Oil Spill 4/20: An environmental 9/11?

Already into the 46th day of the oil spill, more vitriol continues to pour even as BP struggles to plug the Deepwater Horizon well that gushes about 5,000 barrels (1 barrel = 42 US gal) of crude oil daily. But some have estimated the spill could have been as high as 100,000 barrels a day. That's equivalent to all the water in seven Olympic-size swimming pools!
(Paul Rademacher, engineering director of Google Maps, has put the spill into excellent geographical perspective by allowing users to compare the area of the spill to that of their home town or a city they are familiar with.)

If the loss is converted to money, then it's billions of dollars loss at $85 per barrel. BP has already spent $1 billion containing and cleaning up the oil. Since it owned the responsibility of the spill, the expense could be much higher. President Barack Obama's administration has sent its first bill of $69 million for the US government's efforts in managing the spill response. It's too early to say whether this incident will lead BP toward bankruptcy, but the CEO of the London-based company has assured its shareholders that the company has "considerable firepower" to cover the cost. Amidst this assurance comes the time for BP to disburse dividends about which Obama has shown open displeasure.

In his third visit to the affected region, Obama assailed BP's plans to spend $50 million on an ad campaign to salvage its image and another $10 million on dividends for shareholders.

"What I don't wanna hear is when they're spending that kind of money on their shareholders and spending that kind of money on TV advertising that they're nickel and diming fisherman," Obama said.

Obama's strong words still didn't match with any visible anger that the American people want to see in him. People want to see emotion and rage and finger wagging for some cathartic relief, perhaps much like the way during the AIG bonus saga. But he has acted cool so far.

In the latest Larry King Live interview he said he is "furious." That's it! But that's not enough for the American people who want to see an enraged president taking stern actions, even questioning the corporate as to why BP's CEO Tony Hayward still in charge.

Despite this terrible environmental mess and loss of 11 lives in the rig explosion, Hayward enjoys the confidence of the board. He was apologetic to the shareholders as he continued to assure them.

"We will work tirelessly to rebuild the confidence of the American people, and of the world, in BP," Hayward said in his first update to shareholders after the rig explosion of April 20.

But not everyone can be assured. Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group with its 80,000 members, has started a campaign to boycott BP's products. It has asked people to boycott BP for "at least three months."

On the Facebook wall of Boycott BP page Kristin Royce Barsell wrote, "I went to BPs channel on Youtube and Gave a thumbs down to every one of their videos. Then, I flagged them for being innapropriat. For stuff like sexual content, violence, and a bunch of other really funny stuff. I found it very therapeutic. You should do the same. It will make you feel much better."

As the Gulf of Mexico oil slick approached coastlines and threatened people's livelihoods and damaged the ecosystem, more and more people have shown frustration with the federal administration. The public anger is aggravated further as they see live video feed of the oil spewing from the well. All the major media have given prime coverage of the pictures of pelicans drenched in oil, or images of plumes of partly dissolved oil flowing in the deep ocean.

The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism reports, "the mainstream media devoted 38% of its newshole to the spill during the week of May 24-30."

Despite such extensive media coverage and the amount of environmental impact the spill will create, it is still not yet the "environmental 9/11" as Melinda Henneberger of the Politics Daily argues. The present disaster has surpassed the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989, or is comparable in cleanup and response efforts to hurricane Katrina, but it is still not comparable to the 9/11 attack that not only took more lives but also pulled the rug of faith for a fellow human being.

The technology to overcome the present disaster is perhaps easier to devise sooner or later, but a soothing balm to heal the impact of 9/11 is difficult to create.


***

Here's a selection of media that have given dedicated coverage of the oil spill.

Online: White House, BP, PBS, Google News, Yahoo! News, HuffPost, The Daily Beast
Broadcast: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, Al Jazeera, BBC, France24
Newspapers: NYTimes, WashPo, WSJ, LATimes, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, St. Petersburg, Miami Herald, Chicago Tribune, Guardian

1. A brown pelican is seen on the beach at East Grand Terre Island along the Louisiana coast on Thursday, June 3, 2010. Oil from the Deepwater Horizon has affected wildlife throughout the Gulf of Mexico. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
2. Fire boat crews battle the blazing remnants of the off shore oil rig Deepwater Horizon late Wednesday. (U.S. Coast Guard)
3. Boycott BP Petition logo
4. May 6. An aerial view of the oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico. (Daniel Beltra-Reuters)
5. Screengrab of "Tracking the Oil Spill in the Gulf" from NYTimes.com Interactive

Images used without permission. Copyright infringement not intended.

A Better Missile Defense for a Safer Europe

By ROBERT M. GATES

THE future of missile defense in Europe is secure. This reality is contrary to what some critics have alleged about President Obama’s proposed shift in America’s missile-defense plans on the continent — and it is important to understand how and why.

First, to be clear, there is now no strategic missile defense in Europe. In December 2006, just days after becoming secretary of defense, I recommended to President George W. Bush that the United States place 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and an advanced radar in the Czech Republic. This system was designed to identify and destroy up to about five long-range missiles potentially armed with nuclear warheads fired from the Middle East — the greatest and most likely danger being from Iran. At the time, it was the best plan based on the technology and threat assessment available.

That plan would have put the radar and interceptors in Central Europe by 2015 at the earliest. Delays in the Polish and Czech ratification process extended that schedule by at least two years. Which is to say, under the previous program, there would have been no missile-defense system able to protect against Iranian missiles until at least 2017 — and likely much later.

Last week, President Obama — on my recommendation and with the advice of his national-security team and the unanimous support of our senior military leadership — decided to discard that plan in favor of a vastly more suitable approach. In the first phase, to be completed by 2011, we will deploy proven, sea-based SM-3 interceptor missiles — weapons that are growing in capability — in the areas where we see the greatest threat to Europe.

The second phase, which will become operational around 2015, will involve putting upgraded SM-3s on the ground in Southern and Central Europe. All told, every phase of this plan will include scores of SM-3 missiles, as opposed to the old plan of just 10 ground-based interceptors. This will be a far more effective defense should an enemy fire many missiles simultaneously — the kind of attack most likely to occur as Iran continues to build and deploy numerous short- and medium-range weapons. At the same time, plans to defend virtually all of Europe and enhance the missile defense of the United States will continue on about the same schedule as the earlier plan as we build this system over time, creating an increasingly greater zone of protection.

Steady technological advances in our missile defense program — from kill vehicles to the abilities to network radars and sensors — give us confidence in this plan. The SM-3 has had eight successful tests since 2007, and we will continue to develop it to give it the capacity to intercept long-range missiles like ICBMs. It is now more than able to deal with the threat from multiple short- and medium-range missiles — a very real threat to our allies and some 80,000 American troops based in Europe that was not addressed by the previous plan. Even so, our military will continue research and development on a two-stage ground-based interceptor, the kind that was planned to be put in Poland, as a back-up.

Moreover, a fixed radar site like the one previously envisioned for the Czech Republic would be far less adaptable than the airborne, space- and ground-based sensors we now plan to use. These systems provide much more accurate data, offer more early warning and tracking options, and have stronger networking capacity — a key factor in any system that relies on partner countries. This system can also better use radars that are already operating across the globe, like updated cold war-era installations, our newer arrays based on high-powered X-band radar, allied systems and possibly even Russian radars.

One criticism of this plan is that we are relying too much on new intelligence holding that Iran is focusing more on short- and medium-range weapons and not progressing on intercontinental missiles. Having spent most of my career at the C.I.A., I am all too familiar with the pitfalls of over-reliance on intelligence assessments that can become outdated. As Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a few days ago, we would be surprised if the assessments did not change because “the enemy gets a vote.”

The new approach to European missile defense actually provides us with greater flexibility to adapt as new threats develop and old ones recede. For example, the new proposal provides some antimissile capacity very soon — a hedge against Iran’s managing to field missiles much earlier than had been previously predicted. The old plan offered nothing for almost a decade.

Those who say we are scrapping missile defense in Europe are either misinformed or misrepresenting what we are doing. This shift has even been distorted as some sort of concession to Russia, which has fiercely opposed the old plan. Russia’s attitude and possible reaction played no part in my recommendation to the president on this issue. Of course, considering Russia’s past hostility toward American missile defense in Europe, if Russia’s leaders embrace this plan, then that will be an unexpected — and welcome — change of policy on their part. But in any case the facts are clear: American missile defense on the continent will continue, and not just in Central Europe, the most likely location for future SM-3 sites, but, we hope, in other NATO countries as well.

This proposal is, simply put, a better way forward — as was recognized by Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland when he called it “a chance for strengthening Europe’s security.” It is a very real manifestation of our continued commitment to our NATO allies in Europe — iron-clad proof that the United States believes that the alliance must remain firm.

I am often characterized as “pragmatic.” I believe this is a very pragmatic proposal. I have found since taking this post that when it comes to missile defense, some hold a view bordering on theology that regards any change of plans or any cancellation of a program as abandonment or even breaking faith. I encountered this in the debate over the Defense Department’s budget for the fiscal year 2010 when I ended three programs: the airborne laser, the multiple-kill vehicle and the kinetic energy interceptor. All were plainly unworkable, prohibitively expensive and could never be practically deployed — but had nonetheless acquired a devoted following.

I have been a strong supporter of missile defense ever since President Ronald Reagan first proposed it in 1983. But I want to have real capacity as soon as possible, and to take maximum advantage of new technologies to combat future threats.

The bottom line is that there will be American missile defense in Europe to protect our troops there and our NATO allies. The new proposal provides needed capacity years earlier than the original plan, and will provide even more robust protection against longer-range threats on about the same timeline as the previous program. We are strengthening — not scrapping — missile defense in Europe.

Robert M. Gates is the secretary of defense.

Obama kills a fly during CNBC interview

First president to kill a fly on camera!

Barack Obama's stem cell and climate change science is superstition

By Gerald Warner, Telegraph

Barack Obama is earning plaudits from the "science" lobby, militant secularists and other usual suspects for his decision to lift the Bush administration's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research today. This is being hailed as a new Enlightenment and it is every bit as bogus as the first.

Embryonic stem cell research is a dead end. Embryonic stem cells have not been used successfully to treat any illness, despite inflated claims that one day they will supply revolutionary new treatments for illnesses ranging from diabetes to paralysis. Dr James L Sherley, a Senior Scientist at Boston Biomedical Research Institute in America, has said: "The promises of cures from cloned human embryonic stem cell research are indeed misguided. Whether extracted from IVF embryos or cloned embryos, embryonic stem cells are unable to mend tissues and organs. Only adult stem cells have this ability, and they possess it naturally."

In contrast to the failure of embryo experimentation, stem cells from umbilical cords and placental blood have already been employed successfully to treat leukaemia and anaemia, while adult stem cells have also worked in trials to treat severe heart failure. Most recently, teams of researchers in Britain and Canada have found a safe way of manufacturing stem cells from a patient's skin. The new technology obviates the need to use viruses, which created a risk of cancer, as well as allowing the transformational genes to be removed after performing their function, preventing them from causing any future damage.

By giving a fiscal boost to research that is both ethically controversial and scientifically futile, Barack Obama is directing science onto a negative course. His allocation of federal funds to embryo experimentation makes American taxpayers complicit in the destruction of days-old human beings. In tandem, his embrace of the "man-made" climate change lobby shows that his supposedly enlightened policy is just a new superstition. Presumably, like the Prince of Wales, he believes we have just 100 months to go before climatic Armageddon.

Obama claims that science, not political ideology, will guide his administration. That is transparently not so. This policy is, to the point of caricature, driven by the ideology of junk science, liberal hysteria, and the aggressive lobbying of interest groups hungry for taxpayers' money. Obama is a sucker, impressed by the white-coat pretensions of lobbyists who are the 21st-century equivalents of those seekers for the Philosopher's Stone who plucked importunately at the sleeves of medieval monarchs ("Sire, I have a project...").

This presidency is now firmly set on the road to political, fiscal, cultural and moral disaster. Change we need... Hope... Oh, yeah.

Source: Telegraph