Skip to main content

View Diary: Disaster row (53 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Is that a good cartoon for election day? (3+ / 0-)

    Just saying, 2 out of 3 of those things happened on Obama's watch . . . .

    •  I like it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Reminds me how competently President Obama handled the disasters as opposed to Shrub.

      I'm a vegan for health reasons - the health of the animals.

      by jackandjill on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 07:14:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Quite frankly, his handling of the oil spill (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ffour, George Hier, mightymouse

        was a massive clusterfuck.

        And he handled Sandy OK after the fact, but it is troubling that he has totally ignored the cause that exacerbated the storm - i.e., global climate change.  Or for those who consider him an 11-D type genius I suppose that he has been so strongly pro-fossil fuels on purpose - namely to give him this beneficial "October Surprise"

        But still, even for the greater good - he has been a vast disappointment on these issues.   Double but, however, I still maintain we should shove this under the rug until he wins re-election tomorrow and then start holding his feet to the fire.

        •  I remember it differently (10+ / 0-)

          In January 2011 the White House oil spill commission released its final report on the causes of the oil spill. They blamed BP and its partners for making a series of cost-cutting decisions and the lack of a system to ensure well safety. They also concluded that the spill was not an isolated incident caused by "rogue industry or government officials", but that "The root causes are systemic and, absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur".

          After its own internal probe, BP admitted that it made mistakes which led to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. In June 2010 BP set up a $20 billion fund to compensate victims of the oil spill. To July 2011, the fund has paid $4.7 billion to 198,475 claimants. In all, the fund has nearly 1 million claims and continues to receive thousands of claims each week.

          In September 2011, the U.S. government published its final investigative report on the accident.

           In essence, that report states that the main cause was the defective cement job, and put most of the fault for the oil spill with BP, also faulting Deepwater Horizon operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton.

          Investigations continue, with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stating on April 24, 2012, "The Deepwater Horizon Task Force is continuing its investigation into the explosion and will hold accountable those who violated the law in connection with the largest environmental disaster in US history".

          The first arrest related to the spill was in April 2012; an engineer was charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly deleting 300 text messages showing BP knew the flow rate was three times higher than initial claims by the company, and knew that Top Kill was unlikely to succeed, but claimed otherwise.

          On October 10, 2012, the United States Coast Guard confirmed that samples taken from a new oil sheen at the site of the Deepwater Horizon was in fact from the Deepwater Horizon.

          I'm a vegan for health reasons - the health of the animals.

          by jackandjill on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 07:23:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  And, unlike the first, the government did a good (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TFinSF, filby, drmah

      job of responding to the problems. We can't predict what will happen but we can be prepared for it when it does. Elections have consequences and, like it or not, there will be another disaster and in less than 4 years. Who do you want behind the big desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

      Attention rich bastards, this is real important,
      I thought you might want to know
      That $5,000 suits don't hide your 5¢ souls.

      by ontheleftcoast on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 07:15:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I already said it once (above) so this might (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        George Hier, mightymouse

        be a bit of piling on - but his response to the oil spill was profoundly disappointing.

        That was really a once in a generation opportunity to get up on the bully pulpit and hammer away at the need to get off oil ASAP - and devote a huge Manhattan Project or Apollo going-to-the-moon effort to do so.    But that was totally frittered away to the extent that Obama bragged during the last debate at the INCREASES in fossil fuel extraction that took place on his watch.

        •  I recall massive campaigning by the right-wing (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          filby, Roadbed Guy

          to defend expansion of drilling contracts as soon as the well was plugged.  Obama was able to put some temporary restrictions on drilling reviews, but not much else politically, from what I recall.

          He certainly put up a flag at the time, but it was quickly shot to pieces by a still-ignorant electorate who felt even more desperate to ensure we had enough oil, IMHO.  By the same time the following year, most white male school parents I knew happened to gripe about this Administration even giving lip service to any form of energy generation that wasn't as pervasive as . . . oil, essentially - they belittled the idea of "alternative" energy sources and smaller cars.  And, this is in NY.  Magnify that by the political pushback up the representative food chain and recall that this President looks for paths towards incremental change . . . then, there's your answer as to how much awareness was made.

          Yet, this Administration continues to add onto vehicle emission targets, attempts more EPA authority over big energy than we've seen for years, etc.  It's not as openly obvious as I would prefer either, but that's rarely been visible in Obama's trademark style.  He will always play to the middle.

          "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

          by wader on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 07:39:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The problem was that the Obama administration (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            George Hier, mightymouse, wader

            proposed massive increase of offshore drilling * before * the explosion / spill  - now puzzle my why they'd possibly do this w/o being double plus sure that the regulatory process in place was airtight?  As compared to completely frazzled as turned out to be the case (and sure, the blame for THAT lies at the feet of the preceding Bush Administration - but still, you DON'T build on a foundation of crumbling sand  . . .)

            Plus, after the spill happened, the Obama Administration relied for weeks and weeks and weeks on BP's clean up and mitigation efforts.  In essence, they had no clue (really, nobody did) how to deal with the disaster.  And yet they had just proposed a massive increase in offshore drilling.  A complete clusterfuck IOW.

            And I do grant you that politically maybe there was no other course available.  But that goes back to the point of whether election day is really  the day to front page this - especially in light of an article that came out a couple weeks ago how millions of potential Obama voters were sitting this election out over issues such as this . . . .

      •  let's not underscore the fact (0+ / 0-)

        that neither bush nor Obama had anything to do with how FEMA did it's job in either situation and Katrina was so much worse in a concentrated area. The south takes hits like sandy every year without much fan-faire. What hit new England wasn't even a very powerful storm compared to many. New England was simply a soft target and ill prepared.

        •  Umm, excuse me? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          George Hier
          What hit new England wasn't even a very powerful storm compared to many.
          It set RECORDS for barometric pressure, storm surge, and more. What planet were you living on when it hit? Here's the opening paragraph in the Wikipedia article on Sandy
          Hurricane Sandy was the largest Atlantic hurricane on record, as well as the second costliest Atlantic hurricane, only surpassed by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The eighteenth named storm and tenth hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season. Hurricane Sandy devastated portions of the Caribbean, Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States in late October 2012. Sandy is estimated in early calculations to have caused damage of at least $20 billion (2012 USD). Preliminary estimates of losses that include business interruption surpass $50 billion (2012 USD), which, if confirmed, would make it the second-costliest Atlantic hurricane in history, behind only Hurricane Katrina.
          Nobody takes a hit like Sandy without much fanfare. Nobody. But it takes an epic fuckwad like W to make the worst of a disaster.

          Attention rich bastards, this is real important,
          I thought you might want to know
          That $5,000 suits don't hide your 5¢ souls.

          by ontheleftcoast on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 10:00:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it might have for the New England area (0+ / 0-)

            but much stronger storms batter the south and Caribbean every year.  The difference is the level of preparedness. Florida is used to the routine. New Jersey, not so much.

            •  You're some piece of work (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              George Hier

              When presented with evidence showing you're flat-out wrong you double down on the mistake. You'd make an awesome Republican.

              Sandy was the largest Atlantic hurricane on record. That includes the storms that hit the South and Caribbean. So, no, those places have not been hit by storms larger than Sandy every year. Nobody in those regions has. True, some aspects of the storms like Katrina or Andrew were greater than Sandy. Wind speed is one example. But the total amount of energy in the storm, the storm surge, and other factors are better indicators of damage and there has been nothing like Sandy before. Unfortunately there will likely be one like it again.

              Attention rich bastards, this is real important,
              I thought you might want to know
              That $5,000 suits don't hide your 5¢ souls.

              by ontheleftcoast on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 10:25:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  large != strong (0+ / 0-)

                please read next time.

                •  also the storm surges were assited by the fact (0+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hidden by:

                  that we had a full moon during all this so we also had high tide which has nothing to do with climate change.

                  •  The donut is for climate change denialism (0+ / 0-)

                    Tides? Next you'll be telling me it's part of the sunspot cycle. Now let me explain some more facts. First, just because the moon/sun alignment occurred doesn't mean it made the tides higher everywhere on the coast when Sandy came ashore. Hell, places like the Atlantic Highlands, NJ had tides a foot higher two weeks before Sandy hit. Second, the high tide is only high for part of the day, the storm hit different places at different times, some during high, some during low, and the surge was devastating regardless of when it hit. Finally, the tide height may have changed by up to 20% but going from 5' to 6' is nothing compared to 20' of storm surge. Stick that in your climate change denial pipe and fuck off.

                    Attention rich bastards, this is real important,
                    I thought you might want to know
                    That $5,000 suits don't hide your 5¢ souls.

                    by ontheleftcoast on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:02:54 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  It's a good reminder of the difference competent (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      response can make.

    •  Obama is handling Sandy quite well. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      filby, mightymouse

      1 out of 2 isn't that bad a track record.

      Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
      Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

      by The Dead Man on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 07:45:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is true. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      filby, Roadbed Guy

      But what better way to anticipate the second term of his administration, than to begin by reminding him about unfinished business -- and the elephant in the room that constitutes global warming?

      I'm hoping -- and I know hope is a fickle ally -- to see President Obama open to policy directions in his second term that he felt too constrained to address in his first term. Maybe we'll see a modicum of attention to global warming. Maybe, without the pressure of campaign fundraising, he might see his way clear to take a more aggressive tack on financial sector regulation -- or attempt to systematically address the massive and ongoing polarization of wealth in this country.

      In any event, the first task is to get him re-elected -- and then the second task is to turn our attention to political pressure on the administration.

      It's like that possibly apocryphal FDR anecdote: "You've got to make me do it."

      Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

      by Dale on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 08:20:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (137)
  • Community (62)
  • 2016 (44)
  • Environment (39)
  • Elections (38)
  • Culture (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Education (25)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Labor (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (24)
  • Barack Obama (23)
  • Media (22)
  • GOP (21)
  • Civil Rights (21)
  • Economy (20)
  • Affordable Care Act (19)
  • Spam (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site