Environmental Outlook: The BP Oil Spill
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-01-04/environmental-outlook-bp-oil-spill
It will likely be years before the full impact of the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico can be assessed. An explosion beneath a deep water rig last April claimed the lives of eleven men. It also triggered the flow of millions of gallons of oil before the undersea well could finally be capped on July 20th. Cleanup efforts have been underway since. Last month the Department of Justice filed a civil lawsuit against BP for billions, and the Obama administration has yet to allow any new drilling operations in the area. Please join us for an update on restoration efforts, the case against BP, and the future of deep water drilling in the region.
Guests
Stephen Power
reporter, The Wall Street Journal.
David Uhlmann
professor of law, University of Michigan, and former head of the Justice Department's environmental crimes unit division,
Cyn Sarthou
executive director, Gulf Restoration Network
Lisa Jackson
administrator, the Environmental Protection Agency
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
What's not being talked about is what's being done about the creatures who do not speak English, the animals who don't have a voice and are worst victims of the BP mess?
I work for Grassroots Campaigns & we work with the ASPCA and they're the only organization that i know of working in the gulf that are saving wildlife and are planning for the predicted 23 hurricanes this season coming up that will be bringing the oil inland thus affecting even more wildlife & the ecosystem. Also I have a source that has said that people down there working for the EPA have had to sign waivers to cover up the fact that they know the chemicals they're using is just making the oil transparent and has more damaging affects than the oil itself to the gulf. I was on hold the whole show, hah.
Whatever happened to that enormous database of ideas for mitigating future disasters, that BP compiled at the request of the administration and that was talked about for many weeks during the beginning of the disaster? At one point BP stated that it had identified at least 230 ideas that deserved further evaluation, but then we never heard anymore about these. A few weeks later the Coast Guard demanded that BP turn over this database so that it could do its own independent evaluation of the ideas in it, but then, again, we never heard anymore about it. Why has this database, apparently now, been "disappeared"? Why was it kept secret and not public from the start? Why was BP allowed to compile this database and not the government? Will Wikileaks have to make this available to the public, since the MSM doesn't seem to be interested in finding out what was in it? Could the leak have been stopped 4-6 weeks sooner? What did we learn (technically and scientifically) that will prevent this kind of thing from happening again? Finally, why didn't we do what Chile did when faced with its mine disaster (go outside for help) and will the U.S. be willing to follow Chile's, clearly much more effective, method of addressing disasters in the future and, also, why didn't the media ever ask the administration to compare it's Gulf-disaster handling, with Chile's mine-disaster handling? These all seem like "no-brainer" questions to me.
What happened to the government organization that was supposed to be overseeing the operations at BP? The government seems to be placing 100% of the blame on BP, and forgetting they also had a hand in this mess.
I continue to be amazed at how many dumb liberals there are, and they all show up sooner or later on this show. Certainly there can't be any more of them out there..... It makes me ashamed to be a moderate.
So a caller thinks, apparently supported by the screener and Ms. R, that tax payers are actually paying for BP's gulf mistake since their expense is tax deductible. Your shallowness is incomprehensible.
Income tax is assessed on net earnings and if you ain't got none of that then you don't owe any tax nor have any money to pay it even if a liberal thinks you owe it. For the slow of mind (caller, Ms. R staff, etc.), if APR succombed to a tragedy and became unbiased/moderate, and so the current crew lose their jobs, they obviously should still pay tax on the income THEY WOULD HAVE RECEIVED IF STILL WORKING. Those who lose their jobs because of often reporting late (or not at all) to work should also pay tax despite not having earnings, as well as those businesses that expanded but shouldn't have, resulting in their demise, or otherwise did something dumb like producing a new product that nobody bought. In case it doesn't occur naturally to a liberal mind, businesses are a collection of persons: owners, officers, and other employees.
I'm amazed that you leeches think you deserve money to redistribute when there wasn't any money there to start with. Sure wish a few of the DR staff would discuss this concept away from the powers that be, then start a revolution to remove those cob-webbed bureaucrats in charge. Or at least take hammers into meetings to bang some common sense into those thick skulls.
Well said Jack!
There is a huge class warfare battle being waged by politicians on the left as they strive to increase the size and scope of government to serve their public employee union masters.
Based on the comments from the EPA administrator and what I have heard from people involved, I would suggest that the upper level administrators are out of touch with what is happening on the ground.
In fact taxpayers are paying for the large number of agency staff who have shifted their responsibilities and budgets away from other critical needs to work on the Gulf issues. This represents a net loss of services to the public good.
Undoubtedly there are many bureaucrats (fed, state, co, local) who are out of touch, particularly since they don't have a P&L orientation. My complaint is that the caller, and with a tacit nod from the ever ultra-liberal Ms R, that a company (hence a person?) should pay tax on income that doesn't exist. BTW, i think BP and all the other companies involved should be fined and sued to the max extent available since it seems probable that there was negligence that caused this tragedy. But shame on those (callers, producers, guests and host) who can't distinguish between the legal system and unrestricted corporate bashing.
Ace Hotel first opened its doors in 1999 in Seattle with its arms wide open to musicians, artists, and other creative minds and today, with three locations in the U.S., Ace is considered to be one of the leaders of progressive American establishments dedicated to cultivating the arts and of course, providing shelter. Converse has recognized Ace Hotel’s mission statement and growing status and has created a special colorway of the Converse Chuck Taylor All-Star Bosey; the upper features an olive drab waxed canvas material with a rubberized gum toe-cap with Bosey-boot grooves for a military-inspired appeal. Simply put, the design combines class and culture, and if you’ve ever enjoyed a night at the Ace Hotel or a few drinks in its lobby lounge, you’ll understand the connection in a snap. The final personal touch is seen on the insole,CHI Straightener, with a’ You Are Here’ graphic that is seen on the entrance rain mat at Ace’s New York City location. The Ace Hotel x Converse Chuck Taylor All-Star Bosey is part of the Converse First String Collection with a price-tag of $100, and will be available at the three Ace Hotel locations this Friday, January 7th, with a pre-order at the Ace Hotel Shop available right now.
Jack - I understand the point you are making, but want to come at it from a slightly different angle. So everyone knows where I am coming from, here is what influences my opinion on the spill clean up costs. I am fiscally conservative independent that believes strongly in pay as you go and a strong supporter of U.S. capitalism. I own my own small business and have always believed in the value business (large and small) brings to our country. As a supporter of business, I believe businesses should be able to deduct expenses because it leads to growth and innovation, results in more jobs, and otherwise would make it difficult for most companies of all sizes to be able to continue operating in the long run. As someone that believes in financial responsibility, I think both the government and individuals should to be financially accountable – if you can’t afford it don’t buy it (such as the national debt, buying a house out of your price range – resulting in bankruptcy or sticking someone else with the bill). That’s why I am fan of pay as you go and being accountable for a financial situation you caused. I understand on occasions that if you have to take on debt, but then have a plan to pay it off in a reasonable amount of time and don’t stick it to someone else. I also believe in “you break it, you buy it.”
My beef with BP is that they said they would pay for the clean up. I don’t think they should have to increase their tax liability beyond what they would have paid if the spill never occurred, but I don’t think they should be able to benefit from clean up costs by decreasing their tax liability.
Jack – to continue with my point, BP was profitable for the first 3 quarters for FY 2010. I haven’t seen their tax records, but would assume they deducted some Gulf spill expenses in their quarterly returns. So you are right that you can’t tax a company with zero profits, but if they used Gulf spill expenses to get their net income down to or close to zero profits, then the U.S. loses out on revenue our country would have received from BP if the spill didn’t exist – revenue I think most taxpayers would like to see applied to reducing the country’s debt or paying for something worthwhile like wiping out the Taliban or helping the numerous severely disabled vets that are left out to dry by the government when they get back to the U.S. I am not a fan of a tax bailout for a foreign company responsible for a disaster that killed 11 people and wiped out the economy and livelihood along the Gulf. That violates my beliefs of financial responsibility and being accountable for one’s own mistakes. BP said they would pay for the clean up and help the affected people on the Gulf that are trying to make an honest living. So I think they should do it, even if they have a legal right to deduct those expenses to reduce their tax burden. While maximizing shareholder value is a principle of all P&L companies, including mine, this situation is a matter of personal accountability. I feel for the stockholders and innocent employees that are going to take the brunt of this, but BP needs to be accountable (now, not just when they get sued). If they are not going to eat all of the cost, then they should step up and tell the American people that the company will pay up front, but recoup the expenses by lowering their tax liability.
So Jack, to finish my point - if you are OK with a foreign company getting a tax benefit and bailout, that is no skin off of my back and you are entitled to your opinion, I just wish you would show people the same respect if they have a different opinion. Even though I don’t agree with everything you wrote, I am glad that NPR didn’t screen you out on the Diane Rehm website because you have a legitimate right to state your opinion. As a taxpayer, I also thought I (obviously I am the one that asked the question) had a legitimate right to ask a question on a public radio station, whether you agree with it or not. And I do understand the difference between the legal system and generally accepted accounting principles. I have an MBA and review the corporate books for my company – my question pertained to accepting financial accountability, not tax law.
By the way Jack, because I sent in a question to the DR show and simply wanted to know if BP was going to expense its clean-up costs, you found it necessary (without ever having met me or knowing anything about me) to call me shallow, a leech, a dumb liberal and heavily implied I know nothing about P&L and business. Before you decide to publicly attack someone, maybe it would be wise to get your facts straight. I have worked at large premier Fortune 500 companies before starting my company. As a Senior Manager at the last Fortune 500 job, I managed all aspects of my group’s business, including P&L (during my tenure, I managed over $20 million of business). I also understand financing – I lead detailed capital investment analysis for my clients for more than $300 million in capital initiatives. I manage the P&L for my company and make the financial management/accounting decisions. Additionally, I am a strong supporter of big business, but that doesn’t mean I agree with costly mistakes that some of the individuals within a company makes. While I am very pro business, I am also pro-accountability for individuals that make devastating mistakes where others suffer the consequences. It’s disgusting to see companies like Arthur Andersen taken down by a few people – and thousands of people lose their jobs because of it. So your uniformed assumption that I am a big business basher is dead wrong – I would like to see the overall companies (including BP) and employees be protected, but would like to see the few decision makers held accountable. Unfortunately suing a few executives won’t pay for the Gulf spill or major screw ups, so the stockholders and employees pay the price.
So if you want to go toe-to-toe on who understands business and is pro-business, I am all for it, but I am more interested in what credentials you have to judge people and make public disparaging claims about people you have never met and know nothing about.
Nike’s saving the best for last when it comes to the Air Griffey Max 1, because this August, Nike will release an original colorway of the Nike Air Griffey Max 1. The Black/White-Freshwater color combination was one of Griffey’s originals during his stellar Seattle days, and like the other Freshwater colorway of the AGM1,Coach Outlet Stores, these are poised to be one of the best Retro releases of the year. A black midsole blends in with the mudguard, with Freshwater teal on the upper, a white swoosh at the forefoot, a black lace-placket, and a black ankle strap. Expect these to hit in August 2011, just in time for back-to-school season! Must-have, or do you already have your fill of the Air Griffey Max 1? Let us know, and stick with Sneaker News for more Nike Retro release updates.
,Pittsburgh Pirates Hats
We present you the new video to Crystal Castles single “Celestica”. Enjoy,Cheap UGG Shoes!
读取文章内容失败 Pilfer of student of one high school hits other phone to charge Q money- - Jiangxi news networkUgg Boots Clearance Suede 5230 The policeman patrols 5 ox are hunted down on the road- - Jiangxi news network，可能是文章已经删除掉了 UGGS For Kids kids uggs bailey Button|2 days of before dawn prod。文件路径：E:\虫虫软件\发布-相册\articles\相册文章\Blessing cropland is about to fear Tecuofa through be being turned over newly forcibly Boule election or ahead of schedule - Guangxi news network.html.published
The Chinese Zodiac will celebrate the Year of the Rabbit in 2011, which,Supra Skytops, in the sneaker community, signifies some new and inspired colorways of our favorite Nike Sportswear releases. Sneaker News already showed you the Nike Tennis Classic ‘Year of the Rabbit’, but here’s a look at a more familiar player – the Nike Air Force 1 Low Supreme. The ‘Year of the Rabbit’ features a white upper with a translucent white midsole/outsole, a chenille swoosh (with opposite red and blue on the lateral and medial sides), a chenille tongue label, and a special rabbit graphic on the heel-tab. These will officially release in two waves – the first on January 23rd with special packaging and the second on the 28th with regular packaging – exclusively at Asian retailers. Continue reading for another look as well as full list of available spots and stick with Sneaker News for more detailed images of this exciting new Air Force 1 colorway. via HB.