let's see what that republican disaster expert, michael brown, had to say about the lake palin oil spill
fact is stranger than fiction. this is too funny to make upMichael Brown, former President George W. Bush's infamous FEMA chief, claimed yesterday that President Obama is using the Gulf oil spill to play politics -- and positing that Obama waited for the oil spill to worsen so he could shut down offshore drilling.
"This is exactly what they want, because now he can pander to the environmentalists and say, 'I'm gonna shut it down because it's too dangerous,'" Brown told Fox's Neil Cavuto. "This president has never supported Big Oil, he's never supported offshore drilling, and now he has an excuse to shut it back down."
Brown's comments ring strange because Obama actually announced earlier this year that he was expanding the allowed zones for offshore work, much to the consternation of his supporters. The former Bush official resigned in the wake of his tepid response to Hurricane Katrina and questions about his resume.
Brown isn't the only one making waves with his comments during the Gulf spill.
In a 30-minute speech to a Republican crowd in Kansas City Saturday, onetime Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin dubbed the gulf spill "very tragic," but added: “I want our country to be able to trust the oil industry.”
great job, brownie!
Michael Brown: Obama let oil spill get worse on purpose | Raw Story
somebody does not seem to recognize that michael brown is the former horse judge, appointed by dubya bin lyin, who failed in the fema efforts to assist new orleans
but i am willing to read how you have determined that he is an Obama adherent, as he is rubbing his hands together over this
ready, set, post
I'm no huge Obama fan, but frankly, I trust the Democrats to protect the environment more than the Republicans. If Bush was still in office he would be busy trying to downplay the dangers of drilling. He would be patting Big Oil on their backs with a wink, wink and a secret handshake...
From my POV Obama is handling this problem well and even handedly.
Mr. Brown's theory, if in fact the report is accurate, is not helpful. Rather than going to "knee-jerk" approaches e.g., to permit or prohibit deepwater drilling, a genuine regulatory issue arises: what standards should be expected by regulators? In other words, should regulators insist on "best practices" for the activity that is within their regulatory jurisdiction?
From an ABC News blog:
The issue involved is a classic example of "tail risks" (very low probability/high-impact events). Just as had been largely rediscovered during the recent financial crisis, tail risk events can have huge adverse consequences when they play out.One area of immediate concern, industry experts said, was the lack of a remote system that would have allowed workers to clamp shut Deepwater Horizon's wellhead so it would not continue to gush oil. The rig is now spilling 210,000 gallons of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico.
In a letter sent last year to the Department of the Interior, BP objected to what it called "extensive, prescriptive regulations" proposed in new rules to toughen safety standards. "We believe industry's current safety and environmental statistics demonstrate that the voluntary programs…continue to be very successful."
IMO, if the net costs of an event are relatively low, then regulatory regimes should be constructed around those realities, among others. However, if the net costs of an event are very high/catastrophic, even if the probability of occurrence is very low, regulators should, at a minimum, probably err on the side of prudence and insist on best practices.
In the meantime, BP should not be vilified. It was not operating the rig in question. Its posture was a widespread one. Appreciation of tail risk events is still emerging and evolving.
Therefore, the lessons from this case should be learned and applied. To be sure, BP should contribute to financing the clean-up, cooperating to help gain better insight into what happened, etc., and to date, there is every indication that the company is working in a cooperative and productive fashion.
Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:
These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.