07/breaking-bp-spill-over-oil-gone.php)" TreeHugger, July 30, 2010.
Brooke Jarvis, "A Crisis of Democracy: Riki Ott on Real Solutions to the BP Oil Spill. (http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/a-crisis-of-democracy-real-solutions-to-the-bp-oil-spill)" YES! Magazine, August 23, 2010.
Julia Whitty, "The BP Cover-Up. (http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/09/bp-ocean-cover-up)" Mother Jones, Sept./Oct. 2010.
Jennifer Washburn, "Big Oil Goes to College. (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/big_oil.html)" Center for American Progress, October 14, 2010.
Abrahm Lustgarten, "Furious Growth and Cost Cuts Led To BP Accidents Past and Present. (http://www.propublica.org/article/bp-accidents-past-and-present)" ProPublica, October 24, 2010.
Terry Tempest Williams, "The Gulf Between Us. (http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/5931)" Orion Magazine, Nov/Dec 2010.
David Barstow, "Deepwater Horizon's Final Hours. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/26spill.html)" The New York Times, December 2010.

2011
Riki Ott, "Diary of a Disaster: 6 Months in the Gulf. (http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/diary-of-a-disaster-6-months-in-the-gulf)" YES! Magazine, January 11, 2011.
Farron Cousins, "What Was Missing From the Oil Spill Commission's Report. (http://www.desmogblog.com/what-was-missing-oil-spill-commissions-report)" DeSmogBlog, January 14, 2011.
Janet Raloff, "Gulf Floor Fouled By Bacterial Oil Feast. (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/70043/title/Gulf_floor_fouled_by_bacterial_oil_feast)" Science News, February 20, 2011.
Bryan Walsh, "A New Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico--and Insight into the Causes of the Old Spill. (http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/23/a-new-oil-spill-in-the-gulf-of-mexico%E2%80%94and-insight-into-the-causes-of-the-old-spill/)" TIME, March 23, 2011.
Story Corp, "Stories From the Gulf. (http://www.nrdc.org/storycorps/)" NRDC, Bridge the Gulf, Planet Green (http://planetgreen.discovery.com/videos/stories-from-the-gulf), April 2011. (DVR alert: Watch on Planet Green, Saturday, April 23rd at 2:30 pm e/p.)
Kate Sheppard, ""Safety" Bonuses for Deepwater Horizon Rig Owner? (http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/04/safety-bonuses-deepwater-horizon-rig-owner)" Mother Jones, April 4, 2011.
Antonia Juhasz, "BLACK TIDE: The Devastating Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill. (http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-93197.html)" April 2011.
Chris Kromm, ""WHAT SPILL? Congress has done 'virtually nothing' to address issues raised by BP disaster. (http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/04/what-spill-congress-has-done-virtually-nothing-to-address-issues-raised-by-bp-spill.html)" The Institute for Southern Studies, April 11, 2011.
Rep. Ed Markey, "Opinion: Safety helps energy independence. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53206.html)" Politico, April 15, 2011.
Rocky Kistner, "Gulf Residents: Please Take our Dolphins and Turtles Away. (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rkistner/gulf_residents_please_take_our.html)" Switchboard, from NRDC, April 14, 2011.
Suzanne Goldenberg, "Emails expose BP's attempts to control research into impact of Gulf oil spill. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/15/bp-control-science-gulf-oil-spill)" The Guardian, April 15, 2011.
Katie Howell, "A Year After BP's Oil Spill, Congress Sits Idly By. (http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/04/15/15greenwire-a-year-after-bps-oil-spill-congress-sits-idly-29261.html)" The New York Times, April 15, 2011.
Craig Pittman, Sick fish suggest oil spill still affecting gulf. (http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/wildlife/sick-fish-suggest-oil-spill-still-affecting-gulf/1164042)" St. Petersburg Times, April 17, 2011.
Campell Robertson & John Schwartz, "Victims of Gulf Oil Spill Feel Caught in Legal Limbo. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/us/19spill.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)" The New York Times, April 18, 2011.
Daniel J. Weiss & Valeri Vasquez, "Fossil Fuels: A Legacy of Disaster. (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/fossil_fuel_legacy.html)" Center for American Progress, April 19, 2011.
Kate Sheppard, "10 Reasons to Still Be Pissed Off About the BP Disaster. (http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/04/bp-anniversary-top-ten)" Mother Jones, April 19, 2011.
Eric Niller, "BP Oil Spill Anniversary: Where Are We Now? (http://news.discovery.com/earth/bp-oil-spill-anniversary-110419.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1)" Discovery News, April 19, 2011.
Brian Handwerk, "Gulf Oil Spill Surprises: 6 Things Experts Got Wrong. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/04/110420-gulf-oil-spill-surprises-science-nation-anniversary/)" National Geographic, April 19, 2011.
Editorial page staff, "The Deepwater Horizon's first victims were our people: An editorial. (http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2011/04/the_deepwater_horizons_first_v.html)" The Times-Picayune, April 20, 2011.
Dahr Jamail, "BP's criminal negligence exposed. (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/04/2011420104533120290.html)" Al Jazeera English, April 20, 2011.
Rep. Ed Markey, "One year after the BP oil spill, drilling is no safer. (http://www.grist.org/article/2011-04-20-one-year-after-the-bp-oil-spill-drilling-is-no-safer)" Grist, April 20, 2011.
Jessica Marshall, "BP-Like Spill in Arctic Would Be Disastrous. (http://news.discovery.com/earth/bp-oil-spill-arctic-drilling-110420.html)" Discovery News, April 20, 2011.
Jeff Donn, "3,200 Gulf wells unplugged, unprotected. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GULF_OIL_SPILL_ABANDONED_WELLS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-04-20-06-17-16)" The Associated Press, April 20, 2011.
Brian Merchant, "The BP Gulf Spill Was Our Fault, and We're Going to Do it Again. (http://utopianist.com/2011/04/the-bp-gulf-spill-was-our-fault-and-were-going-to-do-it-again/)" The Utopianist, April 20, 2011.

Holy shit. We won't hear from teedubya for months.

mlyonsd
04-20-2011, 07:11 PM
We need more of these......

Estimates by the federal government say that currently, about 440,000 birds are killed annually by wind farms in the U.S., nearly one bird every minute.



http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/110405.html

mikey23545
04-20-2011, 07:12 PM
Holy shit. We won't hear from teedubya for months.

And?...

teedubya
04-20-2011, 07:36 PM
Holy shit. We won't hear from teedubya for months.

heh. you all aren't going to be that lucky. Sorry bitches. I'm here for the long haul... until I'm killed by the black helicopters. ROFL

MagicHef
04-20-2011, 08:23 PM
What was that shit that I just quoted then, saying that "we should focus on them to the exclusion of everything else"?

Not a definition?

Put a question mark at the end of that sentence, and reread.

Marcellus
04-20-2011, 10:29 PM
We need more of these......


http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/110405.html

That's Green Energy not Big Oil so those don't count.

Besides land birds aren't worth what water birds are /Green Peace.