If it does will you shut up? Rhetorical question.isadore;402403 wrote:a tainted decision made by a corrupted judge, we will see if it stands.
isadore;402433 wrote:as opposed to you, I will not remain silent before an injustice.J'accuse! BP, the Oil industry and Judge Feldman.
NAW...the Federal government is the "quicker fixer upper." I wonder if the Feds can create a giant Bounty paper towel and soak up that oil spill they licensed BP to create? They can make it on the same printing presses they're using to create phony money used to cover the cost of their insane public spending!bigmanbt;402960 wrote:You forgot one of the responsible parties: the Federal Government.
The government deserve criticisms in the BP disaster, but not for telling BP where to drill. They offered BP a site, the company was not forced to take it. They chose. What the government does deserve much criticism for doing, was not regulating enough. For many decades going back to Teapot Dome, the government agencies and departments have been to cozy with the oil industry. The people at MMS went beyond sycophancy in dealing with these corporate giants. BP got by with no real inspection of the design and operation of their facility and with no real contingency plans for disaster. If the government had been doing its job of regulating this disaster could have been avoided.bigmanbt;402960 wrote:You forgot one of the responsible parties: the Federal Government. THEY were the ones who forced BP to drill in unsafe waters, and they also were the ones who said it was safe to drill there. The federal government established the $75 million liability cap as well.
Don't get me wrong, BP has been in collusion with the federal gov't for a long time, and they deserve what's coming to them, but you can't just blame the ends, you have to also put some blame on those who provided the ends with the ability to do what they did. The federal gov't holds A LOT of blame for this as well as the other parties involved. It's pretty typical of left wingers ignoring the actions of the federal government, always narrow-minded and focused on the effect and not the cause.
CenterBHSFan;403088 wrote:Isa,
No the problem isn't the government "not regulating enough".
The problem is not following up on the regulations already in place!
If somebody isn't doing their job, the answer isn't to make more rules. The answer is the crack down on the rules already in place.
You know better than that, Isa... you're just agitating. I'm on to your tricks! haha
if you want to blame the government that s fine , but take a closer look and look to right.The Bush administration and its staunchly pro-oil congressional allies enacted one of the most pro-oil, anti-environment pieces of legislation in history: the Energy Policy Act of 2005—itself based on the recommendations of Cheney’s secret energy policy task force. Cheney not only offered permanent regulatory relief and rolled back existing environmental laws to help the oil industry. This particular example also demonstrates the administration’s willingness to distort science to benefit Big Oil .bigmanbt;402960 wrote:You forgot one of the responsible parties: the Federal Government. THEY were the ones who forced BP to drill in unsafe waters, and they also were the ones who said it was safe to drill there. The federal government established the $75 million liability cap as well.
Don't get me wrong, BP has been in collusion with the federal gov't for a long time, and they deserve what's coming to them, but you can't just blame the ends, you have to also put some blame on those who provided the ends with the ability to do what they did. The federal gov't holds A LOT of blame for this as well as the other parties involved. It's pretty typical of left wingers ignoring the actions of the federal government, always narrow-minded and focused on the effect and not the cause.
KnightRyder;403707 wrote:if you want to blame the government that s fine , but take a closer look and look to right.The Bush administration and its staunchly pro-oil congressional allies enacted one of the most pro-oil, anti-environment pieces of legislation in history: the Energy Policy Act of 2005—itself based on the recommendations of Cheney’s secret energy policy task force. Cheney not only offered permanent regulatory relief and rolled back existing environmental laws to help the oil industry. This particular example also demonstrates the administration’s willingness to distort science to benefit Big Oil .
Serious question--have you ever read EPAct '05? Are you aware that its major provisions include:KnightRyder;403707 wrote:if you want to blame the government that s fine , but take a closer look and look to right.The Bush administration and its staunchly pro-oil congressional allies enacted one of the most pro-oil, anti-environment pieces of legislation in history: the Energy Policy Act of 2005—itself based on the recommendations of Cheney’s secret energy policy task force. Cheney not only offered permanent regulatory relief and rolled back existing environmental laws to help the oil industry. This particular example also demonstrates the administration’s willingness to distort science to benefit Big Oil .
This is, of course, the age-old problem of agency capture by the regulated entities. It's one of the primary problems of regulation, and it's not one that has an easy fix. Focusing on "if we could only get the right people in there, enforce the existing rules, etc." isn't how you solve the inevitable problem. Generally, there's no easy solution to industry capture, and it's one of the byproducts of the regulatory state. If you don't like it, you can deregulate, or you can simply do some housecleaning every decade or two and swallow the administrative costs/losses. That's part of the deal with the regulatory state.isadore;403166 wrote:It is sad as some people age, they become increasingly cynical. BS open your heart and mind and let the sun shine in. We need in these agencies. like the MMS whatever its present incarnation. a change in attitude. These agencies should operate on the idea that Tony Hayward is going to be their BFF. Whether it is by stricter enforcement of rules already on the books, enactment of new regulations or a combination of the two, the attitude must change at these agencies.
Not two great choices but one is by far superior to the other. A deregulated BP in action. That is scary. Regular housecleaning might be needed. Maybe include a rule that stops these folks from going right into the oil industry after leaving government service.fan_from_texas wrote:This is, of course, the age-old problem of agency capture by the regulated entities. It's one of the primary problems of regulation, and it's not one that has an easy fix. Focusing on "if we could only get the right people in there, enforce the existing rules, etc." isn't how you solve the inevitable problem. Generally, there's no easy solution to industry capture, and it's one of the byproducts of the regulatory state. If you don't like it, you can deregulate, or you can simply do some housecleaning every decade or two and swallow the administrative costs/losses. That's part of the deal with the regulatory state.
here is the conservative way The so-called environmental assessments that laid the foundation for approving permits without further review were fatally flawed under the Bush-Cheney years—in addition to violating both the spirit and the letter of the law.Writerbuckeye;403830 wrote:Now fish, you know it's much easier to whine -- and then mandate through bully legislation that certain types of energy be given priority over those that are more plentiful, more easily found and less costly to the consumer.
It's the liberal way!
Actually developing a new and VIABLE technology takes too much time and effort.
roposed Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 206.” But just six words—splashed in bold capital letters across the top of the report’s first page—aved the way for what is now the worst environmental calamity in the history of the United States: FINDING OF NO NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
fan_from_texas;406232 wrote:KnightRyder--
Does your lack of response to my direct question above indicate that (1) you have not read EPAct '05, and (2) you are backing down from your claim that it is the most pro-oil, anti-environment piece of legislation in history? Or, despite not having read it, and despite the numerous pro-envt and pro-renewable provisions, do you still contend that it is pro-oil?
You seem to be up in arms about a FONSI conclusion in a relatively standard NEPA review for situations that are almost always CX. How familiar are you with NEPA? Are you aware of when NEPA was passed? Are you aware of the percentage of EAs/EISs that result in FONSIs? Or are you simply pulling snippets from American Progress and reiterating them here as your own?
You've already demonstrated that you're entirely out of your league when it comes to energy legislation. Is your goal to do the same on the basics of a NEPA analysis?
The current oil regulatory scheme was enacted in 1906 by the Hepburn Act. As much as you dislike Cheney and think he's old, he wasn't around at that point, so I'm pretty sure he didn't deregulate the oil industry. The oil industry has been in its current "deregulated" form since the 1988 Buckeye proceeding. Again, are you pinning this one on Cheney and somehow suggesting that EPAct '05 had anything to do with it? I'll cut to the chase: EPAct '05 didn't affect the oil regulatory scheme, which has remained largely untouched for decades.are you disputing the fact that cheney deregulated the oil industry to help out his oil cronies? thats basically what he did, please tell me you are.
KnightRyder;406199 wrote:here is the conservative way The so-called environmental assessments that laid the foundation for approving permits without further review were fatally flawed under the Bush-Cheney years—in addition to violating both the spirit and the letter of the law.
The last meaningful environmental review of any kind standing between BP and drilling at the Mississippi Canyon 252 site should have been the October 2007 Minerals Management Service environmental assessment of the “
The assessment points out that Hurricanes Rita and Katrina rendered beaches and marshes more vulnerable to spills, but it still concluded that the potential for a damaging spill as a result of leasing the 5,569 drilling blocks contained in proposed sale 206 was basically nil:
Concerns were raised related to...the potential effects of oil spills on tourism, emergency response capabilities, spill prevention...accidental discharges from both deepwater blowouts and pipeline ruptures...The fate and behavior of oil spills, availability and adequacy of oil-spill containment and cleanup technologies, oil-spill cleanup strategies, impacts of various oil-spill cleanup methods, effects of weathering on oil spills, toxicological effects of fresh and weathered oil, air pollution associated with spilled oil, and short-term and long-term impacts of oil on wetlands...Offshore oil spills resulting from proposed Lease Sale 206 are not expected to damage significantly any wetlands along the Gulf Coast.
The assessment also includes one passage that reads like something of a death certificate for the gulf’s coastal communities:
Accidental events associated with proposed Lease Sale 206 such as oil or chemical spills, blowouts, and vessel collisions would have no effects on the demographic characteristics of the Gulf coastal communities...As inland marshes and barrier islands erode or subside, without effective restoration efforts, the population in coastal communities in southern Louisiana is expected to shift to the more northern portions of the parishes and cause increasing populations in urban and suburban areas and declining populations in rural coastal areas.
Given that they appear to have considered the decline of the Gulf Coast’s communities a foregone conclusion, it’s perhaps unsurprising that Bush-Cheney administration officials exercised so little care in attempting to prevent an accident like the catastrophe now unfolding.
Cheney’s direct role in this situation of regulatory capture and failure could not be clearer. Randall Luthi signed the so-called environmental review for the proposed lease sale 206. He is a longtime Cheney insider who was installed as director of the Minerals Management Service in 2007. Luthi, who was once Cheney’s intern, went on to hold various positions in several Republican administrations before returning to his native Wyoming.
Luthi is currently the president of the National Ocean Industries Association, whose stated mission is “to secure reliable access and a fair regulatory and economic environment for the companies that develop the nation’s valuable offshore energy resources in an environmentally responsible manner.” Just yesterday, he called on the Obama administration to lift new restrictions on drilling in the gulf, even in face of the ever-growing economic and environmental disaster that he had a direct role in allowing to happen.
The Bush-Cheney administration made an unprecedented effort from beginning to end to rewrite our nation’s laws and rules to benefit their allies in the oil industry. They installed incompetent or corrupt cronies in important regulatory and oversight positions. And what they could not achieve legally, the administration pursued by other means.
fan_from_texas;407137 wrote:You seem to be quite adept at cutting and pasting things from other websites, but you don't seem to be so great at answering direct yes/no questions. In light of the fact that EPAct '05 has been widely hailed as one of the most pro-environment and pro-renewable energy statutes in a long time (perhaps ever? at least since NEPA/PURPA), it seems somewhat laughable that if we read your portrayal of it, we'd think that it was an entirely pro-oil law. This indicates to me that you haven't read it, and you don't have the faintest idea what it says, other than what you picked up from some shill. You're out of your element here, but if you want to go back to the kiddie pool on the DailyKos, I'm sure you can find some yes men who will agree with your tripe.
The current oil regulatory scheme was enacted in 1906 by the Hepburn Act. As much as you dislike Cheney and think he's old, he wasn't around at that point, so I'm pretty sure he didn't deregulate the oil industry. The oil industry has been in its current "deregulated" form since the 1988 Buckeye proceeding. Again, are you pinning this one on Cheney and somehow suggesting that EPAct '05 had anything to do with it? I'll cut to the chase: EPAct '05 didn't affect the oil regulatory scheme, which has remained largely untouched for decades.
It's fine if you want to hate Bush/Cheney and blame everything on them. But at least read the laws before you claim that they stand for something exactly opposite than what you think they're saying. You're so far off-base here it's laughable. I'm an energy regulatory attorney. I work with FERC every day as part of my practice. I'm very, very familiar with the energy regulatory process in this country. And you? Well, you've read a few websites . . . and that appears to be it.
So we'll try this again: Have you read EPAct '05? Do you still contend that it is the most pro-oil, anti-environment piece of legislation in history? Or are you just pulling snippets from your favorite websites without actually giving it any thought?
i read it , but apparently you havent , or you just cant spot all the loop holes that are written in it.fan_from_texas;407137 wrote:You seem to be quite adept at cutting and pasting things from other websites, but you don't seem to be so great at answering direct yes/no questions. In light of the fact that EPAct '05 has been widely hailed as one of the most pro-environment and pro-renewable energy statutes in a long time (perhaps ever? at least since NEPA/PURPA), it seems somewhat laughable that if we read your portrayal of it, we'd think that it was an entirely pro-oil law. This indicates to me that you haven't read it, and you don't have the faintest idea what it says, other than what you picked up from some shill. You're out of your element here, but if you want to go back to the kiddie pool on the DailyKos, I'm sure you can find some yes men who will agree with your tripe.
The current oil regulatory scheme was enacted in 1906 by the Hepburn Act. As much as you dislike Cheney and think he's old, he wasn't around at that point, so I'm pretty sure he didn't deregulate the oil industry. The oil industry has been in its current "deregulated" form since the 1988 Buckeye proceeding. Again, are you pinning this one on Cheney and somehow suggesting that EPAct '05 had anything to do with it? I'll cut to the chase: EPAct '05 didn't affect the oil regulatory scheme, which has remained largely untouched for decades.
It's fine if you want to hate Bush/Cheney and blame everything on them. But at least read the laws before you claim that they stand for something exactly opposite than what you think they're saying. You're so far off-base here it's laughable. I'm an energy regulatory attorney. I work with FERC every day as part of my practice. I'm very, very familiar with the energy regulatory process in this country. And you? Well, you've read a few websites . . . and that appears to be it.
So we'll try this again: Have you read EPAct '05? Do you still contend that it is the most pro-oil, anti-environment piece of legislation in history? Or are you just pulling snippets from your favorite websites without actually giving it any thought?
fish82;407177 wrote:Cool story, bro. Who are these Bush & Cheney characters again? :rolleyes:
KnightRyder;407420 wrote:i read it , but apparently you havent , or you just cant spot all the loop holes that are written in it.
I'm an energy regulatory attorney. I work with FERC every day as part of my practice. I'm very, very familiar with the energy regulatory process in this country.
fan_from_texas;407476 wrote:You'll be more convincing if, rather than cutting/pasting something from a shill website, you actually do a bit of research yourself and then make narrow, reasonable, defensible arguments. Speaking in massively broad strokes about an area where you don't have much expertise is a recipe for disaster. E.g., if I started lecturing ptown on XYZ nuclear disarmament issues, he would (quite rightfully) respond, "FFT, you're a nice, smart guy, and I appreciate your insight, but you don't know anything about this issue, and it's a little more nuanced than you're making it sound."
A good rule of thumb is that if you don't know a lot about an issue, it's best to speak about it very narrowly. Otherwise, you'll inevitably end up overstepping and making outrageous statements that simply aren't true (e.g., that EPAct '05 is the most pro-oil, anti-environment piece of legislation ever passed). Even a cursory review of the legislation (easily available at this link or this link) reveals that it isn't some oil-driven piece of legislation. It's the most pro-renewable law passed since 1978.
You can criticize parts of it, and it's fine to point out that the compromise provisions included to garner support may not be the ones you'd like. But it isn't reasonable to write the entire pro-renewable, pro-environment law off as though it were an exercise in oil cronyism.
(edit to include some additional thoughts)
The danger in speaking authoritatively on a subject outside your realm of expertise is that you run the risk of misusing terms of art or saying things that, at face value, don't pass the smell test. For example, when we talk about the regulation of energy companies (and concomitant concept of "deregulation"), we do so in the context of ratemaking vs. market-based rates. "Deregulation" as a concept doesn't refer to siting reviews or NEPA analyses, and it's erroneous to use it in that sense (even though, in colloquial terms, we may otherwise be talking about relaxing regulatory safeguards). It's fair to say that certain actions of the Clinton/Bush/Obama administrations modified siting/permitting provisions applicable to offshore oil drilling. It's not fair to say that they "deregulated" the oil industry, which, as I mentioned earlier, has been largely deregulated for a long, long time.
Mr. 300;397430 wrote:Doing what is right by this ruling......not bowing to a fringe political group.
CenterBHSFan;407481 wrote:I think it's funny that even though FFT has stated his profession, people who do not share that same profession are acting like they know more about the situation than he does.
FFT:
It is his job to know this stuff.
Laughable. Really.