Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Friday, May 10, 2013
Thursday, October 13, 2011
LIFE IS FULL OF INTERESTING JOBS!!!
I am amazed at how many blooms there were in my Garden on October the 6th and now I can count them to find out who won a Hollywood Survival Kit Pocket Pack. You can see the pack and its contents at http://www.hollywoodsurvivalkit.com
It is slow work counting...LOL
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Today's nature
The houses along the street are covered in snow.
A foot high winter wonderland created in an hour.
Now the shovelers come all bundled up and eager,
for the wind is low and the light as clear as the air is fresh.
Snow flies and techniques are varied; a pleasant sight…
How wonderful to have eyes that can see what is…
And now the sidewalks are wet from the heat of the day;
dark brushstrokes separating snow filled yards and snow deep streets.
A foot high winter wonderland created in an hour.
Now the shovelers come all bundled up and eager,
for the wind is low and the light as clear as the air is fresh.
Snow flies and techniques are varied; a pleasant sight…
How wonderful to have eyes that can see what is…
And now the sidewalks are wet from the heat of the day;
dark brushstrokes separating snow filled yards and snow deep streets.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
The cost of safety for G8 and G 20
The federal government put the G20 in the middle of Toronto and the cost is below, almost 1 billion dollars. What a waste of money this is when you consider the poor people in Canada and how better to use this money. It is irresponsible to do this and shows a complete disrespect for the people of the country. But it does show the ego of the PM and his need to look big.
OTTAWA (AFP) - Canada has boosted its budget for security costs for upcoming G8 and G20 summits in and around Toronto next month, with some estimates approaching a billion dollars, officials said.The costs were original estimated at 179 million Canadian dollars, but an additional 654 million Canadian dollars was requested Tuesday, for a total of 833 million Canadian dollars (780 million US).
The figures were outlined in a document presented to parliament. They include 321.5 million Canadian dollars for federal police, 262.6 million for the public safety department, 63.1 million for the military and 6.7 million for other agencies.But officials said the costs could be even higher than requested so far.
"Based on a medium threat assessment, we're budgeting up to 930 million (Canadian) dollars," Christopher McCluskey, spokesman for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, told AFP.
"It costs what it costs," he said. "We're prepared as hosts to respond to any possible threat and ensure all of the delegates' safety."
The Group of Eight summit is to take place in Huntsville in the Muskoka region north of Toronto on June 25-26 and be immediately followed by a G20 summit in Toronto on June 26-27.
OTTAWA (AFP) - Canada has boosted its budget for security costs for upcoming G8 and G20 summits in and around Toronto next month, with some estimates approaching a billion dollars, officials said.The costs were original estimated at 179 million Canadian dollars, but an additional 654 million Canadian dollars was requested Tuesday, for a total of 833 million Canadian dollars (780 million US).
The figures were outlined in a document presented to parliament. They include 321.5 million Canadian dollars for federal police, 262.6 million for the public safety department, 63.1 million for the military and 6.7 million for other agencies.But officials said the costs could be even higher than requested so far.
"Based on a medium threat assessment, we're budgeting up to 930 million (Canadian) dollars," Christopher McCluskey, spokesman for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, told AFP.
"It costs what it costs," he said. "We're prepared as hosts to respond to any possible threat and ensure all of the delegates' safety."
The Group of Eight summit is to take place in Huntsville in the Muskoka region north of Toronto on June 25-26 and be immediately followed by a G20 summit in Toronto on June 26-27.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
The International Cartel that rules us.
Cartel - Definition
A group of companies or countries which collectively attempt to affect market prices by controlling production and marketing. Illegal in the United States and the European Union. Very few major cartels exist; the most prominent example is OPEC, a cartel which can not be considered illegal because it is made up of sovereign states, not companies. also called trust.
Merridian Webster
cartel
Main Entry: car·tel
Pronunciation: \kär-ˈtel\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, letter of defiance, from Old Italian cartello, literally, placard, from carta leaf of paper — more at card
Date: 1692
1 : a written agreement between belligerent nations
2 : a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices
3 : a combination of political groups for common action
I have been trying for some time now to understand what is going on in the world as we are being internationalized. In Canada it seems we are losing personal freedoms and these are being arbitrated outside our sovereign state. Hence I must conclude that our country is under other’s control. I do not feel comfortable with this idea.
I think the political/Corporate Cartel which includes all the major corporations and the banking empire of the world is working on its own behalf and not on the behalf of people.
The case below is a report from England in the Daily Telegraph. If you take the time to read it you will see that the winners of this fight should it be the BMA and the Pharmaceuticals is certainly not in the best interest of the people of England. Which is my point entirely.
The efforts of the International Cartel in every country of the world, is to direct the masses through media and marginalize all alternate competitors in the name of profits: Banking, chemical companies, military manufacturers, energy, etc. In the end it will mean less freedom of choice for individuals everywhere.
At this time peaceful people the world over have taken to the internet and the streets to bring the information forward and do what they can to influence governments through petitions and at the voting booths that this must stop. It is an uphill battle against a stacked deck.
If this fails I fear for the world will become a battleground as people rise up to claim their freedoms from this oppressive cartel.
Ayn Rand said it all:
" We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”
Following is the newspaper article. Read it and recognize the propaganda it spews in its efforts to denigrate and destroy this financially viable safe and successful alternate to their expensive questionable cures that have side effects which can even cause death.
Homeopathy is witchcraft, say doctors
Homeopathy is "witchcraft" and the National Health Service should not pay for it, the British Medical Association has declared.
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Published: 9:00PM BST 15 May 2010
Homeopathy is witchcraft, say doctors
The BMA has previously expressed scepticism about homoeopathy Photo: GETTY
Hundreds of members of the BMA have passed a motion denouncing the use of the alternative medicine, saying taxpayers should not foot the bill for remedies with no scientific basis to support them.
The BMA has previously expressed scepticism about homoeopathy, arguing that the rationing body, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence should examine the evidence base and make a definitive ruling about the use of the remedies in the NHS.
Related Articles
*
Top-up payments in NHS have opened 'Pandora's Box' doctors warn
*
NHS pays for botched cosmetic surgery abroad, warn surgeons
*
Homeopath to the Queen 'risking patient health' by selling swine flu remedy
*
GPs to MPs: Dozens of doctors to stand for Parliament at next election
*
Swine flu could become resistant to Tamiflu because of over-prescribing
*
Swine flu: Government website collapses under demand
Now, the annual conference of junior doctors has gone further, with a vote overwhelmingly supporting a blanket ban, and an end to all placements for trainee doctors which teach them homeopathic principles.
Dr Tom Dolphin, deputy chairman of the BMA's junior doctors committee in England told the conference: "Homeopathy is witchcraft. It is a disgrace that nestling between the National Hospital for Neurology and Great Ormond Street [in London] there is a National Hospital for Homeopathy which is paid for by the NHS".
The alternative medicine, devised in the 18th century by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann, is based on a theory that substances which cause symptoms in a healthy person can, when vastly diluted, cure the same problems in a sick person.
Proponents say the resulting remedy retains a "memory" of the original ingredient – a concept dismissed by scientists.
Latest figures show 54,000 patients are treated each year at four NHS homeopathic hospitals in London, Glasgow, Bristol and Liverpool, at an estimated cost of £4 million.
A fifth hospital in Tunbridge Wells in Kent was forced to close last year when local NHS funders stopped paying for treatments.
Gordon Lehany, chairman of the BMA's junior doctors committee in Scotland said it was wrong that some junior doctors were spending part of their training rotations in homeopathic hospitals, learning principles which had no place in science.
He told the conference in London last weekend: "At a time when the NHS is struggling for cash we should be focusing on treatments that have proven benefit. If people wish to pay for homoeopathy that's their choice but it shouldn't be paid for on the NHS until there is evidence that it works."
The motion was supported by BMA Chairman Dr Hamish Meldrum, though it will only become official policy of the whole organisation if it is agreed by their full conference next month.
In February a report by MPs said the alternative medicine should not receive state funding.
The Commons science and technology committee also said vials of the remedies should not be allowed to use phrases like "used to treat" in their marketing, as consumers might think there is clinical evidence that they work.
In evidence to the committee, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain said there was no possible reason why such treatments, marketed by an industry worth £40 million in this country, could be effective scientifically.
Advocates of homoeopathy say even if the effect of the remedies is to work as a placebo, they are chosen by thousands of people, and do not carry the risks and side effects of many mainstream medicines.
A survey carried out at England's NHS homeopathic hospitals found 70 per cent of patients said they felt some improvement after undergoing treatment.
Crystal Sumner, chief executive of the British Homeopathic Association (BHA), said attempts to stop the NHS funding alternative medicines ignored the views of the public, especially patients with chronic conditions.
She said: " Homeopathy helps thousands of people who are not helped by conventional care. We don't want it to be a substitute for mainstream care, but when people are thinking about making cuts to funding, I think they need to consider public satisfaction, and see that homoeopathy has a place in medicine."
She said junior doctors' calls for an end to any training placements based in homeopathic hospitals ignored the lessons alternative medicine could provide, in terms of how to diagnose patients.
Estimates on how much the NHS spends on homoeopathy vary. The BHA says the NHS spends about £4 million a year on homeopathic services, although the Department of Health says spending on the medicines themselves is just £152,000 a year.
Two weeks ago, a charity founded by the Prince of Wales to promotes alternative medicines announced plans to shut down, days after a former senior official was arrested on suspicion of fraud and money laundering.
The Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health said its plans to close had been brought forward as a result of a fraud investigation at the charity.
George Gray, a former chief executive of the organisation, and his wife Gillian were arrested by Scotland Yard officers last month in an early-morning raid on their home in North London.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/alternative medicine/7113054/Homeopathy-medicine-thats-hard-to-swallow.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7279872/Homoeopathy-should-not-be-funded-on-the-NHS-says-report-by-MPs.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7279872/Homoeopathy-should-not-be-funded-on-the-NHS-says-report-by-MPs.html
A group of companies or countries which collectively attempt to affect market prices by controlling production and marketing. Illegal in the United States and the European Union. Very few major cartels exist; the most prominent example is OPEC, a cartel which can not be considered illegal because it is made up of sovereign states, not companies. also called trust.
Merridian Webster
cartel
Main Entry: car·tel
Pronunciation: \kär-ˈtel\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, letter of defiance, from Old Italian cartello, literally, placard, from carta leaf of paper — more at card
Date: 1692
1 : a written agreement between belligerent nations
2 : a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices
3 : a combination of political groups for common action
I have been trying for some time now to understand what is going on in the world as we are being internationalized. In Canada it seems we are losing personal freedoms and these are being arbitrated outside our sovereign state. Hence I must conclude that our country is under other’s control. I do not feel comfortable with this idea.
I think the political/Corporate Cartel which includes all the major corporations and the banking empire of the world is working on its own behalf and not on the behalf of people.
The case below is a report from England in the Daily Telegraph. If you take the time to read it you will see that the winners of this fight should it be the BMA and the Pharmaceuticals is certainly not in the best interest of the people of England. Which is my point entirely.
The efforts of the International Cartel in every country of the world, is to direct the masses through media and marginalize all alternate competitors in the name of profits: Banking, chemical companies, military manufacturers, energy, etc. In the end it will mean less freedom of choice for individuals everywhere.
At this time peaceful people the world over have taken to the internet and the streets to bring the information forward and do what they can to influence governments through petitions and at the voting booths that this must stop. It is an uphill battle against a stacked deck.
If this fails I fear for the world will become a battleground as people rise up to claim their freedoms from this oppressive cartel.
Ayn Rand said it all:
" We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”
Following is the newspaper article. Read it and recognize the propaganda it spews in its efforts to denigrate and destroy this financially viable safe and successful alternate to their expensive questionable cures that have side effects which can even cause death.
Homeopathy is witchcraft, say doctors
Homeopathy is "witchcraft" and the National Health Service should not pay for it, the British Medical Association has declared.
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Published: 9:00PM BST 15 May 2010
Homeopathy is witchcraft, say doctors
The BMA has previously expressed scepticism about homoeopathy Photo: GETTY
Hundreds of members of the BMA have passed a motion denouncing the use of the alternative medicine, saying taxpayers should not foot the bill for remedies with no scientific basis to support them.
The BMA has previously expressed scepticism about homoeopathy, arguing that the rationing body, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence should examine the evidence base and make a definitive ruling about the use of the remedies in the NHS.
Related Articles
*
Top-up payments in NHS have opened 'Pandora's Box' doctors warn
*
NHS pays for botched cosmetic surgery abroad, warn surgeons
*
Homeopath to the Queen 'risking patient health' by selling swine flu remedy
*
GPs to MPs: Dozens of doctors to stand for Parliament at next election
*
Swine flu could become resistant to Tamiflu because of over-prescribing
*
Swine flu: Government website collapses under demand
Now, the annual conference of junior doctors has gone further, with a vote overwhelmingly supporting a blanket ban, and an end to all placements for trainee doctors which teach them homeopathic principles.
Dr Tom Dolphin, deputy chairman of the BMA's junior doctors committee in England told the conference: "Homeopathy is witchcraft. It is a disgrace that nestling between the National Hospital for Neurology and Great Ormond Street [in London] there is a National Hospital for Homeopathy which is paid for by the NHS".
The alternative medicine, devised in the 18th century by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann, is based on a theory that substances which cause symptoms in a healthy person can, when vastly diluted, cure the same problems in a sick person.
Proponents say the resulting remedy retains a "memory" of the original ingredient – a concept dismissed by scientists.
Latest figures show 54,000 patients are treated each year at four NHS homeopathic hospitals in London, Glasgow, Bristol and Liverpool, at an estimated cost of £4 million.
A fifth hospital in Tunbridge Wells in Kent was forced to close last year when local NHS funders stopped paying for treatments.
Gordon Lehany, chairman of the BMA's junior doctors committee in Scotland said it was wrong that some junior doctors were spending part of their training rotations in homeopathic hospitals, learning principles which had no place in science.
He told the conference in London last weekend: "At a time when the NHS is struggling for cash we should be focusing on treatments that have proven benefit. If people wish to pay for homoeopathy that's their choice but it shouldn't be paid for on the NHS until there is evidence that it works."
The motion was supported by BMA Chairman Dr Hamish Meldrum, though it will only become official policy of the whole organisation if it is agreed by their full conference next month.
In February a report by MPs said the alternative medicine should not receive state funding.
The Commons science and technology committee also said vials of the remedies should not be allowed to use phrases like "used to treat" in their marketing, as consumers might think there is clinical evidence that they work.
In evidence to the committee, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain said there was no possible reason why such treatments, marketed by an industry worth £40 million in this country, could be effective scientifically.
Advocates of homoeopathy say even if the effect of the remedies is to work as a placebo, they are chosen by thousands of people, and do not carry the risks and side effects of many mainstream medicines.
A survey carried out at England's NHS homeopathic hospitals found 70 per cent of patients said they felt some improvement after undergoing treatment.
Crystal Sumner, chief executive of the British Homeopathic Association (BHA), said attempts to stop the NHS funding alternative medicines ignored the views of the public, especially patients with chronic conditions.
She said: " Homeopathy helps thousands of people who are not helped by conventional care. We don't want it to be a substitute for mainstream care, but when people are thinking about making cuts to funding, I think they need to consider public satisfaction, and see that homoeopathy has a place in medicine."
She said junior doctors' calls for an end to any training placements based in homeopathic hospitals ignored the lessons alternative medicine could provide, in terms of how to diagnose patients.
Estimates on how much the NHS spends on homoeopathy vary. The BHA says the NHS spends about £4 million a year on homeopathic services, although the Department of Health says spending on the medicines themselves is just £152,000 a year.
Two weeks ago, a charity founded by the Prince of Wales to promotes alternative medicines announced plans to shut down, days after a former senior official was arrested on suspicion of fraud and money laundering.
The Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health said its plans to close had been brought forward as a result of a fraud investigation at the charity.
George Gray, a former chief executive of the organisation, and his wife Gillian were arrested by Scotland Yard officers last month in an early-morning raid on their home in North London.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/alternative medicine/7113054/Homeopathy-medicine-thats-hard-to-swallow.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7279872/Homoeopathy-should-not-be-funded-on-the-NHS-says-report-by-MPs.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7279872/Homoeopathy-should-not-be-funded-on-the-NHS-says-report-by-MPs.html
Thursday, May 13, 2010
John Board on air interview.
This is the clip from "Liquid Lunch" at ThatChannel.com where John Board and Dee Nicholson discuss how the global governance system is being slid into place and what it means to the average joe... as well as touching on the G8 and G20 conferences here in Toronto and Huntsville in June....
Enjoy, people.... any of you who wish to post/share this have permission to do so.
John
a post from blip.tv
http://blip.tv/file/3616783
Enjoy, people.... any of you who wish to post/share this have permission to do so.
John
a post from blip.tv
http://blip.tv/file/3616783
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
U.S. exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study
The citizens and the country are not being protected by our Governments.
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
The Interior Department exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely.
This Story
*
BP caps one of three oil leaks in gulf
*
Environmental groups seize oil spill as momentum for pushing changes
*
U.S. exempted BP rigs from impact analysis
*
Scientists envision devastation for gulf
*
Oil slick brings big business for booms
*
Deepwater Horizon explosion in Gulf of Mexico sends oil slick toward U.S. coastline
*
By any measure, Gulf oil spill is big
*
Oil slick arrives in Chandeleur Sound
View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story
The decision by the department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) to give BP's lease at Deepwater Horizon a "categorical exclusion" from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on April 6, 2009 -- and BP's lobbying efforts just 11 days before the explosion to expand those exemptions -- show that neither federal regulators nor the company anticipated an accident of the scale of the one unfolding in the gulf.
Rethinking the rules
Now, environmentalists and some key senators are calling for a reassessment of safety requirements for offshore drilling.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who has supported offshore oil drilling in the past, said, "I suspect you're going to see an entirely different regime once people have a chance to sit back and take a look at how do we anticipate and clean up these potential environmental consequences" from drilling.
BP spokesman Toby Odone said the company's appeal for NEPA waivers in the past "was based on the spill and incident-response history in the Gulf of Mexico." Once the various investigations of the new spill have been completed, he added, "the causes of this incident can be applied to determine any changes in the regulatory regime that are required to protect the environment."
"I'm of the opinion that boosterism breeds complacency and complacency breeds disaster," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) on Tuesday. "That, in my opinion, is what happened."
Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said it is important to learn the cause of the accident before pursuing a major policy change. "While the conversation has shifted, the energy reality has not," Gerard said. "The American economy still relies on oil and gas."
While the MMS assessed the environmental impact of drilling in the central and western Gulf of Mexico on three occasions in 2007 -- including a specific evaluation of BP's Lease 206 at Deepwater Horizon -- in each case it played down the prospect of a major blowout.
In one assessment, the agency estimated that "a large oil spill" from a platform would not exceed a total of 1,500 barrels and that a "deepwater spill," occurring "offshore of the inner Continental shelf," would not reach the coast. In another assessment, it defined the most likely large spill as totaling 4,600 barrels and forecast that it would largely dissipate within 10 days and would be unlikely to make landfall.
"They never did an analysis that took into account what turns out to be the very real possibility of a serious spill," said Holly Doremus, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley who has reviewed the documents.
The MMS mandates that companies drilling in some areas identify under NEPA what could reduce a project's environmental impact. But Interior Department spokesman Matt Lee-Ashley said the service grants between 250 and 400 waivers a year for Gulf of Mexico projects. He added that Interior has now established the "first ever" board to examine safety procedures for offshore drilling. It will report back within 30 days on BP's oil spill and will conduct "a broader review of safety issues," Lee-Ashley said.
BP's exploration plan for Lease 206, which calls the prospect of an oil spill "unlikely," stated that "no mitigation measures other than those required by regulation and BP policy will be employed to avoid, diminish or eliminate potential impacts on environmental resources."
While the plan included a 13-page environmental impact analysis, it minimized the prospect of any serious damage associated with a spill, saying there would be only "sub-lethal" effects on fish and marine mammals, and "birds could become oiled. However it is unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities."
Kierán Suckling, executive director of the environmental group Center for Biological Diversity, said the federal waiver "put BP entirely in control" of the way it conducted its drilling.
Agency a 'rubber stamp'
"The agency's oversight role has devolved to little more than rubber-stamping British Petroleum's self-serving drilling plans," Suckling said.
BP has lobbied the White House Council on Environmental Quality -- which provides NEPA guidance for all federal agencies-- to provide categorical exemptions more often. In an April 9 letter, BP America's senior federal affairs director, Margaret D. Laney, wrote to the council that such exemptions should be used in situations where environmental damage is likely to be "minimal or non-existent." An expansion in these waivers would help "avoid unnecessary paperwork and time delays," she added.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill were talking Tuesday about curtailing offshore oil exploration rather than making it easier. In addition to traditional foes of offshore drilling such as Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez (N.J.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.), Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and centrists such as Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) said they are taking a second look at such methods.
"It's time to push the pause button," Baucus told reporters.
Staff writer Steven Mufson contributed to this report.
This safety concern bypassed leaves us vulnerable just as forgiving the Pharmaceuticals of any legal responsibility for their vaccines is truly criminal. Instead the Government has funds for this. What is going on???
Think about it - The environmental impact of the spill and its impact on lives in the area will last for years and cost billions. We pay the bill and live with the consequences of bad Government.
It is no different for a child who reacts badly to a vaccine impact on families who are thrown into medical interventions, constant care and sometimes both hospitalization and institutional care plus a lifelong suffering of the damaged person. We pay for that through a Government fund so we pay all that for pharmaceuticals forgiven mistakes.
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
The Interior Department exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely.
This Story
*
BP caps one of three oil leaks in gulf
*
Environmental groups seize oil spill as momentum for pushing changes
*
U.S. exempted BP rigs from impact analysis
*
Scientists envision devastation for gulf
*
Oil slick brings big business for booms
*
Deepwater Horizon explosion in Gulf of Mexico sends oil slick toward U.S. coastline
*
By any measure, Gulf oil spill is big
*
Oil slick arrives in Chandeleur Sound
View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story
The decision by the department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) to give BP's lease at Deepwater Horizon a "categorical exclusion" from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on April 6, 2009 -- and BP's lobbying efforts just 11 days before the explosion to expand those exemptions -- show that neither federal regulators nor the company anticipated an accident of the scale of the one unfolding in the gulf.
Rethinking the rules
Now, environmentalists and some key senators are calling for a reassessment of safety requirements for offshore drilling.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who has supported offshore oil drilling in the past, said, "I suspect you're going to see an entirely different regime once people have a chance to sit back and take a look at how do we anticipate and clean up these potential environmental consequences" from drilling.
BP spokesman Toby Odone said the company's appeal for NEPA waivers in the past "was based on the spill and incident-response history in the Gulf of Mexico." Once the various investigations of the new spill have been completed, he added, "the causes of this incident can be applied to determine any changes in the regulatory regime that are required to protect the environment."
"I'm of the opinion that boosterism breeds complacency and complacency breeds disaster," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) on Tuesday. "That, in my opinion, is what happened."
Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said it is important to learn the cause of the accident before pursuing a major policy change. "While the conversation has shifted, the energy reality has not," Gerard said. "The American economy still relies on oil and gas."
While the MMS assessed the environmental impact of drilling in the central and western Gulf of Mexico on three occasions in 2007 -- including a specific evaluation of BP's Lease 206 at Deepwater Horizon -- in each case it played down the prospect of a major blowout.
In one assessment, the agency estimated that "a large oil spill" from a platform would not exceed a total of 1,500 barrels and that a "deepwater spill," occurring "offshore of the inner Continental shelf," would not reach the coast. In another assessment, it defined the most likely large spill as totaling 4,600 barrels and forecast that it would largely dissipate within 10 days and would be unlikely to make landfall.
"They never did an analysis that took into account what turns out to be the very real possibility of a serious spill," said Holly Doremus, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley who has reviewed the documents.
The MMS mandates that companies drilling in some areas identify under NEPA what could reduce a project's environmental impact. But Interior Department spokesman Matt Lee-Ashley said the service grants between 250 and 400 waivers a year for Gulf of Mexico projects. He added that Interior has now established the "first ever" board to examine safety procedures for offshore drilling. It will report back within 30 days on BP's oil spill and will conduct "a broader review of safety issues," Lee-Ashley said.
BP's exploration plan for Lease 206, which calls the prospect of an oil spill "unlikely," stated that "no mitigation measures other than those required by regulation and BP policy will be employed to avoid, diminish or eliminate potential impacts on environmental resources."
While the plan included a 13-page environmental impact analysis, it minimized the prospect of any serious damage associated with a spill, saying there would be only "sub-lethal" effects on fish and marine mammals, and "birds could become oiled. However it is unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities."
Kierán Suckling, executive director of the environmental group Center for Biological Diversity, said the federal waiver "put BP entirely in control" of the way it conducted its drilling.
Agency a 'rubber stamp'
"The agency's oversight role has devolved to little more than rubber-stamping British Petroleum's self-serving drilling plans," Suckling said.
BP has lobbied the White House Council on Environmental Quality -- which provides NEPA guidance for all federal agencies-- to provide categorical exemptions more often. In an April 9 letter, BP America's senior federal affairs director, Margaret D. Laney, wrote to the council that such exemptions should be used in situations where environmental damage is likely to be "minimal or non-existent." An expansion in these waivers would help "avoid unnecessary paperwork and time delays," she added.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill were talking Tuesday about curtailing offshore oil exploration rather than making it easier. In addition to traditional foes of offshore drilling such as Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez (N.J.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.), Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and centrists such as Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) said they are taking a second look at such methods.
"It's time to push the pause button," Baucus told reporters.
Staff writer Steven Mufson contributed to this report.
This safety concern bypassed leaves us vulnerable just as forgiving the Pharmaceuticals of any legal responsibility for their vaccines is truly criminal. Instead the Government has funds for this. What is going on???
Think about it - The environmental impact of the spill and its impact on lives in the area will last for years and cost billions. We pay the bill and live with the consequences of bad Government.
It is no different for a child who reacts badly to a vaccine impact on families who are thrown into medical interventions, constant care and sometimes both hospitalization and institutional care plus a lifelong suffering of the damaged person. We pay for that through a Government fund so we pay all that for pharmaceuticals forgiven mistakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
