Louisiana keeps drawing the shortest straw in the “screwed by natural disasters” category.
Oh, wait.
This oil-laced genocide in the Gulf isn’t natural. It was caused by ruthless, unrestricted money-grubbers who didn’t give a damn how much it cost to fill up our gas tanks. They brushed shoulders with regulators, paid off policy makers, and even went as far as to self-proclaim themselves a “green” company.
So green that they’ve been pumping thousands of gallons of chemical dispersant to rid the evidence from their crime scene.
British Petroleum initiated a cleanup effort in which a heavy fluid called Corexit was pumped into the well. Critics from the Environmental Protection Agency have claimed the dispersant isn’t safe for sea life, and an underwater investigation revealed footage of the dispersant breaking the oil into millions of small droplets as deep as 25 feet. The oil- and chemical-infused droplets continue to poison the food supply of the bio-diverse ecosystem.
Tensions between BP (which Illinois senator Richard Durbin now refers to as “Beyond Patience”), the Obama administration and the state of Louisiana heated up on Tuesday when 65 miles of ocean beaches saw a new color of water wash ashore. As crude petroleum made its way into marshy bays that fishermen have relied on for generations, the outcry of the public increased a few decibels.
Supplies to Louisiana have been inadequate. An insufficient number of booms have been deployed, the Louisiana pelican (the state bird) is dyed with crude, and fishermen might not return to work for 35 years. For states like Louisiana and Alabama that have low GDP rates, this is devastating news. And to make matters worse, BP isn’t even going to be paying for the full cleanup.
No, I didn’t stutter. As of right now, damages to both the Gulf and the coastlines are estimated to reach as much as $14 billion. Currently there is a law in place that caps BP’s responsibility at only $75 million. And guess who’s going to make up the difference?
You will. The taxpaying public will pay for BP’s damages to the Gulf of Mexico and the Southeastern United States.
Democrats have tried twice now to pass the “Big Oil Bailout Prevention Liability Act,” which would raise the cap on BP’s responsibility from 75 million to 10 billion, but Republicans have blocked it. United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources member Lisa Murkowski even urged Congress “not to overreact legislatively to the Gulf of Mexico Spill.” If they do, she might lose her $300,000 campaign check coming from the oil and gas industry.
It sure does pay to sell out to oil criminals. If only the beaten and battered Southeast could get the same princess treatment as Sen. Murkowski, R-Alaska.
Already, BP is handing out $5,000 restitution checks to Gulf coast fishermen. All they ask is that they don’t sue. After the Exxon-Valdez oil spill, it took as long as two decades for fishermen to get any money for the devastation of their businesses and hard work. The philosophy behind BP hand-outs is that by convincing predominantly Vietnamese fishermen who can’t read contracts that it’s “better now than later,” they will simultaneously protect themselves from legal and media troubles.
The long list of BP shortcuts never ends.
To make matters worse, the Alaska Pipeline had a spill recently, and a petroleum tanker off the coast of Thailand just let off a huge crude load. I’m noticing a trend here — maybe we’re using too much oil?
The Minerals Management Service thinks “too much” is out of the question. Despite the Gulf catastrophe, seven new permits for offshore drilling as well as five environmental waivers have been granted in the past month. Even an arctic drilling proposal off the northwest coast of Alaska was granted. If a spill happens in Alaska, the West Coast’s ban on offshore drilling by our senators will surrender quickly to ocean currents.
Our addiction to oil is getting hopelessly out of hand. Besides investing in clean energy, our administration needs to put a halt on all future drilling projects. Supporters of offshore drilling have argued that we need to drill domestically so that we don’t support corrupt countries. I too think we shouldn’t support corrupt autocracies like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. But why does that imply we need more oil?
If oil companies stopped buying oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, we would lose about 24 percent of our oil imports. The price of gas would rise and people most likely would be discouraged from driving. The oil companies could invest the money they would have forked over to rich serfs in clean-energy projects and have a head start at dominating a new market. This would satisfy both free-market Republicans and “gas-tax” proposing Democrats. Unite both parties for economic growth and environmental progress? Sounds like a deal to me.
Offshore drilling has a grim and dark fate. It has already taken an unfathomable toll on the Gulf and Southeastern coastlines, and the same agency that is supposed to be the oil rig “watchdog” is also the oil industry pimp that grants environmental waivers. I’d be a lunatic if I suggested we change the system overnight. But what I do suggest is that we halt offshore drilling and start our shift away from oil dependence. We need to tell politicians of both parties to start being leaders.
The fate of our oceans, industries and planet rests in your hands. What are you going to do about it?
[email protected]