Up front:
Barack Obama is a better president than George Bush.
Barack Obama is able to string two sentences together without making a major gaffe. He is literate and even eloquent at times.
In the next election, Barack Obama will be a better choice for president than Sarah Palin, although you must admit that both Bush and Palin set the bar quite low.
With that out of the way, I was quite disappointed with
the president's speech on the Gulf disaster and clean-up last night.
First, the cleanup. From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the largest environmental cleanup effort in our nation's history - an effort led by Admiral Thad Allen, who has almost forty years of experience responding to disasters. We now have nearly 30,000 personnel who are working across four states to contain and cleanup the oil. Thousands of ships and other vessels are responding in the Gulf. And I have authorized the deployment of over 17,000 National Guard members along the coast. These servicemen and women are ready to help stop the oil from coming ashore, clean beaches, train response workers, or even help with processing claims - and I urge the governors in the affected states to activate these troops as soon as possible.
In the speech, Obama took ownership of the clean-up of the oil gusher, but he did not take charge. He still allows BP to call the shots, and the results are dismal. By claiming ownership and not taking charge, Obama puts himself in an extremely vulnerable position.
An example: If Obama is in charge, why does BP not permit its clean-up workers to wear face masks and protective suits as they work in the toxic atmosphere and handle toxic substances? BP says it doesn't "look good" if the workers wear protective equipment, because folks might think there are poisons out there. The workers get sick and are afraid to speak out, because they need their jobs. They take time off, feel better, and return to work in the toxic environment. Why doesn't Obama order BP to provide the proper equipment to the workers to protect them from the poisons?
Because there has never been a leak of this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge - a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation's Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.
With all those superior brains at work up until today, the 58th day after the explosion, why are the results of their labors so poor? And if I hear Obama mention his physicist's Nobel Prize one more time, I will scream! Yes, we know Dr. Steven Chu won the Nobel Prize, and we know he works for you, President Obama. Enough already.
As a result of these efforts, we have directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology. In the coming days and weeks, these efforts should capture up to 90% of the oil leaking out of the well. This is until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that is expected to stop the leak completely. (My emphasis)
When I heard the words above, my ears pricked up, and I shook my head in disbelief. I've never heard this sort of optimistic talk before from anyone but a BP executive. Where does the 90% figure come from? Well, yes. From BP. Surprise!
The third part of our response plan is the steps we're taking to ensure that a disaster like this does not happen again. A few months ago, I approved a proposal to consider new, limited offshore drilling under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe - that the proper technology would be in place and the necessary precautions would be taken.
Does Obama truly believe that offshore drilling can be "absolutey safe"? When the six-month moratorium is is over, and deepwater drilling is once again resumed, does Obama believe that deepwater drilling will be safe? In my humble opinion, no deepwater drilling will ever be "absolutely safe".
The technology for cleaning up after oil spills or oil gushers is 30, 40, 50 years old. The emphasis by the oil companies is on production of oil as efficiently and as cheaply as possible and damn the consequences if an accident happens. Will clean-up technology be brought up to date to 21st century standards in six months? Mr. President, I have this bridge....
As to why the disaster happened, we already know that BP either ignored the results of or skipped safety steps which could have prevented the explosion of the Horizon rig. Enforcement of even the weak regulations that we were left with after Cheney and his oil industry cronies were finished stripping them was a key to safety. Let's see if Obama's panels and commissions and Nobel Prize advisors can fix the lax enforcement of regulations. And lest we forget, 11 men are dead, and 17 men were injured in the explosion.
One of the lessons we've learned from this spill is that we need better regulations better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling. But a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk. After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20% of the world's oil, but have less than 2% of the world's oil reserves. And that's part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean - because we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.
Aye, there's the rub. Now comes the truth. What's left of the oil and other polluting minerals is difficult and dangerous to access, and, once accessed and used to supply the energy to keep things humming, the materials are killing our planet, even without explosions, spills, gushes, and workers dying in the process.
When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill - a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America's businesses.
Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And some believe we can't afford those costs right now. I say we can't afford not to change how we produce and use energy - because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.
Do we have the will? It's not enough to point the finger at BP or the US government. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." We're not yet serious about weaning ourselves off our addiction to polluting minerals. We're not yet serious about finding clean sources of energy. Our government won't act until we demand them to act. The energy and climate bill languishes in Congress. Why isn't Obama fighting for the bill from his bully pulpit? Why aren't we demanding action?
Please contact the president and your representatives in Congress.
My final word is to BP: There are no walruses in the Gulf of Mexico!
