Sailbourne

(Crossposted on Daily Kos and should appear on Facebook as well.)

As I write this, it looks like the BP – Deepwater Horizon oil spill may actually be coming to an end. The actual spillage, anyway. Despite the White House’s claim that three quarters of the oil spilled is now gone, the effects of this spill will last a very long time, and affect a countless number of lives in and around the Gulf of Mexico, and the whole world beyond. The ecology of the sea and the land around it has been changed, possibly forever, definitely not for the better.

I’ve been thinking for a few weeks that it would be worthwhile to put this incident into a greater context by telling the stories of other cases in our history of industrial disasters, toxic spills and mass pollutions. The truth is that nothing that’s happened in the Deepwater Horizon case is really new.

We’ve spilled it all before.

I’ve decided that before I start writing I would ask of anyone who is reading this: is it worthwhile? Would you be interested in finding out a little more about some past disasters, the lessons we could have learned from them, the motives that led to them which are not so different as those which inform BP’s actions before and after the Macondo well blew out? Or maybe someone’s already done this, and so there’s no need for me to cover that ground again. I admit, I think it would be great if that were the case.

Some of the incidents I’ve thought about covering:

• the molasses flood in Boston, January 1919: though it sounds like a joke, it killed more people than died aboard the Deepwater Horizon

the tragedy of Minamata, where a large corporation denied and covered up the truth of its deadly pollution for decades

• the toxic gas leak in Bhopal, December 1984: thousands died and the court cases drag on, one of them ending only this year

And plenty others besides. Sadly, there’s no shortage.

So please. Speak up in the comments and let me know what you think. Is it time for a history lesson?

“It seems no one reads Santayana any more. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll be over there, getting drunk with the rest of the aliens.” — Susan Ivanova, Babylon 5

Dear Congressman Wu (and Senator Smith and Senator Wyden):

Today President Bush called upon Congress to allow a vast expansion of oil drilling in the United States, especially in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off our coastlines. I am calling on you as a citizen and a constituent to refuse to listen to this short-sighted and foolish idea.

I am, like practically all Americans, very concerned about the explosive increase in gas prices. They’ve risen over $1 a gallon just since the beginning of this year, and over $2 per gallon in the seven and a half years since George Bush took office. The President claims permitting more drilling in presently protected areas will ease gas prices. This simply is not true, especially when you consider that any oil supplies from new drilling will not be available for many years.

The President says that the high price of oil makes drilling offshore and in ANWR, as well as opening up fields of oil shale in Colorado and elsewhere, a profitable enterprise. Yet he also says it will reduce oil prices. He can’t have it both ways.

The President talks also about a long-term solution to our energy problems. His long-term solution is no solution at all — it merely encourages us to remain dependent on an energy source which is becoming increasingly rare, expensive, and environmentally disastrous to acquire. A genuine long-term solution to our energy problems is one that involves reducing our energy consumption and promoting non-polluting, renewable energy sources.

As the Congress considers the energy problems faced by our nation, I call upon you to seek answers that will benefit not just a few, at a cost which will ultimately be paid by all of us on Earth; but rather ones that will benefit everyone and contribute toward making the United States and the world a better and healthier place.

This is the sort of news story that just gets me so mad. When I get really mad at a story on the radio, I’ve been known to start yelling back at it. I can’t do that here, but I’m going to try the next best thing.

Back in the heyday of Mystery Science Theater 3000, fans had great fun taking Usenet postings — mostly spam and bad fanfic — and setting Joel (or Mike) and the Bots on them. You can find many of these at The MSTing Mine.

What I’m doing here is similar, but not necessarily intended to be funny. The article is written by Deborah Zabarenko, and appeared on the Reuters newswire yesterday. I’ve pared it down a bit.

     WASHINGTON, Jan 7 (Reuters) - The United States delayed
     a decision on whether global warming threatens polar
     bears, saying on Monday new data and public comment
     required more time. Environmentalists vowed to sue
     for quicker action.

New data? Like, maybe, the polar bears are dying even faster than you thought? Public comment?! How many people do you need telling you “Bite me!” in order to get the message? Here’s one more: Bite me!!

     The deadline for deciding whether to list the big white
     bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act is
     Wednesday but Dale Hall, head of the U.S. Fish and
     Wildlife Service, told reporters it would take as much
     as a month more to analyze all the information.

This is the first time you’ve ever looked at the information? Dude, you’ve been part of the Fish and Wildlife Service since 1978! You put 300 species onto the Endangered Species List between 1991 and 1997. Come on.

     This is the first time global warming has been a factor
     in proposing threatened status for any U.S. species,
     Hall said, and that has added to the complexity of the
     decision.

It won’t be the last. You should have been prepared for this. Oh right, I forgot. Your boss and his cronies don’t believe global warming exists.

     The act indicates the one allowable reason for a delay
     in adding a species to the list is "substantial
     scientific uncertainty" but Hall denied in a telephone
     news conference that this was the reason.

Of course. Your boss doesn’t believe global warming exists, but you don’t dare actually stand up and say that.

     "I'm not saying that there is scientific uncertainty
     under the act and it's unfortunately one of those
     times ... we'll have to miss the deadline in order to
     provide the quality product that needs to be provided,"
     he said.

Quality product?! We’re not talking about Gund bears here! It’s a pretty sounding excuse for foot-dragging and stonewalling, is what it is.

     While all the other 1,300 or so species on the list
     were clearly threatened by deforestation or vanishing
     wetlands, Hall said the climate connection to the polar
     bear case required help from government scientists to
     understand the various impacts of global warming.

But we can’t really trust those government scientists. At least not until someone other than George W. Bush is signing their paychecks.

     The Endangered Species Act defines a threatened
     species as one likely to become endangered in the
     foreseeable future. Hall said the scientific data
     would "help us understand that 'foreseeable future'
     question:  what's going to happen in the next 45
     years, because that's really the question."

Oh, come on. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. Or a biologist.

     "The Bush administration has squandered seven years
     denying the devastating scientific evidence of global
     warming," Kert Davies of Greenpeace USA said in a
     statement. "Stalling has cost us dearly, putting the
     polar bear at risk of extinction and jeopardizing the
     future welfare of billions of people around the world."

     Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council and
     the Center for Biological Diversity said in a joint
     statement they plan to start the legal process on
     Wednesday with a formal notice to sue, as required
     under the Endangered Species Act.

Thank goodness someone’s doing something.

P.S. The walrus are dying too.