Why Americans distrust their government, part 2

Dear Friends,

In The New York Times "Week in Review" section today, they had a great summary of last week's issues related to the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  It is entitled "Talk About a Mess" (here).   In addition to being a great summary, it points out several reasons why Americans distrust their government.

First, the article highlights the fact that BP has been trying for four weeks to stop the spill without success.  Our government issued a permit to BP to drill this well.  BP said it had the technology to prevent any spills and to stop one if it occurred before it became significant.  Our government either believed BP without any proof or they just didn't care because big oil is so kind to our politicians or both.  So how can you trust a government that does that? 

Second, the article points out that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has not made public a single test result on water from the deep ocean, nor have they demanded an accurate analysis of the flow of the leaking oil.  It is actually even worse than that.  National Public Radio had an independent analysis conducted for them and reported on it on May 14th (here).  The first three paragraphs tell the tale, but you should read the entire article.

The amount of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico may be at least 10 times the size of official estimates, according to an exclusive analysis conducted for NPR.
At NPR's request, experts examined video that BP released Wednesday. Their findings suggest the BP spill is already far larger than the 1989 Exxon Valdez accident in Alaska, which spilled at least 250,000 barrels of oil.
BP has said repeatedly that there is no reliable way to measure the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico by looking at the oil gushing out of the pipe. But scientists say there are actually many proven techniques for doing just that.

But that is not the end of it.  The Houston Chronicle reports that our government is retaliating against scientist that disagree with the government's and BP's figures about the oil spill (here).  You should read the article, but I am reprinting below some of the paragraphs.

A prominent oceanographer, who was among the first to say official estimates understated the volume of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, charged Tuesday that a federal agency is punishing scientists whose findings disagree with government figures.

Ian MacDonald, an oceanographer with Florida State University, who more than two weeks ago said the oil spill was likely five times as large as the 5,000 barrel-a-day estimate from the National Oceanic Atmospheric and Administration, said the agency is attacking scientists who challenged government estimates, while itself doing little to glean new information about the spill size.

Oceanographers, environmentalists and government officials say knowing the true size of the oil spill is critical in determining how the spill will affect ocean and coastal ecologies, as well as the extent of clean-up costs and liabilities.

MacDonald's comments were prompted partly by a NOAA news release Monday that characterized as “misleading, premature and, in some cases, inaccurate” media reports about spill research aboard a government vessel in the Gulf.

Reports this weekend quoted independent ocean scientists as saying they had discovered large underwater plumes of oil suggesting the scope of the spill could be bigger than estimated based on the surface area of the slick.

MacDonald said NOAA hasn't substantiated its own estimate, leading MacDonald to assume it “was just made up — literally in the middle of the night.”

Why would we trust a government that doesn't seem to want to know the facts?


Third, the article indicates that the Environmental Protection Agency ordered BP to stop using the oil dispersant that they had been using and to switch to a less toxic dispersant.  It is not surprising that the EPA is stopping BP from using this dispersant.  What is amazing is that the EPA ever permitted BP to use this very toxic dispersant on a scale never before done and never tested as to its impact.  Nobody really knows if the impact of the dispersant is worse than the impact of the oil that it is supposedly dispersing.  Below are a couple of paragraphs from a recent article in the Houston Chronicle (here).

The EPA raised concerns about the agent Thursday, saying the long-term effects remain unknown. The letter ordered BP to identify an alternative and start using it within three days of its approval by regulators.

“Because of its use in unprecedented volumes and because much is unknown about the underwater use of dispersants, EPA wants to ensure BP is using the least toxic product authorized for use,” the agency has said.

Just to be sure that you didn't miss it, the EPA says that the long-term effects of a dispesant that they have approved are unknown and that much is unknown about the underwater use of dispersants.  If you don't know the effects of a toxic substance that is classified as a moderate human health hazard, why would you approve its use?  I guess for the same reasons that you would approve the drilling of the well in the first place - you believed BP when it said nothing will go wrong or you gave into the money of big oil.

Fourth, the article points out that there is significant concern about the independence of the laboratory where our government is requiring that samples be sent for analysis.  The New York Times reported on this concern in an article on May 20th (here).  I have reprinted a few key paragraphs from that article below.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake, since those readings will be used by the federal government and courts to establish liability claims against BP. But the laboratory that officials have chosen to process virtually all of the samples is part of an oil and gas services company in Texas that counts oil firms, including BP, among its biggest clients.

Some people are questioning the independence of the Texas lab. Taylor Kirschenfeld, an environmental official for Escambia County, Fla., rebuffed instructions from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to send water samples to the lab, which is based at TDI-Brooks International in College Station, Tex. He opted instead to get a waiver so he could send his county’s samples to a local laboratory that is licensed to do the same tests.
Mr. Kirschenfeld said he was also troubled by another rule. Local animal rescue workers have volunteered to help treat birds affected by the slick and to collect data that would also be used to help calculate penalties for the spill. But federal officials have told the volunteers that the work must be done by a company hired by BP.

“Everywhere you look, if you look, you start seeing these conflicts of interest in how this disaster is getting handled,” Mr. Kirschenfeld said. “I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but there is just too much overlap between these people.”

A significant cause of the financial collapse was that the credit rating agencies that rated the products being sold by Goldman Sachs and others were hired by the people who wanted to get good ratings.  What a surprise, the person that paid those ratings agencies got the ratings they wanted not the ratings they deserved. 

Here we are again, a lab that relies on BP and other big oil companies for its livelihood is the one that our government selects to do the tests that will determine in large part the liability of their client BP. 

As Mr. Kirschenfeld says in the quote above you do not need to be a conspiracy theorist to see that the approach our government is taking is wrong.  In an environment where lots of money is at stake, even the appearance of a conflict of interest should be avoided. 

This entire oil spill episode is full of reasons why Americans distrust their government.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal