14 Comments

1. DeAnander:

   I’m catching up on Sharon Astyk, who writes a good clear unadorned prose and offers a critique of the “public/private” dichotomy and how it intertwines with gender and power in industrial capitalism (she even quotes Mies!). I’m starting with “Depletion and Abundance” and will report later: so far she’s introduced me to the fascinating micro-movement “Riot for Austerity” (worth googling!), which all started with a wry observation from Monbiot that “no one ever rioted for austerity”.

   I’m momentarily fascinated by the contradictory uses of “austerity” — one being the rules imposed by the IMF etc. to ensure that the rich can go on getting richer by starving the nonprofit sector, and the other being a conscious secession from the consumer culture by fed-up citizens. More later. Much real-world work to do, posting in haste, on the run.

   18 May 2010, 2:01 pm

2. Marcilla Elizabeth Smith:

   I think the key word is “debt” (which is why “austerity” is mentioned instead). The money from the IMF (EU, US, etc) comes in the form of debt, the underlying reason for the austerity, but also a guarantee that the problem will worsen. Voluntary austerity measures are about getting out from underneath debt, whether it is refusing to debt finance so many capital expenses, or eliminating the kind of “debt” that comes with ownership of so many luxury items (maintenance on vehicles).

   18 May 2010, 3:31 pm

3. Curt:

   Damn I have been disturbed since I saw this film on ICH. It is now really clear to me how important austerity is.
   Yet I do not live an austere life. I also see how difficult it would be to live an austere life. If actually would not be hard if I did not have very much money. Well that day may be just a few years or less away. It could also be easy if I was so busy working that I did not have time to spend my money. I have been in that situation before too.
   Well with fossil fuel resources running out austerity is going to come. The thing is the things that fossil fuels can do are so valuable like powering ambulances, and the internet, and refrigerators, let alone the machines that can build mega projects like aqueducts, or bridges, that humans need to use it to its best potential.
   (Although with the tundra and oceans now stating to release methane it does not seem that humans have many generations left.)
   So what I am getting to in a not very smooth way is that to voluntarily live an austere life when we are faced with so much temptation is very difficult. Every trip that I make to the library in my private auto is really a luxury that is killing the planet. Even if I made the trip in a bus it would still be killing the planet, unless the bus was built with renewable energy and powered by renewable energy.
   Right now it looks to me like living an austere life would be waking up eating a Musli with oats and dried apricots or dates or raisins. Going out and working in a small field either planting or weeding the field or harvesting the crops. Coming home to a house that is heated to perhaps 50 or 55 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter. Then butchering a chicken or cleaning some fish and cooking a meal. Then taking a nap. Then knitting or weaving a basket, or tanning some leather which is very polluting by the way, or spinning wool or cotton thread, or smoking or air drying some meat, or, or, or, then eating a sandwich, then playing a game of chess or or rummy. In such a life a chess board or a deck of cards will be high tech. By then it will be getting dark and so most people will be going back to bed as candles will need to be saved for holidays.
   Newspapers will be non-existent because the costs of cutting the huge amounts of wood in Canada and Scandinavia and turning them in to paper and then moving the paper to a market will be outrageous. Even it could be done I think that people would much rather use the wood for smoking their fish or cooking their bread. Finally if anyone ever came up with the idea of a newspaper the old folks would laugh their heads off saying damn there were newspapers way back in history 50 years ago but they were good for nothing except to put on the floor for a cat or do to pee on.
   There might be radios to keep people entertained while they go about their daily chores. TV? Movie theaters?
   Little by little we can add things one at a time until we get to where we are now, not only the costs of running the things but the costs of manufacturing them and delivering them add up to what we have now, minus the Automobile. What percent of energy goes to running private autos? I bet that it is 25% to 40%. So if we get rid of them we buy some time but do we even buy time for one more generation if we do not get rid of most of the other things that we use fossil fuels to power.
   So what has me disturbed is that A.) Although I am willing to cut back on all of these little things I am not ready to give them up entirely. B.) I think even trying to sell the idea that people need to cut back let alone give something up entirely, like vacations away from home, except for honeymoons, will be very difficult. People have been claiming that we need to cut back since the 70s. I did not believe them. What are the chances that the people in there 20s 30s and 40s today are going to believe that they need to suddenly become austere.
   I have some nieces and nephews in those ages they are politically aware. They are aware that global warming and peak oil are conspiracies waged by big business to make lots of money retooling the economy. In my younger days I thought that austerity was a plot by rich people to have more left over for themselves.
   Things will not be easy.

   18 May 2010, 4:08 pm

4. Marcilla Elizabeth Smith:

   Just saw this:

   http://www.truthout.org/haitian-farmers-commit-burning-monsanto-hybrid-seeds59616

   “The MPP [Peasant Movement of Papay] has committed to burning Monsanto’s [475 tons of hybrid corn and vegetable] seeds.”

   18 May 2010, 5:08 pm

5. Stan:

   God bless ‘em.

   20 May 2010, 10:29 am

6. gdenby:

   I have lots of problems with “austerity.” Economic austerity programs are often just a way to transfer goods to those who don’t really need them (as noted,) or to maintain a war effort. And anyone who is voluntarily austere just leaves more for the rapacious to grab. Moreover, it seems that any healthy society will find some time and resources for a celebration. I’m not promoting self-indulgence. Every now and then, it good for the community to have a fatted-calf. Institutional austerity, I believe, would rule out fatted calves.

   But to deal with the present situation in America, and else-where, let me modify the metaphor. We have traded gobs and gobs of scrawny calves for a future that most likely will never allow a fatted one. So I approach something like eating organic ‘burgers like this. Trying to eat “organic” is sort of an indulgence. Its pretty expensive, and the food generally tastes wonderful. So good, in fact, that the general fare starts to taste awful (despite all the not-MSG glutamate it has.) Nevertheless, this consumption has a purpose. Its not about convenience, or getting Super-Sized. Its about trying to divert what resources I have to something that will be around after I’m gone.

   So what I’d like to encourage is not austerity, but an appreciation for really good things. Not to foist my preferences on anyone, but I’d rather have a long weekend by a clean lake, and some fire roasted fish, than a week in Micky_World. Or, to keep closer to the food issue, I’d rather have my fresh deviled duck egg salad on home made sourdough toast than an evening at a restaurant. (Except, maybe, for having to do the dishes, sigh.)

   20 May 2010, 11:54 am

7. Stan:

   HOUSTON/VENICE, La., May 21 (Reuters) – Anger, skepticism and accusations of lying washed over energy giant BP Plc on Friday as it desperately pursued efforts to contain a month-old seabed well leak billowing crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

   U.S. lawmakers and scientists have accused BP (BP.L) (BP.N) of trying to conceal what many believe is already the worst U.S. oil spill, eclipsing the 1989 Exxon Valdez accident in Alaska. It represents a potentially catastrophic environmental and economic disaster for the U.S. Gulf coast.

   The London-based energy giant, facing growing U.S. government and public frustration and allegations of a coverup, said its engineers were working with U.S. government scientists to determine the real size of the leak, even as they fought to control the still-gushing spill with…

   FULL

   21 May 2010, 1:00 pm

8. Ms Kitty:

   BP has done nothing even close to”desperately” pursuing efforts to contain the leaks. Everything they have tried so far has a straw attached to it to collect the spewing oil into an awaiting tanker. Only now that their lies about the full extent of the leak has been exposed have they finally started to talk about capping it off. And, the last computer graphic shown on the news looked like it still had a pipe to the top.

   The “relief well” is mostly a means of getting back into the gravy train via a sideways drill into what they have already tapped. Perhaps reminiscent of the lateral drilling from Kuwait into the Iraqi oil fields that most likely had no small part to play into the Iraq-Kuwait conflict.

   Meanwhile, tar balls are washing up on the shores of Florida and Oak Island NC. We are told that these are not from the BP spill, probably from a different one. What??? Is that supposed to be some kind of comfort?

   The Coast Guard prevented CBS and other reporters from accessing affected sites and clean up efforts today, telling reporters it’s BP’s orders……WTF!!!

   If I didn’t know better I’d think Dick Cheney was still the shadow president.

   How does this relate to local food? We may be eating our last home grown seafood this summer for many many years.

   21 May 2010, 9:00 pm

9. Steve:

   It looks very scary. It’s not good. I really feel… not good about that.” That’s what the International Space Station Commander, cosmonaut Oleg Kotov, says about the Gulf’s oil disaster.
   http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/455837main_Louisiana.A2010138.1900.250m-4x3_800-600.jpg

   22 May 2010, 5:27 pm

10. DeAnander:

    So now the Coast Guard answers to BP and other private companies, rather than to (even a corrupt or ineffectual) publicly-elected official?

    Praetorian Guards for our new overclass?

    The whole thing gets sicker and more obscene the more you hear about it.

    Here in Canada the Harper government is trying to spin the disaster into “good news” for Canadians: with the collapse of the Gulf fishery, Canadian shrimp and prawns may suddenly become more valuable! Hey, way to go! So there’ll be more motivation for the shrimp draggers (bottom dragging is essentially bulldozing the sea floor) to wreck our own local fishery. Isn’t it exciting when someone else’s disaster/tragedy provides additional fuel for your own local disaster/tragedy to accelerate and expand?

    24 May 2010, 2:31 am

11. Stan:

    Apologies for posting the whole text… free link not available (hat tip to Lou Proyect).

    Before that, though, what are some thoughts about making the oil and food connection clearer to more people (not all people, just more people)?

    NY Times May 23, 2010
    Despite Moratorium, Drilling Projects Move Ahead
    By IAN URBINA

    WASHINGTON — 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.

    But critics say the moratorium has been violated or too narrowly
    defined to prevent another disaster.

    With crude oil still pouring into the gulf and washing up on
    beaches and in wetlands, President Obama is sending Mr. Salazar
    and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano back to the
    region on Monday.

    In a toughly worded warning to BP on Sunday, Mr. Salazar said at a
    news conference outside the company’s headquarters in Houston, “If
    we find they’re not doing what they’re supposed to be doing, we’ll
    push them out of the way appropriately.”

    Mr. Salazar’s position conflicted with one laid out several hours
    earlier, by the commandant of the United States Coast Guard, Adm.
    Thad W. Allen, who said that the oil conglomerate’s access to the
    mile-deep well site meant that the government could not take over
    the lead in efforts to stop the leak.

    “They have the eyes and ears that are down there,” the admiral
    said on CNN’s “State of the Union” program. “They are necessarily
    the modality by which this is going to get solved.”

    Since the explosion, federal regulators have been harshly
    criticized for giving BP’s Deepwater Horizon and hundreds of other
    drilling projects waivers from full environmental review and for
    failing to provide rigorous oversight of these projects.

    In voicing his frustration with these regulators and vowing to
    change how they operate, Mr. Obama announced on May 14 a
    moratorium on drilling new wells and the granting of environmental
    waivers.

    “It seems as if permits were too often issued based on little more
    than assurances of safety from the oil companies,” Mr. Obama said.
    “That cannot and will not happen anymore.”

    “We’re also closing the loophole that has allowed some oil
    companies to bypass some critical environmental reviews,” he added
    in reference to the environmental waivers.

    But records indicated that regulators continued granting the
    environmental waivers and permits for types of work like that
    occurring on the Deepwater Horizon.

    In testifying before Congress on May 18, Mr. Salazar and officials
    from his agency said they recognized the problems with the waivers
    and they intended to try to rein them in. But Mr. Salazar also
    said that he was limited by a statutory requirement that he said
    obligated his agency to process drilling requests within 30 days
    after they have been submitted.

    “That is what has driven a number of the categorical exclusions
    that have been given over time in the gulf,” he said.

    But critics remained unsatisfied.

    Shown the data indicating that waivers and permits were still
    being granted, Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, Democrat of Maryland,
    said he was “deeply troubled.”

    “We were given the clear impression that these waivers and permits
    were not being granted,” said Mr. Cardin, who is a member of the
    Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where Mr. Salazar
    testified last week. “I think the presumption should be that there
    should be stronger environmental reviews, not weaker.”

    None of the projects that have recently been granted environmental
    waivers have started drilling.

    However, these waivers have been especially troublesome to
    environmentalists because they were granted through a special
    legal provision that is supposed to be limited to projects that
    present minimal or no risk to the environment.

    At least six of the drilling projects that have been given waivers
    in the past four weeks are for waters that are deeper — and
    therefore more difficult and dangerous — than where Deepwater
    Horizon was operating. While that rig, which was drilling at a
    depth just shy of 5,000 feet, was classified as a deep-water
    operation, many of the wells in the six projects are classified as
    “ultra” deep water, including four new wells at over 9,100 feet.

    In explaining why they were still granting new permits for certain
    types of drilling on existing wells, Department of the Interior
    officials said some of the procedures being allowed are necessary
    for the safety of the existing wellbore.

    Pending the recommendations of the 30-day safety review, the
    officials said, drilling under permits approved before April 20
    “may go forward, along with applications to modify existing wells
    and permits, if those actions are determined to be appropriate.”

    But Interior Department officials have also explained that one of
    the main justifications of the moratorium on new drilling was
    safety. The moratorium was meant to ensure that no new accidents
    occurred while the administration had time to review the
    regulatory system.

    And yet, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration
    has classified some of the drilling types that have been allowed
    to continue as being as hazardous as new well drilling. Federal
    records also indicate that there have been at least three major
    accidents involving spills, leaks or explosions on rigs in the
    gulf since 2002 caused by the drilling procedures still being
    permitted.

    “The moratorium does not even cover the dangerous drilling that
    caused the problem in the first place,” said Daniel J. Rohlf, a
    law professor at Lewis & Clark Law School, adding he was not
    certain that the Interior Department was capable of carrying out
    the needed reforms.

    The moratorium has created inconsistencies and confusion.

    While Interior Department officials have said certain new drilling
    procedures on existing wells can proceed, Mr. Salazar, when
    pressed to explain why new drilling was being allowed, testified
    on May 18 that “there is no deep-water well in the O.C.S. that has
    been spudded — that means started — after April 20,” referring to
    the gulf’s outer continental shelf.

    However, Newfield Exploration Company has confirmed that it began
    drilling a deep-water well in 2,095 feet of water after April 20.
    Records indicate that Newfield was issued a permit on May 11 to
    initiate a sidetrack drill, with a required spud date of May 10. A
    sidetrack is a secondary wellbore drilled away from the original hole.

    Among the types of drilling permits that the minerals agency is
    still granting are called bypass permits. These allow an operator
    to drill around a mechanical problem in the original hole to the
    original target from the existing wellbore.

    Five days before the explosion, the Deepwater Horizon requested
    and received a revised bypass permit, which was the last drilling
    permit the rig received from the minerals agency before the
    explosion. The bore was created and it was the faulty cementing or
    plugging of that hole that has been cited as one of the causes of
    the explosion.

    In reviewing the minerals agency, federal investigators are likely
    to pay close attention to how permits and waivers have been
    granted to drilling projects.

    Even before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the use of
    environmental waivers was a source of concern. In September 2009,
    the Government Accountability Office released a report concluding
    that the waivers were being illegally granted to onshore drilling
    projects.

    This month, the Interior Department announced plans to restrict
    the use of the waivers onshore, though not offshore. It also began
    a joint investigation of the offshore waiver process with the
    Council on Environmental Quality, an environmental arm of the
    White House.

    The investigation, however, is likely to take months, and in the
    meantime the waivers are continuing to be issued. There is also a
    60-day statute of limitations on contesting the waivers, which
    reduces the chances that they will be reversed if problems are
    found with the projects or the Obama administration’s review finds
    fault in the exemption process.

    At least three lawsuits to strike down the waivers have been filed
    by environmental groups this month. The lawsuits argue that the
    waivers are overly broad and that they undermine the spirit of
    laws like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered
    Species Act, which forbid drilling projects from moving forward
    unless they produce detailed environmental studies about
    minimizing potential risks.

    24 May 2010, 9:37 am

12. Henry:

    Pandora’s Oil Well May 11, 2010
    Posted by Jill S. Schneiderman in BP oil catastrophe, disasters, fossil fuel, geologic time, oil, oil spill.
    trackback

    This piece is cross-posted at truthout and CommonDreams.org.

    Technical jargon conceals by confusion. The immense scale of the problem surrounding the sinking of the Transocean drilling rig, “Deepwater Horizon,” requires that the public stay alert when confronted with slick lingo. So, I’d like to help readers understand from a geologist’s viewpoint the sad absurdity of the Gulf of Mexico situation—one that is much more than yet another “oil spill.”

    In September 2009 BP announced their discovery of the “giant” Tiber oilfield and crowed that drilling a 35,055 foot deep well into the earth’s crust under 4,132 feet of water made it one of the deepest wells ever achieved by their industry. Less than one year later, BP had to alert the public to an explosion and fire onboard the semisubmersible drilling rig—a “unit” floating above the seafloor that when flooded causes the contraption to submerge a desired depth and produce relative stability while drilling for oil and gas in rough waters. The rig was mining oil from the “Mississippi Canyon 252 well” that British Petroleum (BP) owns. And on Earth Day 2010, we learned that BP had “activated an extensive oil spill response” and was working with Transocean using remotely operated vehicles to assess the condition of the Tiber well and the “subsea blowout preventer.”

    A critical distinction here is between an oil spill and a blowout.

    More:

    http://jillschneiderman.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/pandoras-well/

    24 May 2010, 2:49 pm

13. Henry:

    George Kenney on the BP Oil Catastrophe

    Word Power

    Every now and then — well, probably more often than that — public discourse settles upon the wrong word to describe something important. Using the wrong word makes it much more difficult, if not impossible, to have an intelligent and productive exchange of ideas. Such is the case with the Gulf catastrophe. At some subliminal level I had hesitated a fraction of a second before using the word “spill,” but mentally shrugged and went ahead and used it anyway. Like everybody else. That was a mistake. As Jill Schneiderman points out, in an absolutely brilliant, perfectly simple observation, it’s not a spill: It’s a gusher, or a blowout, or something along those lines. The earth’s crust is cracked, a mind-boggling volume of oil has started to leak out. It might even leak a billion barrels. We just don’t know. And we really don’t know how to fix it… Thanks, Jill, and Kudos to you! The word “spill” shall now be retired, at least on this blog.

    http://jillschneiderman.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/george-kenney-on-the-bp-oil-catastrophe/

    24 May 2010, 2:54 pm

14. Jill Schneiderman:

    Thanks so much for linking to my blog, Henry. I just want to correct one small error. The Deepwaster Horizon exploded when it was drilling into the Macondo, not the Tiber oil field. It’s not a critical point but I just want to make sure that I don’t mislead anyone. In my zeal to call attention to what I think is horribly wrong about this ongoing situation, before many of the details came out, I honed in on the name of a proximal field that the Deepwater Horizon had been drilling prior to it’s work at Macondo. The error speaks in some sense to the fact that oil companies make it difficult to find out what they are up to and where since it’s all proprietary. In any case, the disaster continues with oil continuing to be unloosed despite our attempts to control it. Once again, many thanks for the link.

    29 May 2010, 4:41 pm

Leave a comment