|
PATH: BS | Business | Industry
Top 10 Crazy Facts About The BP Gulf Oil Disaster
Posted by Pile
(17688 views) [E-Mail link]
|
[Environment] [Industry] |
It's been more than seven weeks since BP's offshore oil rig, Deepwater Horizon, exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. Since then, crude oil has been hemorrhaging into ocean waters and wreaking unknown havoc on our ecosystem -- unknown because there is no accurate estimate of how many barrels of oil are contaminating the Gulf.
Though BP officially admits to only a few thousand barrels spilled each day, expert estimates peg the damage at 60,000 barrels or over 2.5 million gallons daily. (Perhaps we'd know more if BP hadn't barred independent engineers from inspecting the breach.) Measures to quell the gusher have proved lackluster at best, and unlike the country's last big oil spill -- Exxon-Valdez in 1989 -- the oil is coming from the ground, not a tanker, so we have no idea how much more oil could continue to pollute the Gulf's waters.
The Deepwater Horizon disaster reminds us what can happen -- and will continue to happen -- when corporate malfeasance and neglect meet governmental regulatory failure.
The corporate media is tracking the disaster with front-page articles and nightly news headlines every day (if it bleeds, or spills, it leads!), but the under-reported aspects to this nightmarish tale paint the most chilling picture of the actors and actions behind the catastrophe. In no particular order, here are 10 things about the BP spill you may not know and may not want to know -- but you should. |
READ MORE | 1 comment since 2010-08-17 10:43:24 | Comment on this Article |
Exxon Mobil Acquires Stanford University
Posted by Pile
(12080 views) [E-Mail link]
|
[Industry] |
"Exxon Mobil has teamed up with Stanford University to find breakthrough technologies that deliver more energy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions," enthuses a TV commercial by the oil giant. Under Exxon Mobil's partnership with Stanford, first announced in 2002, the university "will get up to $100 million from the company over 10 years to fund climate and energy research."
After seeing the ads, major Stanford donor Steve Bing "decided to rescind a promised $2.5 million donation to the school." He is also "asking other major philanthropists to reconsider their promises to give to the Stanford cause," and is pushing for "an end to the 4-year-old ad campaign." Bing's advisor on climate issues said, "Exxon Mobil is trying to greenwash itself, and it's using Stanford as its brush." A Stanford spokesperson countered, "We are proud of our work on seeking solutions to serious energy and environmental problems and our collaborations in these areas with a variety of private and non-profit organizations." An earlier Exxon print ad, carrying the Stanford seal, "suggested that scientists were debating the cause of global warming." |
READ MORE |
Bush Leaves Rest Of World In Smoke
Posted by Pile
(9954 views) [E-Mail link]
|
[Industry] |
President George W. Bush ruled out any accord on climate change at the Group of Eight summit that involves limiting carbon emissions as a threat to the U.S. economy.
U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is hosting leaders of the largest industrial nations in Gleneagles, Scotland July 6-8, is seeking agreements to cut poverty in Africa and curb climate change, which he describes as the single greatest threat facing the world. Blair is asking G-8 partners to recognize the science of climate change and wants a plan to deal with the problem, according to his representative at pre-summit talks in London over the weekend.
When he was elected president in 2000, Bush rejected the 1997 Kyoto treaty that sets targets for developed nations to reduce emissions of gases linked to global warming. He said any similar proposal this week would be rejected.
Interesting how America, at least according to GW, has an economy that is precariously centered around select polluting industries, and any attempt to curtail the belching of their filth into the atmosphere would put the entire economy in dire straights... or so the Bush administration implies.
Now maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm naive and idealistic, but I'd like to think that Americans are resourceful and adaptive. I believe if all the oil disappeared tomorrow, we'd have some alternative in place within months -- we'd get by, and maybe some people would shift jobs, but people would still be employed and industry paradigms would change, but we'd survive. This is the problem though. There's no incentive to develop alternate non-polluting industry when you have a president who is in the oil business and he and his whole administration profit from pollution. And yet the average American doesn't seem to care. |
READ MORE | No comments | Comment on this Article |
|