January 2017

M T W T F S S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16 171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Friday, May 28th, 2010 08:53 pm
I've followed most of the news about the oil leak in the Gulf, but I haven't read much commentary or analysis about it lately (too many guests and travel). So perhaps those of you who have been following the discussion can answer a question that's come to my mind:

Is there any reason at all that the hard-core environmental activists don't have every right to say "I told you so" to the rest of us after this? (Not that they should...) After all, given the likely enormous economic impact of the disaster (let alone the environmental consequences) this seems like exactly the sort of scenario they've been warning about for years (and in very much the way they might have predicted, with the government complacently believing the oil industry's rosy assurances that nothing could go wrong).
Monday, May 31st, 2010 07:37 pm (UTC)
Santa Barbara, 1969. This spill was to the domestic offshore oil industry what "Three Mile Island, 1979" was to the domestic nuclear power industry, or "Exxon Valdez, 1989" was to... to... prompt resolution of civil litigation relating to oil spill damages?

The ban on west coast drilling (sans parts of Alaska) remains in effect. It is as permanent as the will of the U.S. Congress to sustain it.