Glenn Ford with Black Agenda couldn't have made it any clearer: leaving BP in charge of the oil spill response, and make no mistake, they are in charge, despite Coast Guard declarations to the contrary, has left the four gulf states, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, an enforced, corporate state in the midst of a major catastrophe. Creating and finding ways to fight back are key here. Let's consider the implications:
The BP Open Houses, conducted by BP as "informational" gatherings for those directly impacted by the river of oil, bring together the agencies that are in collusion with BP to enforce the corporate state response to this catastrophe. Let's name them: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Coast Guard, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and Homeland Security all have been present at these open houses. Also present have been a variety of Louisiana state agencies. These open houses have circulated throughout the parishes closest to the coast in Louisiana.
I've attended four of these Open Houses. Here are the state agencies that I can comfortably say are in various stages of collusion with BP: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and La. Wildlife and Fisheries. I say various stages, because it is quite obvious that officials from those departments taking part in the Open Houses demonstrate a great deal more willingness, at the Open Houses, to express points of view that coincide with BP. When I call the agencies directly, and I've called both agencies, the responses are much more circumspect and thoughtful.
As someone with a background and interest in sociology, I can't help but be fascinated at the group think that has developed, encompassing all of the federal and state agencies to some degree.
There was the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries official at a recent BP Open House who claimed the oil was not coming into the marsh below the surface of the water and below the booms. This of course contradicts most reports that the oil, emulsified to various degrees because of the dispersants, is indeed, "sneaking" into the marsh below the surface of the water, rendering the booms virtually ineffective.
There was the Louisiana DEQ official at the Open House that justified the use of the dispersant. He said the huge plumes that were being created in the Gulf are not toxic, according to the most recent research by NOAA. This has since been contradicted by NOAA's first report of ongoing research on the subsurface application of dispersant. NOAA expresses mild concern over oxygen depletion, but curiously, does not talk about the gigantic plumes separate from the site where oil is leaking.
The most polite description I've heard of NOAA director Janet Lubchenco, as a "careerist", doesn't begin to underscore the fact that NOAA, under the direction of Lubchenco, has provided cover for BP to 1. use dispersant 2. delay and diminish concern over the plumes 3. give the reassurance of study to ease concerns, while BP continues to pour dispersant into the gulf.
Weeks ago, the residents of the Gulf Coast needed unity from federal and state agencies and institutions to insure either an end to the following, or make it happen: 1. insure the protection for oil spill workers' health 2. stop the gagging of oil spill workers 3. stop the massive use of dispersant 4. create an open and transparent process that is directing the oil leak response 5. guarantee access of the media, both corporate and independent, to oil recovery operations 5. insure that the federal government marshalls all available resources, including accepting help from other countries.
Federal agencies have colluded with BP instead to protect it seems, the bottom line of the company: minimizing the impact on the company, and minimizing the political and material costs of BP and the feds. How has this been accomplished? Limited access for workers and the media to public health information, workers not being required to wear respirators, limited access of the media and public to view recovery operations, and virtually no transparency in this recovery response process.
Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser was recently on C-Span, calling out the vacuous levels of command-confusion that continue. I believe this "no one in charge mentality" is purposeful. If there are no clear levels of command, then BP can simply continue to deny resources. Plaquemines Parish resident Kindra Arnesen, who testified at the Gulf Emergency Summit, reported from behind enemy lines, so to speak. She sat in on a morning meeting of BP, federal and state officials and heard a BP official say "We have to cut costs".
Horrors are being perpetrated as a result of the vacuous command structure: Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser on C-Span pointed out that the subcontractor hired to clean the oiled birds was leaving them in their cages for 4-5 days, before cleaning them, under the auspices of "letting them calm down". Nungesser said this issue is being corrected. Also recently there are reports of BP burning oiled turtles and other marine creatures alive, rather than taking the trouble to rescue them before burning the oil.
I overheard one Coast Guard official at the Orleans Parish Open House state to folks there that there have been no massive fish kills as a result of this oil leak. This same Coast Guard officials, not 15 minutes earlier, had turned to me and said, "Trust me". I confronted him openly on his "no massive fish kill" statement, citing the testimony I have heard from fishermen to the contrary. This "no massive fish kill" propaganda I heard from a NOAA consultant at the St. Bernard Parish Open House. In so many words, she made the claim that the dispersant is not killing marine life. She also claimed the oil coming into the marsh was not oil emulsified from contact with dispersant. How she could make that claim is one for the books. I googled her name, she is a scientist, and low and behold, not only does she work for California Fish and Game, but she is also part of a "Dispersants Working Group", along with BP and other oil companies, that does research as to the effectiveness of dispersants.
If you go to the Dispersants Working Group web site, notice Louisiana State University and the University of New Hampshire present in that group as well, the array of environmental groups, and the array of federal agencies, including NOAA. This is one example as to why the one response federal agencies all seem unified on is the use of the toxic dispersant in massive quantities. The suppression of the academic community on the use of dispersants is directly tied into corporate funding and NOAA's influence in the direction of funding. Just do a google search of NOAA funded research, and you'll see what I mean.
If you explore that "Dispersants Working Group" site, other university participants jump out, including Dr. Ronald Tjeerdema with the University of California, who if you recall, recently led a 50 person panel of scientists who sanctioned the continued use of Corexit for the EPA.
I'm not a scientist, and I haven't studied the research results that have been funded as part of the dispersants working group. However, it is interesting to note that some of these same research participants have not spoken out against dispersant, despite the subject matter of their research. It is also interesting to note that the EPA does not appear to openly utilize this research, as they are conducting their own study right now, as though starting from scratch.
Some of the research on dispersants and oil spills, conducted by this dispersants working group, may be significant. It would be interesting to have scientists, not connected with the funding sources, evaluate this research. It is interesting to note however that the research produced by this group has not created significant, scientific dissent on the use of the dispersant.
The silencing of dissent among most scientists translates into an untrammeled propaganda campaign by the EPA, NOAH and BP, particularly on the use of dispersants. How do we the people counter-act this? The one response I keep coming back to is the one many of us are focused on: a people's response to this crisis, through the Emergency Committee to Stop the Gulf Oil Disaster, is serving to push the discussion leftward, demanding transparency and demanding an "all hands on deck" approach. It is providing a platform, among others, for organizing. In addition, there is the need to challenge scientists and universities to declare their independence from sources of funding. Scientists everywhere should be challenging the lack of science that is being used to justify the use of Corexit, by the EPA. Scientists everywhere should be challenging the research that is funded by the very companies that engage in negligent and criminal environmental behaviors.
It is interesting to note that in this McClatchy article, not a single scientist quoted calls for the end of the use of dispersants. Those quoted do call for a greater sense of urgency and coordination of research, and some want a piece of the BP funded research of $500 million.
The EPA originally, on its approved dispersant list, posted data from the companies themselves that manufacture dispersants. There has been little testing of the dispersants, until now, by the EPA. The Gulf of Mexico is serving as a gigantic laboratory for the massive use of dispersant. This experimentation on marine and human life recalls previous horrors of unwilling subjects, in our nation's history, exposed to toxic chemicals and diseases. Often these experiments were secret and hidden for decades from public view.
Here we have a situation in which an entire ecosystem, as well as the people who depend on this ecosystem, are openly and publicly, this is not a hidden experiment, exposed to a toxic chemical that toxicologist Dr. William Sawyer likened to "deodorized kerosene". Marine toxicologist Ricky Ott has been courageously on this from day one, advocating to stop the use of the dispersant, and warning gulf coast communities in her travels all through the gulf coast.
When Larry Everest and I disrupted the Orleans Parish BP Open house, we served to help create an opportunity for folks to openly ask questions of the Coast Guard and BP, particularly on the use of dispersant, and comment publicly. Usually, the way these open houses have been conducted, has not allowed any public comments or public questions of officials. There are usually just opening remarks from politicians, the Coast Guard, and then usually some sort of public apology from a BP official.
This open house was to be a bit different however. Before New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu could conclude his opening remarks, I confronted Landrieu on his sister, Senator Mary Landrieu's, declarations as recently as March that offshore drilling is "safe". Mitch informed all of us that his name "is not Mary", and he believes the Horizon rig was not safe. Larry Everest then intervened and demanded a public townhall question and answer session, and then read our demands from the Emergency Gulf Summit out loud in front of everyone there. The Coast Guard, to answer our questions, re-read a portion of the demands out loud. Larry turned to me and said, "You know, this is pretty heavy that they're having to read our demands out loud". Indeed.
Next, when the BP official began his public apology, one woman said loudly, "Can you just stop with the apologies by now?". There were several informed public commentators, who pointed out the toxicity of the dispersant, and the fact that BP has used bioremediation in other spills, but not on this one. This same woman spoke to me afterwards and said that we're just going to have to apply bioremediation on the oil utilizing our own efforts.
The byproduct of sugarcane, bagasse, readily available in Louisiana, has been widely studied as an effective method of bioremediation, and should be googled by anyone interested in the subject. There are other forms of bioremediation as well and worthy of discussion.
This illustrates how angry and motivated many are to take matters into their own hands. If we come together in this discussion, we are stronger and more effective. This may finally spark the beginning of a much more active environmental movement in this country that is separate from the non-profit movement that has been too often "pragmatic" collusionist in nature. A People's Environmental Movement, taking direct action wherever you live, is exactly what the doctor ordered.
The fracking of the sediment for natural gas exploration, threatening our country's clean water aquifers, is in need of immediate attention of an emergency nature, much like the gulf river of oil.
This situation may also spark much more independent action by scientists and universities, and we can encourage this with very vocal call outs for assistance. We should also challenge the corrupting nature of the sources of funding that is taking place to silence dissent to the horror unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico. The life of our planet may depend on this.