They could have started by suspending the Jones Act so that foreign flagged vessels could help in the cleanup. Several countries did offer assistance in this regard.
That's a "talking point" that conservative blogs have been throwing around, but it's not really relevant. Logistics alone would make it more dangerous and likely less effective to have more ships around. Letting these additional vessels "help" would likely have hindered any actual work.
Why are we not using the oil eating microbes?
They're untested, possibly dangerous, expensive, and difficult to deploy?
The microbes are not untested and have been used by Texas before.
The tiny critters eat up and digest oil, and in the process generate oxygen that helps preserve aquatic plants and fish. When the oil is eaten, the microbes are safe food for fish.
I am an investigative reporter and not a scientist. But based on what I learned from better-informed scientists more than two decades ago and what I have learned more recently, I suggest that the scientific consensus at best is only half right
Shut the fuck up.
EDIT: Here's the Scientific American article that the author talks about. The reason that we're not seeding with microbes is that the genetically-modified stuff we have is no better than the extant populations, and the extant population will outcompete almost any seeding attempts. Plus, the current oil-eating population is thoroughly adapted to a hydrocarbon-rich environment, whereas our lab-modified strains are not.
EDIT 2: The primary issue with the use of the enzymes is that a large amount of the spill is fairly deep underwater. The low temperatures, increased pressure, and saline concentrations at those depths will almost certainly inhibit exogenous enzyme activity. There really is no know way to speed up this process. Also, what does that enzyme do? Which organisms does it affect? What are its optimal operating conditions?
Yea, talk about not talking about a field you know anything about, you know two decades ago I built a cap for an oil well out of lego and well why can't they use it now?
Seriously though have we gotten so anti-intellectual in the US to the point where everyone thinks they are now the expert on every topic and those that actually have a background in the field don't know what they are doing. Yesterday I listened to my dad wonder why we couldn't make a cap that would work on the leak like he had experience capping oil wells.
...everyone thinks they are now the expert on every topic and those that actually have a background in the field don't know what they are doing.
Yup. News channels should not be giving equal time and consideration to the Nobel Prize winning PhD thrice published author and the "Joe the Plumber" clones. Two well educated specialists with differing opinions is one thing. A factually informed professional arguing against a strongly opinionated and biased nut job is another.
Just to add to the pile of "shut the fuck up know-nothing Texas journalists," here is Medina Agriculture Product's line of Environmental Control products. You'll note that their stuff is designed for land-based agriculture and not marine aquaculture. In fact, the product that the author says could help - the one that digests oils and other sludgy hydrocarbons - is designed for septic tanks. The environment of a septic tank is nowhere near the environment of deep Gulf waters; hell, it's not even like shallow Gulf waters.
Marine environments are a beast of a different nature.
Even if those organisms worked, you basically have a massive oil-eating red tide for a decade, and then, as it decays when the spill is finally cleaned up, the decay process will use up ALL of the dissolved oxygen in that area, making those waters lifeless.
I've noticed a bunch of these stories out today... Where Wall-street is cutting money to the democrats because of reform... Wouldn't this probably be a net-win for democrats?
It started with Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) insisting that spending increases need to be paid for, but lawmakers shouldn't even try to pay for tax cuts. California Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina (R) soon followed, declaring, "You don't need to pay for tax cuts. They pay for themselves." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) soon added that Bush's tax cuts, which created huge deficits, actually "increased revenue." Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) agreed that "tax cuts should not have to be offset." Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) appeared on C-SPAN yesterday and managed to sound even dumber. "Continuing the [Bush] tax cuts isn't a cost, if you added new taxes, new tax cuts, I would agree that's a cost. It's not a cost. That's where we are today. That's the baseline. It doesn't score anything to continue them. It costs money if we increase, which I would be willing to do. I think we ought to cut corporate taxes."
For two days, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl has raised eyebrows by insisting that emergency aid to unemployed people -- what he called a "necessary evil" -- be paid for through either tax hikes or spending cuts, while the tax cuts (which mostly benefit wealthy people) not be offset in any way. Yesterday claimed that this view is shared by "most of the people in my party."
"[Y]ou should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes," said the Arizona Senator during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. "Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to -- if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."
I'm starting to think that the SCA is on to something with this whole modern-day monarchy business. I mean, at least when there's a king, there's only one idiot ruining things. You can't be that pissed off. "What are we gonna do; he's the king." Simple.
The worst part to me is the "the tax cuts were in the past and therefore don't count because they don't effect anything" thing. Ree-hee-heeally? So I can just, you know, stop paying my credit cards or student loans because they were in the past and totally don't count anymore.
Tax cuts don't cost anything unless you assume the money already belongs to the government.
If the government collects a 10% tax on activity A and people respond by reducing their activity A time must the government now find a way to pay for the fact that people are doing the taxable activity less?
GTM's credit card analogy is full of fail. A credit card transaction is a loan. Tax revenues are projected revenue for the govt.
If everyone stopped smoking tomorrow the question would not be "how do we pay for the drop in cig tax revenue?" Instead it would be "how do we pay for the programs that were being funded by cig tax revenues." Or better yet "now that no one is smoking we don't need the programs that were funded by cig taxes!"
The question really becomes "How do we keep paying for all the stuff we have now that we have less money?" I'm all for cutting unnecessary spending, but when nobody actually wants to do that, what choice do you have left? We have no true small government party, and frankly, we'll almost certainly never have one.
Yes, income from taxes is always projected income, but you can still plan around. Businesses make budget decisions based on projected revenue all the time. There's no other way to run a large organization. You can't exactly wait until all the money comes in and then distribute it; that would slow the whole thing to a crawl.
And yes, tax cuts do cost money when you don't reduce the amount of money you spend. The Bush tax cuts absolutely created a massive deficit. Period. There is no arguing that point. Those tax cuts in no way increased revenue.
The question really becomes "How do we keep paying for all the stuff we have now that we have less money?" I'm all for cutting unnecessary spending, but when nobody actually wants to do that, what choice do you have left? We have no true small government party, and frankly, we'll almost certainly never have one.
Also would we want a small government? I mean we don't NEED food testing, the companies can do it themselves.
Comments
Who told you we should be using oil-eating microbes?
/sarcasm
EDIT: Here's the Scientific American article that the author talks about. The reason that we're not seeding with microbes is that the genetically-modified stuff we have is no better than the extant populations, and the extant population will outcompete almost any seeding attempts. Plus, the current oil-eating population is thoroughly adapted to a hydrocarbon-rich environment, whereas our lab-modified strains are not.
EDIT 2: The primary issue with the use of the enzymes is that a large amount of the spill is fairly deep underwater. The low temperatures, increased pressure, and saline concentrations at those depths will almost certainly inhibit exogenous enzyme activity. There really is no know way to speed up this process. Also, what does that enzyme do? Which organisms does it affect? What are its optimal operating conditions?
Seriously though have we gotten so anti-intellectual in the US to the point where everyone thinks they are now the expert on every topic and those that actually have a background in the field don't know what they are doing. Yesterday I listened to my dad wonder why we couldn't make a cap that would work on the leak like he had experience capping oil wells.
Marine environments are a beast of a different nature.
GREAT JOB!
Well, obviously, the core concept!
"Hello? Airplanes? It's blimps, you win! Bye!"
Wall-street plans payback
Wallstreet backs off democrats
I mean isn't being the one pissing off Wall-street good in the election politics?
GOP: But paying for unemployent, that's a costly waste. -AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-
GOP: And we should keep the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy even at the expense of the economy. -AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE.
*pant**pant**pant*
If the government collects a 10% tax on activity A and people respond by reducing their activity A time must the government now find a way to pay for the fact that people are doing the taxable activity less?
GTM's credit card analogy is full of fail. A credit card transaction is a loan. Tax revenues are projected revenue for the govt.
If everyone stopped smoking tomorrow the question would not be "how do we pay for the drop in cig tax revenue?" Instead it would be "how do we pay for the programs that were being funded by cig tax revenues." Or better yet "now that no one is smoking we don't need the programs that were funded by cig taxes!"
Yes, income from taxes is always projected income, but you can still plan around. Businesses make budget decisions based on projected revenue all the time. There's no other way to run a large organization. You can't exactly wait until all the money comes in and then distribute it; that would slow the whole thing to a crawl.
And yes, tax cuts do cost money when you don't reduce the amount of money you spend. The Bush tax cuts absolutely created a massive deficit. Period. There is no arguing that point. Those tax cuts in no way increased revenue.