Sobering Perspective

FredOak

June 2, 2010 1:44 PM

And what gets me is some days it ends up on page 3 or further back in national newspapers.

Then I see that the company that BP leased the rig from is in line for a multi-million dollar insurance settlement.

It is (has) become the United States of Big Business. I totally agree on our society's blindness to energy, climate and the condition of the earth in general.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

DMZ

June 2, 2010 2:46 PM

I can't speak for print, but this story has been on the front page and above the fold of every major website since this story broke.

[ Reply ]

replied to FredOak

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

suburban_hillbilly

June 2, 2010 1:59 PM

The economic and environmental impact this is going to have on the gulf coast is unfathomable.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

PoorPeopleSuck

June 3, 2010 2:09 PM

{Deleted- flaming}

[ Reply ]

replied to suburban_hillbilly

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Sally

June 2, 2010 2:23 PM

I agree with Steel that they should drill closer to shore so that any spills can be capped before they become this massive. Unfortunately it was the environmentalists insistance that the drilling be so far offshore that led to this environmental disaster. It appears to be concrete evidence of the law of unintended consenquences.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Scott Norwood

June 2, 2010 2:32 PM

Please tell me you aren't serious.

"Unfortunately it was the environmentalists insistance(sp) that the drilling be so far offshore that led to this environmental disaster."

What a stretch. Feel free to state that it has unfortunately exacerbated the consequences, but to claim that the environmental disaster is due to environmentalists is insanity at best. It may be semantics, but in this case it is a ridiculous claim.

[ Reply ]

replied to Sally

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Sally

June 2, 2010 3:17 PM

You are correct, If we didn't kowtow to the environmentalists and instead put in regulations to control drilling nearer the shore the disaster would have been capped weeks ago and the spill likely less than a fraction of it's current ever growing sign.

And to DMZ they are only in offshore waters because our government caved to radical environmentalists and refuses to permit drilling in US Waters.

Thus we now have foreign companies taking our oil, polluting our waters to their sole benefit.

Sorry guys but the blame for the scope of this disaster rests as much with the enviromentalists and US politicians as it does with BP.

[ Reply ]

replied to Scott Norwood

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Scott Norwood

June 2, 2010 3:50 PM

Wow, you were serious. The only thing more disturbing than your misguided blame of environmentalists for this spill is the spill itself. I can only imagine the logic you use to come to that conclusion, but I look forward to reading your comments in the future, for comedic value if nothing else.

[ Reply ]

replied to Sally

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

DMZ

June 2, 2010 2:45 PM

They are that far off shore because it's in international waters, not because of environmentalists.

[ Reply ]

replied to Sally

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

June 2, 2010 2:50 PM

Making up fake crap to fill a comment is boring

Never said I was all for shallow water drilling - I think it would be great if we could eliminate all drilling

Envirobmentalists also are for no drilling. Perhaps you are thinkingabout the resort owners who don't want to see oil rigs out their windows

[ Reply ]

replied to Sally

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

townline

June 2, 2010 3:02 PM

Yeah - that kind of felt like a Pundit Bikeshedding post...

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

whatever

June 2, 2010 10:48 PM

Steel>"I think it would be great if we could eliminate all drilling
Envirobmentalists also are for no drilling."

Yet you own a car because it's necessary. Maybe you also fly on petro-fueled airlines because it's necessary.

Even if the nation's fleet is replaced by battery-powered cars, they'd depend on countless electricity generators powered by fossil fuels that have to be removed (by drilling or mining) from the Earth. Some people might consider it fun to fantasize about everything being powered by the sun, but that isn't now feasible. If it was, China and India would be doing that.

So for now and a long time to come, drilling is as necessary as car driving is.

That means there's 3 possibilities:

- very deep ocean drilling like this well in the news

- more shallow ocean drilling (closer to shore) as some other nations allow and makes wells less difficult to cap when problems like what's happening in the Gulf occur

- drilling on land in places like Alaska, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc.

You want all 3 of those eliminated but you still want to drive a car when necessary?

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

June 3, 2010 10:04 AM

I actually DON"T want to drive a car. I would not have to use it as much as I do except that our urban environments (even in large cities) are overwhelmingly geared to car oriented development. I am forced to live in a sprawl based world. Even with that I bought my house within a walkable distance to transit and a super market. I can and do ride my bike to work. I don't promote sprawl style development and will avoid supporting it financially as much as I can. We could drastically reduce consumption in our country if we wanted to - so far we are too arrogant to want to.

This country's use of oil is glutinous. We use about 20M barrels of oil a day. The next closest is the EU at 14M per day but they have nearly 2oo million more people!. After that is china at around 7 million barrels per day. China has 4 times the population of the US - they would like to have the same standard of living as the US. That would mean China would need to burn through 80 million barrels a day. Do you think that is going to be possible. Perhaps we could just nuke them before they get our oil. Let's not forget that China makes all of our stuff so that means much of that 7 million that they currently burn is actually being burned for the US!

You can live in a pretend fairy land that our way of doing things is perfect but fairy lands don't really exist.

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

whatever

June 3, 2010 11:47 AM

"I actually DON'T want to drive a car."

It's very easy for anyone who drives a car to SAY they don't want to or that they're forced. All it takes is words. Or to SAY they don't want to take plane trips, or to SAY they don't want to benefit from the huge variety of products shipped by truck to our stores. Not to mention some electricity and manufactured products using petroleum.

Words are very easy, but actions speak much louder. Many actions you take contradict your earlier claim to Sally in favor of eliminating "ALL drilling". If all drilling were eliminated as you say would be great, we'd be living a lot like they did in the 1800s. Some people still do live that way (Amish for example). From them, I'd much more accept a claim that all drilling should be eliminated.

It sounds like you want it both ways - to make widespread use of the results of drilling while saying it would be great if there wasn't any. So you want the drilling's results - and yet oppose drilling on land, and oppose it closer to shore in more shallow water, and oppose it in deeper sea such as this BP well in the Gulf.

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

June 3, 2010 12:04 PM

Well, since you skipped over everything I wrote I will recap. Your argument that we "must drill baby drill or go back to 1700" is a phony argument. We could cut our oil use in half by simply doing what the Europeans do. I use my car maybe once a week sometimes not at all. I would like to increase the not at all part but the sprawl baby sprawl mentality of America makes that impossible. conserv and invest in sustainable technology(for instance flying is now the only option for travel to other places in America because we stopped investing in rail - so basically your rant on flying is exactly what I am talking about). You can make everything into simplified extremes or you can look at the truth. The truth is the American way of life based on oil is not going to last. You can argue with me all you like but that is not going to change the fact that oil is a dead end road.

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

whatever

June 3, 2010 12:35 PM

Europeans themselves drill for oil in Europe, and Europeans also drill for oil elsewhere (what does the "B" in "BP" stand for?), and Europeans buy a lot it from other nations after it's been drilled.

Europeans obviously disagree with your claim above to Sally that "it would be great if we could eliminate all drilling", which would have consequences of turning back a lot of progress that's happened since widespread use of oil started.

I get it that you want other people to use less than they use, but what kind or kinds of oil drilling do you support now to make possible the oil you use?
On land, like in Alaska?
In shallow sea, like Brazil does?
In deeper sea, like this BP well in the Gulf?

Or do you want to use it but still oppose all kinds of drilling?

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

June 3, 2010 12:45 PM

If we simply cut back to the level of European use we could eliminate all use of Gulf oil or we could drastically reduce dependence on the middle east oil. I really don't get what you are trying to say. I am saying we need to take the steps now that allow us to eliminate the use of oil for our energy use. Why is that even a controversy? The Europeans live quite comfortably on a little more that half the oil we use per capita. I think we should at least - at very minimum - be looking to emulate what they are doing.

Are you seriously arguing we can just go along as we are??? Do you really think the Chinese and Indians can get to the same standard of living as us without a major energy shortage - not to mention an totally ruined ecosystem ? We can keep our heads in the sand but the end of oil is coming. Shouldn't we be planning to meet that end on our own terms?

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

whatever

June 4, 2010 11:44 AM

Steel>"I really don't get what you are trying to say."

I've been clear. You wrote earlier that it would be great to eliminate all drilling. I disagree that it would be great, and so do the Europeans. Now you're saying you want to reduce it, not eliminate it. Nice flip-flop! So you do favor some drilling, but you won't say what kind you favor or where you favor it being done.

Or maybe somebody else named Steel wrote the following (lol - and maybe that Steel doesn't use petroleum so that Steel isn't a hypocrite by opposing drilling on land and sea while still owning a car!):

"STEEL replied to comment from Sally
June 2, 2010 2:50 PM

Never said I was all for shallow water drilling - I think it would be great if we could eliminate all drilling

Envirobmentalists also are for no drilling."

Never mind where the reduced drilling shouldn't happen - where do you say it SHOULD happen? Where do you favor the drilling happening to obtain the petroleum products you'll use this summer in the car you own? Land drilling? Shallow water drilling near a coastline? Deep water drilling further from a coast? It's a simple question.

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

June 4, 2010 1:47 PM

I said I would LIKE to eliminate drilling all together. I did not say it was possible right now. It IS possible to reduce drilling and eliminate it form the most environmentally sensitive areas. Currently we are increasing oil use when we should be reducing our use of oil. That is not a very complicated position. It does not mean we have to go back to the 1700 way of life.

What is your position? Status quo is good. Oil will last forever because God keeps making it for Americans? Drill baby drill? Even dopey Sara Palin is running away from that one. Do you think the earth can sustain unlimited abuse? Why is id deemed to be ridiculous by the right wingers that we need to protect the thing that sustains our lives?

Seriously what is so controversial about reducing and ultimately eliminating the use of oil for our energy source? Oh I know that threatens your sprawltopian way of life but what are you going to do with your giant SUV when their is not enough oil to get you to the mall

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

whatever

June 6, 2010 11:10 PM

Ok, so you do favor continuing a lot of the oil drilling that now happens. Good, we agree.

Everyone who chooses to own a car is, through their actions, favoring a lot of oil drilling. They can try to avoid admiting it by saying they want less drilling - but there would still be a lot of it continuing. By the way, nobody is truly forced to own a car. Many millions of Americans don't, some because they can't afford it but also many who could afford it and still choose not to.

Oil will be the major fuel source of cars, trucks, and planes (even trains) for many decades to come - perhaps throughout the lifetimes of everyone alive today. Spills and other negatives of oil use are far outweighed by positives.

Of course it goes without say that something better will replace it eventually. Only then will it be great to stop drilling.

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

ReginaldQMerriweatherIV

June 2, 2010 3:24 PM

I think what sally means is that shallow water and onshore drilling of oil has become so highly regulated and limited, that the most economically feasible means of drilling is deep or ultra-deep offshore drilling.

While this pushes the visual consequences of drilling out of the viewshed, should sh!t go down (see current situation) then the companies are severely limited in their ability to control the situation.

So in our desire to sequester ourselves from the negative impacts while still satisfying our readily apparent demand for oil and petroluem based products, we pushed our drilling deep into an unstable and unfamiliar environment, thus making the inevitable disaster that much worse due to our inability to control the fallout.

[ Reply ]

replied to Sally

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

majove

June 2, 2010 3:04 PM

I think it is time to bring our troops home. They should be overseeing every move BP makes. And if the leak is ever stopped we are going to need them for the clean-up. We can send BP the bill. NO MORE DRILLING!

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

DMZ

June 2, 2010 3:46 PM

So we can't supply our troops with proper combat gear but you think the armed forces actually has the proper gear to contain an oil spill? Do you want them to throw on SCUBA gear and plug the hole? Do you think Navy has an extra oil rig laying around?

[ Reply ]

replied to majove

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

majove

June 2, 2010 8:27 PM

Did you actually read what I said?

I said the troops need to oversee BP and watch every move they make. I did not say the troops have the equipment to stop the oil leak. Apparently BP doesn't have the equipment to stop the oil leak. I also said that the troops could clean up the oil spill "IF" BP ever stops the leak. I also said we(the US government) could send BP the bill for the clean-up.

NO MORE DRILLING!

[ Reply ]

replied to DMZ

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

June 3, 2010 12:08 PM

I don't think cleaning up toxic waste caused by private industry is an appropriate use of our military

[ Reply ]

replied to majove

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Scott Norwood

June 2, 2010 3:53 PM

And the derailment begins.

[ Reply ]

replied to majove

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

grad94

June 2, 2010 3:27 PM

what a heartbreaking image.

say what you want about environmentalists, but according to the seattle times, bp has a terrible corporate track record. if they were drilling in shallower waters, they'd probably have screwed that up, too.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011791796_bpalaska06m.html

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

JohnQBuffalo

June 2, 2010 4:10 PM

Well the thing is that we are changing but our policies are not changing fast enough and many are still uncoordinated and in opposition. For example:
1) The Scandinavians who have little uranium but lots of Thorium are championing Hybrid Nuclear Reactors which produce 1% of the waste and can even burn nuclear waste as fuel. Why cant we do that here instead of storing it at Yucca Mountain?
2) Solar and its cousin LED/OLED/OLET is not on the path of its parents (semiconductor chips) to Moores Law of doubling performance/halving cost.
3) Transportation has adjusted. The laws are now changed for Trolley's, Light Rail, Passenger Rail, High Speed Rail, Rail Freight, many forms of hybrid and electric trucks and cars, etc.
4) Ultra efficent and thin foam insulation is coming to market from the R&D Centers allowing nearly everything to conserve energy
5) heck next generation refrigerators and air conditioners could be working on sound or magnets.
Oh the list goes on and its a fascinating list that keeps growing.

So why havent we noticed a big change in energy?

1) Well one reason that people simply do not want to face is immigration. We are the #1 energy consumers per person in the world and he have added 100 million (legally and illegally) people to our population and trends show that we are going to add another 100 million immigrants in the coming decades.

2) We are not truly a capitalist nation but a socialist if not communist nation when it comes to policy. Think tanks have long recommended leveling the playing field in energy subsidies so that we DO NOT PUT ALL OUR SUBSIDIES into oil, gas, coal and nuclear but instead equalize out those subsidies based on an equal cost R&D/BTU, equal cost of design and construction, etc of energy.

If this happened then algae and bacteria for ethanol and biodiesel, solar, geothermal, passive geothermal (aka heat pumps), wind, replacing current reactors with hybrid thorium reactors, etc.

Instead we keep subsidizing Oil by government policy the way we subsidized gas guzzling cars and trucks and SUVs, plus the roads they drove on.

Yes its shifting...the people are shifting and the policies are shifting...unfortunately so much power and money is at stake that it takes disasters like this!!!

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

johnnywalker

June 3, 2010 10:51 AM

'and trends show that we are going to add another 100 million immigrants in the coming decades'.

Dont worry, Buffalo does not appear to be on their radar map

[ Reply ]

replied to JohnQBuffalo

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

JohnQBuffalo

June 2, 2010 4:16 PM

For anyone who truly cares about this disaster and wants to use our resources here to make change then my I once again remind everyone that its time to create CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE #2 IN POWER GENERATION, POWER DISTRIBUTION AND POWER MANAGEMENT.
-we have a flagship state research university here
-we have the largest hydro power project east of the Mississippi that cant find enough to invest local development so why not invest in another center for excellence
-we have NYPERG grants and Federal Grants that we could bring here
-we have locally hydro, geothermal, passive geothermal, ethanol, biodiesel, wind, nuclear, coal and coal generation, natural gas and natural gas generation, oil and oil generation...
-we also have producers of motors, turbines and generators locally
-we also have battery technology locally
-we also have specialists in material sciences: gas, ceramics, metals, semiconductors, nanomaterials

WE HAVE EVERYTHING THAT COULD PUT BUFFALO AND WNY ON THE LEADING EDGE OF ENERGY...WHY CANT WE GROUP THEM TOGETHER LIKE WE DID WITH THE CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE IN LIFE SCIENCES?

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

suburban_hillbilly

June 3, 2010 9:16 AM

This conversation has officially deteriorated into partisan BS as does every political coversation in America. What ever happened to choosing a position based on what you feel is "right" or "wrong"? Every decison seems to be based on "Right" or "Left" with little use of any reason or objectivity. I hate politics in this country. Our system would serve its people if everyone were disconnected from party affilliation and made decisions based on their own system of ethics. Democrats and Republicans equally screw the American people by towing party lines and making decisions out of spite rather than reason. PS...there is a huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that isn't the fault of any political party. Albeit catatrophic, it was an accident.

[ Reply ]

replied to JohnQBuffalo

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 3, 2010 9:47 AM

I agree with you, both sides are equally horrendous and damaging to America. I just hate the Dems and Repubs continually pointing fingers at the other while they feel that they are beyond reproach. Our system is jacked up, and I was hoping that there may be a legitimate third party springing up with the Tea Party movement, but it turned out to be a rebranding of the Conservative party.

[ Reply ]

replied to suburban_hillbilly

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

suburban_hillbilly

June 3, 2010 12:23 PM

Agreed. I would love to see a candidate simply not comment on/address/affiliate with any political party of any name and truly be "independent" not part of the "independent party"

[ Reply ]

replied to jimmy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

davvid

June 3, 2010 1:31 PM

Sorry but i'm skeptical of the suggestion that because there appears to be two sides and because the system appears to be dysfunctional, that both sides must be equally guilty and equally despicable.

The suggestion is that Democrats are exactly as corrupt as the Republicans and CNN is exactly as biased as Fox News. Separate but equal. I find this very hard to believe.

The entire idea of symmetrical American politics seems off.

And then there are these others that take the idea of symmetry even further by suggesting that there are liberal TV shows and conservative TV shows, liberal culture and conservative culture. So we need to give Tucker Carlson a show on PBS. Because naturally in bizarro-world he becomes the un-Bill Moyers. This leads some to the brilliant conclusion that the mainstream media and major universities are dominated by lefties and that objectivity is a myth.

Again, it just seems off. Its too simplistic. I know too many people that defy these kinds of categories.

[ Reply ]

replied to jimmy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 3, 2010 2:09 PM

This goes beyond Fox News and Rush Limbaugh... The Democrats receive are influenced as much by private interests and lobbyists as the Republicans are. One side is as career oriented, elitist, otu of touch, and corrupted as the other. You are looking only at the surface. Do you think that CNN isn't biased one way or the other, maybe not as blatantly biased as FOX or Limbaugh, but biased just the same. Do you believe that their advertisers know that, that the networks are not indebted to certain politicians or their reporters / writers leaning towards one side of the aisle?

I don't believe that there is balance between the two parties, one parties corruptness or purchased influence is not equal on all issues. There are issues where the inbalance is heavily skewed to the right, and others that are heavily skewed to the left. Unfortunately, they do not balance each other out, and the backoffice deals and quid pro quo agreements make it even more corrupt and ineffective.

The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans, always have been and always will be.

[ Reply ]

replied to davvid

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

davvid

June 3, 2010 4:09 PM

My issue is sort of narrow. I just wanted to highlight a tendency of referring to two permanently fixed, equally opposed, equally corrupt parts.

"The ______ are just as bad as the ______ , always have been and always will be."

It seems unbelievable and confusing. It caused me to wonder if it isn't intentionally misleading.

But I think we agree that a third party could help to disrupt the dichotomous thinking that I was commenting on.

[ Reply ]

replied to jimmy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

benfranklin

June 3, 2010 2:10 PM

For years the mainstream media was dominated by NBC/ABC/CBS (network news). In the battle for viewers, it helped to be seen as warm/helpful/compassionate. The lowest common denominator needs to be played to (highest ratings), which turns into, "isn't this heartbreaking, why isn't someone doing more" (fill in any story...autistic children to starving zebras).

As mass media has become splintered into so many sources, it reached the point where a few million informed individuals can watch a single channel, at make it the top rated news source.

Your average reporter doesn't have much experience meeting a payroll, balancing a budget, or doing much else that requires making hard choices. Although the elites on the left will claim the viewers of Fox are simpletons, I'd bet a majority of them have a far greater experience base to draw on than your average left leaning reporter.

[ Reply ]

replied to davvid

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

davvid

June 3, 2010 5:04 PM

I'm trying to write a response but I'm too confused by your comment. I think I'm missing your point.

[ Reply ]

replied to benfranklin

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

LesterCzepnakski

June 2, 2010 5:20 PM

there are good points on both sides but we have to remember that the oil is not leaking in lake Erie it isib the ocean and how much water is on the ocean allot so in theong term it won't be bad it just the here and now that we need to be thinking of. they say that bp will become a smaller company after this so they'll get what they s
deserve right?

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Dan

June 2, 2010 5:35 PM

Yeah, that's Lake Erie in 1972. We've come a long way.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

LesterCzepnakski

June 2, 2010 5:45 PM

exactly and another thing, this may seem crzay but it's not really our problem you really have to think. why new Orleans is being punished by Katarina now this?? but be thakful that ourlake is in good shape.

[ Reply ]

replied to Dan

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

bufflow

June 2, 2010 6:06 PM

Well, this is what happens when we live in a society where the relentless chase of short-term profits comes before all other concerns.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

queenie

June 2, 2010 7:07 PM

A very fine post, Steel. And right to the point. I am scared that this is the "Black Swan" of our time. Perhaps they simply will never be able to control this gusher. "Spill," is it?

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

sonyactivision

June 2, 2010 7:13 PM

There's probably oil underneath the lake off of Pennsylvania but why bother drilling for it? Who would benefit? A big multinational that's used to creating big messes in weak countries and just leaving them behind when the profits dwindle? No way. We have to get off of oil as quickly as possible it's literally destroying everything it touches.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 2, 2010 7:50 PM

Yes, let us get off of oil now. We need to stop the manufacturing and sale of plastics, detergents, paint, lipstick, bubble wrap, eye glasses, bike tires, life jackets, artificial limbs, IV bags, golf balls, medical tubing, shower curtains, shampoo, child car seats, food wrappers, laptops, ipods, asphalt, water bottles, credit cards, toilet seats, anti-bacterial gel, telephones, nail polish, fiber optic cables, DVDs, mosquito netting, legos, crayons, and roller blades. To name a few.

A little more than half of the oil used in the United States is used for fuel. The rest is used for petroleum based products, like those mentioned above. To end our dependency will take more than a shift in driving habits, it will take a significant change in our lifestyles. This is something that solar and wind power will not replace.

[ Reply ]

replied to sonyactivision

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

June 2, 2010 8:43 PM

Actually Jimmy, Less than 5% of US oil consumption is used in formulating product materials. Less than 2% of natural gas consumption goes to formulating product materials.

[ Reply ]

replied to jimmy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 3, 2010 5:58 AM

Actually STEEL, you are correct that I misstated that figure, but so did you. It looks like just under 20% of crude oil goes into the manufacturing process with about 80% being refined for fuels. That is still about 3.9 Million barrels used for manufacturing processes every day in the US. This does not take into account the amount used in other countries to make consumer goods that are imported into the US.

The point of my comment (I do agree with you BTW), is that we need to do more than cut back on driving to reduce our dependency on oil. Research of alternative fuels and processes is a start, but it is incomplete. We need to increase our awareness of other things that are produced with oil, if we really want to see the big picture here.

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 3, 2010 10:51 AM

To clarify, nearly 50% of domestic oil is used in manufacturing, according to the websites I was looking at. Most manufacturers rely on domestic oil due to stability in supply and prices, according to what I read. I need to find the link.

[ Reply ]

replied to jimmy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

JohnQBuffalo

June 2, 2010 8:56 PM

Your completely wrong Jimmy. Im no bleeding liberal but I do stay informed on Science and Technology and Business and Economics.

The chemical and plastics industry is switching to something called Thymergy. Thymergy is where the long and short chains of carbon molecules (used in energy, plastics, organic chemicals, etc) aka monomers and polymers are derived from natural sources.

You have seen examples of Thymergy in biodegradable plastic bags at your supermarket made from corn starch.

Better paper is made from plant material like Hemp than from tree pulp but the entire industry is built on tree pulp and chemicals.

Better and less toxic biofuels, plastics and chemicals can be made using chemical processes from natural materials but it was made from oil because the now valuable products were considered worthless waste byproducts.

So no, we dont have to be troglodytes and live in caves and under bridges to be green...we just need to re-engineer where we get our source material.

[ Reply ]

replied to jimmy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 3, 2010 5:47 AM

JOhnQ - This is an emerging technology that has yet to catch-on for most mainstream manufacturing of plastics. This manufacturing process is considerably more expensive and time consuming, and it produces a less desirable product than the petroleum based plastics. It is akin to the mainstream adoption of corn based fuels to replace oil based fuels. The potential is there, but despite 40 years of trying, the downside still outweigh the benefits.

[ Reply ]

replied to JohnQBuffalo

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Blackrocklifer

June 2, 2010 8:21 PM

We need to conserve now and even with our best effort we likely will be in trouble in the very near future.
We could reduce our need for oil by driving less and in smaller vehicles. Living in communities that are sustainable and investing in public transportation would greatly reduce dependance. We could limit the use of plastics and other oil based products to those items that are truly essential to health and safety. All of these would require a change in lifestyle that most Americans are unwilling to accept.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

georged

June 3, 2010 7:14 AM

If only everyone would move to that dump known as Blackrock the world would be a better place. Do you ever tire of writing this crap?

[ Reply ]

replied to Blackrocklifer

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Blackrocklifer

June 3, 2010 7:48 AM

If more Americans made the responsible choice of rejecting sprawl and returned to the old neighborhoods we would be in much better shape. Everbody except you, because with your obnoxious attitude you would probably get your a$$ kicked on a regular basis in a place like Black Rock.

[ Reply ]

replied to georged

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 3, 2010 8:15 AM

" you would probably get your a$$ kicked on a regular basis in a place like Black Rock."

Why are people in the city so aggressive and violent?

[ Reply ]

replied to Blackrocklifer

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Blackrocklifer

June 5, 2010 9:25 AM

Black Rock is not violent at all, never had a problem in over 50 years. My comment was in response to georged's rude and uninformed comment about my neighborhood. People that are rude and obnoxious could be confronted here and I think that is a good thing.

[ Reply ]

replied to jimmy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

georged

June 3, 2010 1:04 PM

Doubt it.

[ Reply ]

replied to Blackrocklifer

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Black Rock Advocate

June 4, 2010 12:51 AM

LMMFAO Dude pick a corner ANY corner in the old neighborhood and any one of use would be more than happy to hand your A$$ to you :D

[ Reply ]

replied to georged

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 4, 2010 8:00 AM

It is people like you that make the city a horrible place to live. Why would anyone want to live in Black Rock if they are threatened by wannabe thugs? It is best to stay in the suburbs where people are at least tolerant of other opinions and respect each other.

[ Reply ]

replied to Black Rock Advocate

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Scott Norwood

June 4, 2010 8:56 AM

I'm not about a$$ kicking, but I have to take exception with your statement. The city is NOT a horrible place to live. Some of us aren't ready to head to the burbs yet. If I were to scroll through this post, I would definitely not find tolerance and respect in many of your comments. This oil spill has zero to do with politics. Anyone using this disaster to further their own political career or ideology is really missing the point.

[ Reply ]

replied to jimmy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 4, 2010 9:27 AM

Many parts of the city are violent and crime ridden places that are unfriendly to outsiders. This post perpetuates the image that you might get hurt by walking through the wrong neighborhood.

I may not be polite in all of my posts, but I am not threatening to hurt people for disagreeing with me.

[ Reply ]

replied to Scott Norwood

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Blackrocklifer

June 5, 2010 9:32 AM

People are "tolerant in the suburbs", wow are you ever naive. Are these the same suburbs that have worked for decades to keep out the poor, minorities, and anybody else that is different? "Tolerant" is the last word I would use to describe the suburbs.

[ Reply ]

replied to jimmy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

georged

June 4, 2010 10:11 AM

Haha, you are funny. I will be looking for you. Let me guess, you will be wearing Zubaz pants, sporting a mullet, and will be high on meth-correct? I do realize that this describes half the rednecks that live in that dump you call home.

[ Reply ]

replied to Black Rock Advocate

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Blackrocklifer

June 5, 2010 9:41 AM

It is obvious you are totally ignorant of the people that live in Black Rock. Like any poor city neighborhood there are some losers but the majority of people here are good and decent. Your comments reflect a basic rudeness and lack of insight and would be better suited to WBEN 930. There you could find common ground with the other uninformed haters.

[ Reply ]

replied to georged

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

benfranklin

June 2, 2010 8:32 PM

Thank God we have a president concerned enough about the environment that he'll put everything else aside, get involved, learn the engineering issues, and show leadership that is more than just bashing BP.

Good thing Bush/Cheney aren't around... God knows they'd just stay in Washington, play golf, and hope the Haliburton-centered-trust didn't go down too much.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

georged

June 2, 2010 10:20 PM

"Thank God we have a president concerned enough about the environment that he'll put everything else aside, get involved, learn the engineering issues, and show leadership that is more than just bashing BP."

yeah, Obama has been right on this oil spill. Give me a break buddy, Obama ignored this whole thing for weeks before getting so much pressure which forced him to address it. Even libs like James Carville have been killing Obama over the lack of leadership that he has shown during this. Bush would have been killed in the press if he acted like Obama, who was hosting fund raisers while all this was first going down.

Get a grip buddy, he didn't even put the caviar down in California on his fundraiser tour and didn't get involved until he started getting pressure to do so from polls. Tough to blame this one on Bush, as he does with everything else.

[ Reply ]

replied to benfranklin

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

whatever

June 2, 2010 10:36 PM

I could be wrong, but I think ben's comment was just joking.

[ Reply ]

replied to georged

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

benfranklin

June 3, 2010 10:37 AM

You could be right.

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

June 2, 2010 10:37 PM

The only reason Carvil is complaining is because he lives in New Orleans. By the way the Oil exploration regulations in place now were set during bush and would have been even more lax if the republicans were able to hold on to congress during his term.

[ Reply ]

replied to georged

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

benfranklin

June 3, 2010 6:05 AM

Are you saying Carville has nothing to complain about because the spill is no big deal (which would go against everything else you've said), or do you believe that the President has shown real leadership?

When Carville criticized Bush for his handling of Katrina, can you imagine the response by those on the left if you had written 'he's only complaining because he lives in New Orleans'.

The president seems to be diminishing the office to one of full time campaigner and part time critic. I'm no fan of the president, but for the sake of the environment, I hoped he'd get this one right. Looks like we'll be disappointed again.

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

georged

June 3, 2010 7:12 AM

By using your logic I guess you blame Clinton for the recession since it was under his admin that the deregulation of banks and legislation like NAFTA was passed. With a complete majority in House and Senate I would think and oil exploration legislation that was passed under Bush could have been easily defeated by the "green" president Obama-if he cared. Maybe he just received too much campaign funding from the oil companies. How do you like the Change and Hope?

Stick to writing those "Growing up City" self-indulgent postings that you used to do. At least those were funny to read.

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

June 3, 2010 8:39 AM

Are you interested in a conversation? I ask because inserting insults in your comments is not conversational - just boring.

As to the substantive part of your comment: The difference is that Bush had eight years to fix Clinton's F#ck up - for most of that time Bush had a squishy congress that rubber stamped any thing he wanted.He could have enacted stronger regulation Instead of enacting stricter regulation on banks during that time he did the opposite. Obama has only been in office for a little more than one year - during that time the conservatives in congress have put up road blocks on everything the President has tried to do. They have blocked EVERY legislative proposal and almost all of Obama's appointed positions. Most of his departments have no department head because of the Republicans. Amazingly they are still trying to block financial reform. They are also blocking the current energy bill that would have addressed some of the lax regulation in the energy industry. So yea it is pretty lame to blame Obama for this one. These Oil wells are operating under Bush rules - the rules that the Republicans would like to be even softer. If you want to blame Obama for anything blame him for trying to compromise on oil exploration as he tried to push a more sustainable energy policy.

As for Bush and Katrina - Unlike in the leaking well where Obama is limited in what he can actually do Bush could have actually and quite easily rescued people from bridges and from a stinking stadium but he did not because he said he did not know anything about it. There is a very big difference _

[ Reply ]

replied to georged

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 3, 2010 9:15 AM

Are you saying that the liberals did not block anything proposed by Bush? It sounds like you are being an apologist for Obama while throwing Bush under the bus.

You may want to gain some distance from Obama's a$$ to regain some perspective on reality.

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

June 3, 2010 9:46 AM

The liberals rolled over for Bush, hence the phony Iraq war approved by a majority of Congress. It should be noted that the only Bush vetoes occurred during the time when the democrats controlled congress - Bush vetoed anything proposed by the democratic controlled congress.

Are you trying to say that Bush was a good president and that the country is a better place after his 8 years? Are you going to blame the massive Bush failure on Clinton and Obama?

[ Reply ]

replied to jimmy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 3, 2010 10:42 AM

No, I am not saying that Bush was a good President. I am saying that Clinton and Obama are not walking on water, and that they need to take some responsibility for what has happened to America. Bush has become the universal scapegoat for all bad things that have occurred over the past 15 years.

I am definitely not a supporter of Bush, I never was nor will be. He deserves the criticism he gets, but we should be fair in the criticism we put on Clinton and Obama. They deserve what they get too, without the knee-jerk excuses and finger pointing at Bush.

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

June 3, 2010 11:03 AM

no one said bush is responsible for the last 15 years - just the 8 that he was in office and that was an 8 year clusterf&ck. To blame Obama for the crap Bush dumped in his lap is not very honest

[ Reply ]

replied to jimmy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 3, 2010 11:26 AM

Do you blame Clinton for the mess he created with the Mortgage and housing crisis? Do you blame him for the dotcom collapse? Do you hold Obama responsible for the lack of action he has taken in his first year in office?

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

June 3, 2010 12:14 PM

No because as I said Bush had an 8 year opportunity to fix it. That trumps any f#ck of Clinton. Sorry but if you don't try to fix the thing then it is your thing.

[ Reply ]

replied to jimmy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 3, 2010 3:18 PM

So Clinton is without blame because Bush had 8 years to fix whatevr Clinton had screwed up? Obama is not to blame because he inherited a mess from Bush and hasn't had enough time to clean it up. If we go a few more years with Obama, and things are not fixed, will you still blame Bush? At what point do you hold Obama accountable for the state of affairs that we are in today?

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

June 3, 2010 4:50 PM

If Obama tries to fix Bush's mess and is blocked by the Republicans as they are currently trying to do then it is on the Republicans. If Obama does not try to fix the problem or if he makes the problem worse by making regulations even more lax as was the case with Bush then it is on Obama. So far Obama is working to fix the problem so I have a hard time blaming him for our current mess.

As for Clinton - again - who cares. Bush had eight years to turn the car around. He decided to instead to drive us off the cliff.

[ Reply ]

replied to jimmy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

sho'nuff

June 3, 2010 7:07 PM

LMAO... now I don't care who you are that is a funny response. Clinton gets a free ride but Bush drove us off the cliff? Is Obama driving the tow truck?

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 4, 2010 9:34 AM

STEEL - that is an iterestig perspective, definitely one sided and full of your political bias. This is exactly how I would expect you to answer, just blame George W. Bush.

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

June 4, 2010 1:57 PM

Bush is possibly the worst president in our history and you think he is a God. I am not party line guy. I look at the facts ans make up my mind. No one tells me what to think. Bush was a disaster and that had nothing to do with Clinton.

Pretend all you want that Poor little W is a victim of that mean old Clinton and that Obama has ruined our economy in his one year in office. Doesn't change the fact that Bush change the fact that our country is weaker after his term in office on every metric.

[ Reply ]

replied to jimmy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

PoorPeopleSuck

June 4, 2010 2:27 PM

"I am not party line guy." unless you consider flaming liberal a party line. get real you lossssseerrrrrr
And yes poor people suck.

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 4, 2010 5:37 PM

STEEL - Are you that dense? I said something negative about Clinton and you take that as saying that Bush is a god? Even though I have stated my contempt and dislike with Bush? You really are a tool of the democrats. No one is saying that Bush is a victim of Clinton, just that Clinton isn't as much of a god as you seem to think he is.

I do understand your inability to comprehend something as simple as a conflicting viewpoint. You are a sheep in just about everything you do, after all.

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 4, 2010 5:39 PM

Bush is possibly the worst President in history, at least we can agree on one thing.

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

georged

June 3, 2010 12:43 PM

Realize that i am not a big Bush supporter, never was. What I do hate is the hypocrisy in American politics, and the very liberal bias that permeates almost all mainstream press in this country. Never said that Bush wanted to repeal the loose regulations and NAFTA which came about during the Clinton presidency. Neither did liberal congress members like Barney Franke. I am really sick of the blame Bush rhetoric that constantly comes out of Obama and his yes boys like Gibbs. It is arrogant and tiresome. If Obama wants to get legislation through he couldn't have asked for two better years to do so than he has. Look at the majority he holds in both houses. It is not from Republicans blocking his policies, it maybe just that he is an inneffective political leader. How about just being a leader instead of blaming everything on his predecessors. I am not really seeing the hope, and definitley not seeing the change.

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

sho'nuff

June 3, 2010 7:05 PM

That is blasphemy! How dare you say that the chosen one is not a good leader. He just hasn't had enough time to fix everything that Bush messed up. He just doesn't have the support in congress. He just has too many things to do. Give him a break, he is only a quarter of the way through his first term, how much could we possibly expect him to do? /sarcasm

[ Reply ]

replied to georged

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Blackrocklifer

June 3, 2010 8:12 AM

Ben- The Bush-Cheney coziness with big oil and the Republican mantra of less regulation, self policing, and lack of oversight have all contributed to this disaster.

[ Reply ]

replied to benfranklin

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

benfranklin

June 3, 2010 8:59 AM

I don't really disagree with your earlier statements (about conservation, etc.).

I would have thought that the administration would use it as 'teachable moment' (their phrase), and let us know as consumers we are partly to blame for this. Instead, we get a 'we'll make them pay for all the clean up.' That just sends a signal to every company that if you do anything that involves risk, you'll need to factor it in to your pricing.

Makes you think cap and trade was more about redistribution of wealth than any real concern for the environment.

[ Reply ]

replied to Blackrocklifer

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Sally

June 3, 2010 7:34 AM

Growing up City" self-indulgent postings that you used to do. At least those were funny to read.

Amen to tha - self indulgent IS steel's element

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Suckburbs

June 3, 2010 7:42 AM

It looks like the oil spill has the same footprint as suburban sprawl. It is as far reaching and just as harmful.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 3, 2010 8:13 AM

No No No... you don't understand. The Democrats cannot be blamed for anything that has gone wrong in America. Nearly every mistake, problem, and disaster can be traced back to the Republicans. Clinton made changes to correct the injustices implemented by Reagan. He did the right thing, it was George W. Bush who caused the recession. Obama just inherited the problems of George Bush, he has no culpability whatsoever. In four years, the blame will be shifted away from Obama to a Republican controlled Senate or House, or to a Global Crisis. Anything to keep the blame off the Democrats. This is the hypocricy of America, fully sanctioned and supported by our left wing media. Read the book "Bias" if you want some in depth understanding of how the main stream media takes it easy on the Democrats.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

June 3, 2010 9:47 AM

I only get my news from FOX news

[ Reply ]

replied to jimmy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 3, 2010 10:31 AM

If you think that CNN is biased then you are naive.

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

June 3, 2010 11:09 AM

No Fox is the only place for real true news. Beck is the only one telling it like it is.

[ Reply ]

replied to jimmy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 3, 2010 11:37 AM

What is your fixation with Fox News? Do you believe that CNN is unbiased? Answer the question.

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

June 3, 2010 12:16 PM

I don't care about CNN. Hannity and Beck tell it like it is. I need no other source of news. FOX is the only organization willing to give us the news the way we want to hear it.

[ Reply ]

replied to jimmy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Scott Norwood

June 3, 2010 9:37 AM

What does any of this Liberal/Conservative stuff have to do with the oil spill? We all know who is at fault...the environmentalists. Right Sally?

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Sally

June 3, 2010 9:49 AM

Right them and the politicians of both party that cave into them forcing the oil industry into international waters where as we can see it is nearly impossible to stop a spill. Wre they drilling on land or nearer to shore this spill would have been stopped weeks ago. As I said it was the law of unintended consequences that led to this disaster. The fault fault lies with three groups - the environmentalist, the government and BP

[ Reply ]

replied to Scott Norwood

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

June 3, 2010 10:05 AM

I think I heard this on Limbaugh. It must be true then.

[ Reply ]

replied to Sally

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Sally

June 3, 2010 10:19 AM

Only idiots listen to talk radio. No offense.

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 3, 2010 10:35 AM

Typical deflection technique from a typical democrat. Could you maybe be slightly more original or insightful in the future?

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

STEEL

June 3, 2010 11:08 AM

I think it is interesting that Limbaugh says something and then you instantly hear the far right wingers repeating as truth. Not a deflection at all

[ Reply ]

replied to jimmy

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

jimmy

June 3, 2010 11:28 AM

How do you know what Rush Limbaugh says if you aren't listening to him? I honestly have no idea what Rush says on any given day... how are you so much in the loop?

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

benfranklin

June 3, 2010 10:18 AM

I'd add our insatiable appetite for oil to the list. It's not like BP is drilling for this stuff to store it somewhere for future use.

It would be refreshing to see some bipartisan approach to advancing conservation, but it appears we can't even pull together to fight this disaster (or more attainable at this point, prevent future disasters). I'm not real thrilled with government intervening in healthcare, and other areas, but protecting our coastline is something the federal government should be doing.

Guess it must be nice to have McCartney over for a private show while fisherman in the gulf figure out how to make ends meet.

[ Reply ]

replied to Sally

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

georged

June 3, 2010 12:48 PM

Amen. McCartney, andDuke Basketball players, fundraisers all more important. Somehow Gibbs and Obama have the ability to silence the media and scold them when they ask tough questions. And people wonder why Fox News gets the high ratings?

[ Reply ]

replied to benfranklin

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

benfranklin

June 3, 2010 10:22 AM

I think I read this on BR, so it must be wwwaaaayyyyy to the left.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

PoorPeopleSuck

June 3, 2010 10:28 AM

Who really cares about the oil spill. Let's keep things local and organic people. Anyone know a good vegan restaurant?

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Sally

June 3, 2010 10:47 AM

Here are just a few of the links between the government and BP which may help to explain the Obama administrations non response for the last month or so.

http://mcnorman.wordpress.com/2010/05/30/why-should-it-matter-that-stanley-greenberg-gave-free-rent-to-rahm-emanuel/

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

johnnywalker

June 3, 2010 2:04 PM

Nothing like an unbiased news source.

[ Reply ]

replied to Sally

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Sally

June 3, 2010 2:36 PM

If you think such a thing as an unbiased news source exists in 2010 you are more naive than even Steel is.

[ Reply ]

replied to johnnywalker

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

johnnywalker

June 3, 2010 3:36 PM

Ohhhh, must have hid a nerve somewhere sally, you sound a bit testy there. Is that blog run by your cousin or something.

[ Reply ]

replied to Sally

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Sally

June 3, 2010 6:41 PM

Not at all google the Obama BP connection and you will find over 14 million links. Search out one you trust and inform yourself on how big oil,D your government are screwing you.

[ Reply ]

replied to johnnywalker

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Scott Norwood

June 3, 2010 10:00 PM

Did you know if you Google "Sally is to blame for the oil spill" you get 43,000 links?

[ Reply ]

replied to Sally

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

PoorPeopleSuck

June 3, 2010 1:52 PM

Don't forget the Gore's are getting divorced because of Bush. The new build on Elmwood and Byrant is so out of place. Now I know why people don't build to the curb, what a ridiculous concept, why are planners/whatevers brainwashed into drinking this kool-aide. It is so white.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

johnnywalker

June 3, 2010 9:01 PM

Did you know that if you type in BP donations to pee pee ca ca you get 9.3 million hits.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

MrGreenJeans

June 5, 2010 12:56 AM

Just wait to see what happens to the little songbirds we are enjoying right now. Many of them will be flying to South America this fall, but they'll stop in the Gulf area to rest - going both South and North. Next spring might be a sad, silent time for them and for us.

We Humans are killing the planet earth.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )