Too little? I hope it’s not too late

The gulf Coast oil spill is not President Barack Obama’s Katrina, but it has been damaging nonetheless, so damaging, in fact, that the mea culpa he offered this afternoon just doesn’t seem enough.

The president said he was the man responsible and that mistakes have been made. The biggest one, he acknowledges, was not moving

more aggressively to clean up what he called a cozy and corrupt relationship between regulators and industry, suggesting that the disaster might have been prevented if steps were taken sooner.

“Obviously they weren’t happening fast enough,” he said. “If they were happening fast enough, this might have been caught.”

No shit. That’s what critics from the left — like David Sirota and others — have been saying for a while. While the president and his administration have been involved and focused from the beginning — in a way that George Bush never was when Katrina hit — he has done what too many in Washington (and the state capitals do): He’s let industry clean up the mess, which is like asking an 8-year-old to clean his room. It’ll get done, but no one is ever sure when.

The problem from the beginning — which the president should have known — is that industry just doesn’t care what kind of messes it creates as long as it can generate profit. It takes aggressive action on the part of the people, through their government, to keep these greedheads honest and keep us safe and healthy.

Obama has tweaked around the edges when it comes to this — on Wall Street reform, on the cleanup, on just about everything — rather than strip our corporate overlords of their power. And progressives have let him get away with it.

Drill, spill and drill again

The Gulf slowly dies, sufficated by BP’s massive spill, and yet nothing of substance changes.

In the days since President Obama announced a moratorium on permits for drilling new offshore oil wells and a halt to a controversial type of environmental waiver that was given to the Deepwater Horizon rig, at least seven new permits for various types of drilling and five environmental waivers have been granted, according to records.

The records also indicate that since the April 20 explosion on the rig, federal regulators have granted at least 19 environmental waivers for gulf drilling projects and at least 17 drilling permits, most of which were for types of work like that on the Deepwater Horizon shortly before it exploded, pouring a ceaseless current of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

Asked about the permits and waivers, officials at the Department of the Interior and the Minerals Management Service, which regulates drilling, pointed to public statements by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, reiterating that the agency had no intention of stopping all new oil and gas production in the gulf.

Department of the Interior officials said in a statement that the moratorium was meant only to halt permits for the drilling of new wells. It was not meant to stop permits for new work on existing drilling projects like the Deepwater Horizon.

And so it goes in the United States of America — a wholly owned subsidiary of the oil industry.

Drill, baby, drill — or, more accurately, boom, baby, burn

The explosion in the Gulf — along with the lost lives and the damage that it is doing the region’s economy — should be enough to get President Obama to a abandon his off-shore drilling plan. I said “should,” because it is not clear that anyone is ready to stand up to corporate American on the issue.

Drill, baby, drill

The way to address our energy needs is not to drill, but to alter our energy needs, to conserve and find alternative sources.

And yet, President Barack Obama announced a plan today to open more land to drilling with this contradictory claim:

“There will be those who strongly disagree with this decision, including those who say we should not open any new areas to drilling,” Mr. Obama said. “But what I want to emphasize is that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy.”

So, according to the president, we are going to move from an economy that runs on fossil fuels to on that runs on newly drilled fossil fuels? Is the only goal to reduce dependence on foreign oil? Or is it to move away from greenhouse-gas-producing fuel sources?

But this may not be about clean energy at all. As the Times story suggests, this may have been more about prospecting for votes for a relatively weak climate change bill, the benefits of which may end up being offset by the damage done to our oceans — will a rather paltry amount of oil to show for our efforts.

Oil company executives and geologists expressed guarded enthusiasm for the president’s initiative. But experts said it was impossible to know how much oil and gas the new tracts contain, in part because some existing data is based on 30-year-old studies.

Even at the high end of government estimates, the new production, if and when it occurs, will displace only a small fraction of the oil and gas the country now imports and consumes.

And that just seems a bad tradeoff and should make the voters who viewed Obama as a savior question their allegiance to him, a point made by Frank Tursi, a preservationist with the North Carolina Coastal Federation:

“It all leaves the president with a delicious irony and that is: In order to garner support for a bill that is intended to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the administration is willing to expand the very substance that causes those emissions in the first place,” Mr. Tursi said. “Pandering for votes that rely on a polluting fuel of the past is not the kind of change many of us expected.”

Bad policy equals bad politics

Democrats, fearing voter anger over gas prices, have cooked up a political response that may end up hurting them in the long run.

As The Washington Independent reports, party leaders in the House of Representatives pushed a bill “expanding offshore oil exploration.”

The legislation, which partly eliminates a decades-old moratorium on new drilling, marks a sharp departure from earlier Democratic vows to keep the ban in place. The reversal was a political one: Public opinion polls show that voters increasingly support new oil exploration, despite evidence that the change would have little effect on fuel prices for more than two decades. Fearing political fallout in November’s elections, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a long-time critic of new drilling, included provisions to expand the practice.

I think Rachel Maddow had it right last night on her show when she said that Democrats only look weak when they pander like this.