January 2012

Sen. Inhofe demolishes energy independence rationale for cap-and-trade

by Marlo Lewis on June 23, 2010 · 3 comments

in Global Warming

Sen. James Inhofe’s daily Environment & Public Works Press Blog is a source I check early and often. The posts, which are more like essays than press releases, are incisive, rigorous, and witty. 

In today’s post, Sen. Inhofe explains, by the numbers, why the claim that cap-and-trade will help us get “beyond petroleum” is horse feathers. Cap-and-trade will significantly increase our pain at the pump, yet will hardly make a dent in U.S. dependence on petroleum and oil imports.

In EPA’s analysis, the Kerry-Lieberman bill would raise gasoline prices to $5.00 a gallon in 2050 yet would leave U.S. petroleum consumption about where it is today. EPA’s analysis last year of the Waxman-Markey bill came to much the same conclusion, observing that it “creates little incentive for the introduction of low-GHG [greenhouse gas] automotive technology.” Similarly, the Energy Information Administration estimated that Waxman-Markey would reduce U.S. petroleum consumption in 2030 a mere 5% relative to the baseline projection. 

And, as Sen. Inhofe notes, there is no provision in either bill to refund the extra bucks consumers would have to shell out at the pump.

New Federal Interference With Oil-Spill Clean-Up: Feds Stop Louisiana From Dredging Needed to Create Protective Sand Berms

by Hans Bader on June 23, 2010 · 2 comments

in Agriculture, Economy, Employment, Energy, Environment, Ethanol, Global Warming, International, Labor, Legal, Mobility, Natural Resources, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere, Trade, Zeitgeist

A TV station in New Orleans reports that “the federal government is shutting down the dredging that was being done to create protective sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico.”   Louisiana planned to create the sand berms to prevent the massive BP oil spill from polluting its coastline.

Earlier, a federal judge blocked Obama’s drilling ban on offshore drilling, citing deception by Obama administration officials.  The ban applied mostly to oil companies with radically better safety records than BP.  (BP’s executives gave lots of money to Obama and lobbied for his legislation.)

Obama delayed the clean-up of the Gulf of Mexico by blocking foreign crews from operating sophisticated clean-up vessels.  The Jones Act bans foreign vessels and crews from working in U.S. waters, but it gives the President the authority to completely waive that ban if he wishes.  Obama refused to lift the ban, even though American shippers who generally support the ban said they wouldn’t object to lifting it to fight the spill.  As a result of the ban, the U.S. rejected a lot of foreign aid from counties with expertise in fighting oil spills, and accepted only a small amount of foreign equipment to fight the spill.

The federal government has routinely been a thorn in the side of Louisiana as it seeks to fight the huge oil spill.  It recently used red tape to force Louisiana to stop using 16 barges that were cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico by sucking thousands of gallons of oil out of Louisiana’s oil-soaked waters.  Earlier, four oil skimmers needed to clean the Gulf were blocked by EPA officials.

The oil spill has been called “Obama’s Katrina,” but Gulf Coast resident Paul Rubin says this is unfair to George Bush, who was not nearly as incompetent as Obama has been in dealing with the spill at BP’s Deepwater Horizon.  In the Wall Street Journal, Rubin notes that the oil spill occurred in federal waters and thus was a federal responsibility, while Hurricane Katrina occurred mostly on state land and thus was largely a state, not federal, responsibility, enabling incompetent local officials in cities like New Orleans to “interfere” with federal relief efforts:

In many respects, the Deepwater Horizon disaster and Katrina are mirror images of each other. The harm from Katrina was on state land—mainly Louisiana, but also Florida, Alabama and Mississippi. As a result, President George W. Bush and the federal government were limited in what they could do. For example, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff wanted to take command of disaster relief on the day before landfall, but Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco refused. Federal response was hindered because the law gave first authority to state and local authorities.  State and local efforts—particularly in New Orleans, and Louisiana more broadly—interfered with what actions the federal government could actually take. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin was late in ordering an evacuation and did not allow the use of school buses for evacuation, which could have saved hundreds of lives. President Bush had no power to change that decision.  The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is on federal offshore territory. The federal government has primary responsibility for handling the situation, while state and local governments remain limited in what they can do. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly changed its mind regarding the chemical dispersants that Louisiana is allowed to use. . . .As opposed to Katrina, state and local attempts to address the oil spill have been hindered by an ineffectual and chaotic federal response.

Obama is now using the BP oil spill to push a corporate-welfare-filled global-warming bill crafted partly by BP’s lobbyists.  Obama’s global warming legislation expands ethanol subsidies, which cause famine, starvation, and food riots in poor countries by shrinking the food supply, and also result in deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution. Subsidies for biofuels like ethanol are a big source of corporate welfare: “BP has lobbied for and profited from subsidies for biofuels . . . that cannot break even without government support.”

The $800 billion stimulus package is using taxpayer subsidies to replace U.S. jobs with foreign green jobs. It is also destroying jobs in America’s export sector.

Stimulus Package to Cost $75 Billion More Than Predicted; Plus, Government-Employee Bailout Sought

by Hans Bader on June 23, 2010

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, Energy, Environment, International, Labor, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere, Trade, Zeitgeist

The stimulus package is going to cost at least $75 billion more than the $787 billion the Obama administration claimed, according to the Congressional Budget Office.  President Obama and congressional leaders kept its projected tab beneath $800 billion to keep the support of wavering lawmakers like the senators from Maine, who worried that earlier stimulus proposals were too costly.   The Congressional Budget Office admitted last year that the stimulus package actually would shrink the economy “in the long run.”

Undaunted, Obama is now backing a $50 billion bailout for state government employees.

Obama claimed the stimulus package was needed to prevent the economy from suffering from “irreversible decline,” although the CBO predicted the economy would eventually recover with or without the stimulus (the CBO said the stimulus would increase the economy in the short run, while shrinking it in the long run).  The stimulus ended up being useless even in the short run, since its regulations destroyed thousands of jobs by triggering trade wars with other countries that killed jobs in America’s export sector (the stimulus package barred a measley 97 Mexican truckers from U.S. roads, a minor NAFTA violation that led to massive Mexican retaliation against U.S. exports of 40 farm products and kitchen goods worth $2.4 billion).  The stimulus also replaced American jobs with foreign “green” jobs through its expensive green-jobs program,which gave 79 percent of its money to foreign firms.  And it wasted money on welfare at the expense of badly-needed investments in roads and bridges.

Unemployment is much higher now than Obama said it would be if the stimulus passed.  As the Washington Examiner notes, “If his stimulus program was approved, Obama promised, unemployment would not go above 8 percent,” but it’s now close to 10 percent.  Unemployment is higher than the Administration predicted it would be even without the stimulus.

Obama fired an inspector general who uncovered fraud by a supporter who misused federal funds, thereby hindering the supporter’s ability to spend federal stimulus money.

Canada sees a good deal in Colombia FTA

by Fran Smith on June 23, 2010

in International, Politics as Usual, Trade

Canada ratified a free trade agreement with Colombia on June 21, showing that the U.S.’s northern neighbor knows a good deal when it sees it. Not so the U.S., which has been sitting on the U.S.-Colombia FTA since it was signed four years ago.

And it’s not all likely that the FTA will be submitted to Congress before the fall elections.  Too many unions have campaigned against the agreement since it was first negotiated.  Maybe after the elections more enlightened policymakers will realize that there’s no downside to the trade pact.  After all, most Colombian goods and services – under preferential agreements – already come into the U.S. duty-free or with low tariffs.  With the FTA, Colombia would immediately eliminate most tariffs on U.S. goods and phase out other tariffs.

With all the talk about President Obama’s new export initiative, leaving Colombia out of the equation doesn’t make any sense.  After all, Colombia is the largest market for U.S. agricultural products in South America, according to the U.S. Trade Representative.

Canada knows that – and so do some U.S. exporters.  The National Association of Wheat Growers said that the Canada-Colombia pact would be a big blow:

“U.S. wheat producers stand to lose export sales to Colombia worth up to $92 million per year, roughly half of their current market share, if the U.S.-Colombia trade agreement isn’t quickly ratified.”

Besides the economic benefits of the agreement, the pact would recognize Colombia’s role in Latin America as a defender of democratic governance.  Colombia’s president-elect, Juan Manuel Santos, could be a strong American ally, following in the footsteps of President Uribe.  Ratifying the FTA would go a long way in cementing this relationship.

Check out CEI’s publications on this issue.

Judge rules Obama deepwater drilling ban “arbitrary and capricious”

by Marlo Lewis on June 23, 2010

in Global Warming, Legal, Natural Resources, Odds & Ends

Yesterday, Judge Martin Feldman of the Eastern Louisiana District Court lifted the Obama administration’s six-month moratorium on all oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in waters over 500 feet in depth. 

Feldman held that the moratorium was ”arbitrary and capricious” and would do “irreparable harm” to businesses that own, operate, and service vessels used to support offshore drilling — an industry critical to the region’s economy.

Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar imposed the moratorium on May 28 in response to the BP Deepwater Horizon blowout and oil spill. Judge Feldman found the moratorium to be “arbitrary and capricious” on several grounds.

First, it was based on “misrepresentation.” In a Report issued the day before imposing the moratorium, Salazar claimed his policy had been “peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.” Not so, says Feldman:

As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointed observe, this statement was misleading. The experts charge it was a “misrepresentation.” It was factually incorrect. Although the experts agreed with the safety recommendations contained in the body of the main Report, five of the National Academy experts and three of the other experts have publicly stated that they “do not agree with the six month blanket moratorium” on floating drilling. They envisioned a more limited kind of moratorium, but a blanket moratorium was added after their final review, they complain, and was never agreed to by them.

Second, the agency’s decision is not supported by the evidence on which it was ostensibly based. The Report notes that “the risks associated with operating in water depths of 1,000 feet are significantly more complex than in shallow water,”  yet the moratorium would apply to all floating rigs – i.e. all rigs operating at depths greater than 500 feet. The agency makes no effort to explain why it set the cutoff at 500 feet rather than 1000 feet.

Third, “There is no suggestion that the Secretary considered any alternatives: for example, an individualized suspension of activities on target rigs until they reached compliance with the new federal regulations said to be recommended for immediate implementation.”

Fourth, the agency provided no “analysis of the asserted” hazards posed by the 33 deepwater rigs already permitted and operating in the Gulf. Rather, Interior “seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.” This is like assuming that all oil tankers are like the Exxon Valdez. “That sort of thinking seems heavy-handed, and rather overbearing.” 

Feldman’s ruling is unlikely to go unchallenged. According to Greenwire, David Guest, an attorney with EarthJustice who represented environmental groups in the case, opined that, “the Department of Justice will file an immediate motion for a stay and seek expedited review in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.”

Judge Blocks Gulf Drilling Ban, Citing Deception by Obama Administration; Obama Continues to Delay Gulf Clean-Up

by Hans Bader on June 22, 2010

in Agriculture, Energy, Environment, Ethanol, Global Warming, International, Legal, Natural Resources, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony

A federal judge has just blocked the Obama administration from imposing a blanket ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  Judge Martin Feldman cited blatantly false claims by the Obama administration in its report imposing the ban, and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, which protects against arbitrary government actions.  Earlier, Obama had delayed a clean-up of the Gulf of Mexico by Louisiana and foreign countries, by imposing unnecessary red tape.

“Judge Feldman hones in on blatant lies incorporated into the Deepwater report by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. His head should roll:

In the Executive Summary to the Report, the Secretary [Salazar] recommends “a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled . . .” Much to the government’s discomfort and this Court’s uneasiness, the Summary also states that “the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts”. . .the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading. The experts charge it was a “misrepresentation.” It was factually incorrect.  . . five of the National Academy experts and three of the other experts have publicly stated that they “do not agree with the six month blanket moratorium” on floating drilling.”

The government recently used red tape to force Louisiana to stop using 16 barges that were cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico by sucking thousands of gallons of oil out of Louisiana’s oil-soaked waters.  Earlier, four oil skimmers needed to clean the Gulf were blocked by EPA officials.

Obama also delayed the clean-up of the Gulf of Mexico by blocking foreign crews from operating sophisticated clean-up vessels.  The Jones Act bans foreign vessels and crews from working in U.S. waters, but it gives the President the authority to completely waive that ban if he wishes.  Obama refused to lift the ban, even though American shippers who generally support the ban said they wouldn’t object to lifting it to fight the spill.  As a result of the ban, the U.S. has rejected a lot of foreign aid from counties with expertise in fighting oil spills, and accepted only a small amount of foreign equipment to fight the spill.

Even Democrats are now criticizing the Obama administration for refusing to waive the ban to allow America’s allies to clean up the oil spill:

Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) said it was unacceptable that her state couldn’t utilize foreign vessels for skimming. She held up pictures of skimmers available in Mexico and Norway that could help.  ‘We are in emergency mode and we need skimmers,’ Brown said. “We need the big ones. I understand they’re available in other countries, including Mexico and Norway. What is the process for the state to utilize these vessels from other countries? … We’re talking about protecting Florida’s coast.’ . . .Deputy Maritime Administrator David Matsuda confirmed there has been one Jones Act waiver request for a foreign deck barge to operate within three miles of the U.S. coast. That request was denied . . . .Of course, the Obama administration could eliminate the bureaucratic delay entirely by simply following the precedent set by the Bush administration, which waived the Jones Act in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 to transport oil and gasoline throughout the Gulf region. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has the legal authority to suspend the law.

“The BP clean-up effort in the Gulf of Mexico is hampered by the Jones Act. This is a piece of 1920s protectionist legislation, that requires all vessels working in U.S. waters to be American-built, and American-crewed. So” the U.S. Coast Guard ”can’t accept, and therefore don’t ask for, the assistance of high-tech European vessels specifically designed for the task in hand.”

The law itself permits the president to waive these requirements, and such waivers were “granted, promptly, by the Bush administration,” in the aftermath of hurricanes and other emergencies. But Obama refused to do so after the spill, notes David Warren in the Ottawa Citizen.  Instead, Obama rejected a Dutch offer to help clean up the spill, noted Voice of America News:

“The Obama administration declined the Dutch offer partly because of the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from certain activities in U.S. waters.  During the Hurricane Katrina crisis five years ago, the Bush administration waived the Jones Act in order to facilitate some foreign assistance, but such a waiver was not given in this case.”

“After the Obama administration refused help from the Netherlands, Geert Visser, the consul general for the Netherlands in Houston, told Loren Steffy: ‘Let’s forget about politics; let’s get it done.’” But for Obama, politics always comes first: “The explanation of Obama’s reluctance to seek this remedy is his cozy relationship with labor unions. . . ‘The unions see it [not waiving the act] as … protecting jobs. They hate when the Jones Act gets waived.’”

(The Obama administration belatedly accepted some foreign equipment for use in fighting the spill, although it still blocked ships with foreign crews from working in U.S. waters.  As Voice of America notes, although ”the Netherlands offered help in April,” such as providing ”sophisticated” oil “skimmers and dredging devices,” the Obama administration blocked their crews from working in U.S. waters, and as a result, this crucial ”operation was delayed until U.S. crews could be trained” in June.  “The Dutch also offered assistance with building sand berms (barriers) along the coast of Louisiana to protect sensitive marshlands, but that offer was also rejected, even though Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal had been requesting such protective barriers.”)

In April 2009, the Obama administration granted BP, a big supporter of Obama, a waiver of environmental regulations.  But after the oil spill, it blocked Louisiana from protecting its coastline against the oil spill by delaying rather than expediting regulatory approval of essential protective measures.  It has also chosen not to use what has been described as “the most effective method” of fighting the spill, a method successfully used in other oil spills.  Democratic strategist James Carville called Obama’s handling of the oil spill “lackadaisical” and “unbelievable” in its “stupidity.”

Obama is now using BP’s oil spill to push the global-warming legislation that BP had lobbied for.  Obama’s global-warming legislation expands ethanol subsidies, which cause famine, starvation, and food riots in poor countries by shrinking the food supply.  Ethanol makes gasoline costlier and dirtier, increases ozone pollution, and increases the death toll from smog and air pollution.   Ethanol production also results in deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution. Subsidies for biofuels like ethanol are a big source of corporate welfare: “BP has lobbied for and profited from subsidies for biofuels . . . that cannot break even without government support.”

Supreme Court Upholds Controversial Antiterror Law; More Clues About Elena Kagan

by Hans Bader on June 22, 2010

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Environment, International, Legal, Nanny State, Nano & Biotech, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was instrumental in getting President Clinton to veto a ban on partial-birth abortion.  She also lumped together the NRA and KKK as “bad guy” organizations while serving in the Clinton White House.

The Supreme Court upheld an anti-terror law that is part of the Patriot Act, banning “material support” for groups designated as terrorists by the President.  It rejected a First Amendment challenge in a 6-to-3 ruling. Jacob Sullum criticizes the provision as being unconstitutionally overbroad.  Eugene Volokh comments here.

In another ruling, the Supreme Court made it harder to block biotech food products through meritless nuisance lawsuits, in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms.

It also issued several other rulings that are summarized here.

Earlier, Obama’s most recent Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, failed to properly defend federal laws protecting crime victims while serving in the Justice Department as Solicitor General.  Obama nominated a radical law professor to one important appellate judge position, and a judge who made excuses for a sexually-sadistic Roadside Strangler to another important appellate judgeship.

In other news, a Louisiana judge blocked the Obama administration from imposing a blanket ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, citing deceit and false claims by the Obama Administration, and a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, a vital safeguard against arbitrary government action.  Earlier, Obama had delayed a clean-up of the Gulf by Louisiana and foreign countries, by imposing unnecessary red tape

Culture Warriors Are Missing the Point

by Nicole Ciandella on June 21, 2010

in Culture

Viacom took a heavy-handed beating last week in The Washington Times. Robert Knight, senior fellow at the American Civil Rights Union, slammed the cable giant in the top op-ed of Friday’s Commentary section.

“All the major networks are awash in sex, profanity, violence and attacks on religion,” Knight writes. “But for sheer creepiness, Viacom wins, hands down.”

His reasons? Viacom’s Nickelodeon has a website which links to AddictingGames.com, which is BAD. Also, Viacom—or “Vilecom,” as Knight calls it—runs the “homosexual” LOGO network and Comedy Central, “which puts profanities in fourth-graders’ mouths in South Park” and which is currently developing a “blasphemous cartoon series” about Jesus Christ. MTV, also owned by Viacom, has just premiered a series about a geeky high-schooler with “abnormally-large genitalia.” This isn’t just trash, Knight explains; this is trash “aimed right at kids.”

“If someone came into your home and showed your child this stuff, under his raincoat, you’d have him arrested—at the least.” Knight fumes. “But Nickelodeon and MTV hum right along, fueled by ads from Disney, Hamburger Helper and other amoral advertisers.”

Knight is hardly the only vocal critic of Viacom. He joins legions of radical Muslims who condemned Viacom for South Park’s depiction of the prophet Mohammed.

The great defense attorney Clarence Darrow once said in a closing argument, “I am always suspicious of righteous indignation. Nothing is more cruel than righteous indignation.”

If there is a culture war being waged right now, it is not between the “moral” and the “immoral”; it is between those who would enforce their morality on others and those who believe in a free marketplace of ideas.

As America is terrorized by those here and abroad who wish to limit our freedom of expression, it is disappointing that those who claim to be patriots are attacking that which separates us from our enemies.

CEI Weekly: The Senate’s Global Warming Circus

by Charles Huang on June 18, 2010

in Economy, Energy, Environment, Features, Legal, Personal Liberty, Zeitgeist

CEI Weekly is a compilation of articles and blog posts from CEI’s fellows and associates sent out via e-mail every Friday. Also included in the Weekly newsletter is a brief description of CEI’s weekly podcast and a feature on a major CEI breakthrough made during the week. To sign up for CEI Weekly, go to http://cei.org/newsletters.


CEI Weekly
June 18, 2010


>>The Senate’s Global Warming Circus
The U.S. Senate seems determined to divest itself of its reputation as “the world’s greatest deliberative body” these days, as witnessed most recently during a debate over global warming. As Vice President for Strategy Iain Murray explains in a recent op-ed for the Washington Times, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was attempting last week to get her colleagues to stand up to the Environmental Protection Agency’s unconstitutional power grab over regulating greenhouse gases. While coming down to a close vote, her resolution of disapproval against the EPA’s scheme was ultimately defeated – though  by some of the most disingenuous and misleading rhetoric heard on the Senate floor in some time. As Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis points out, though, while falling short of a legislative victory, Sen. Murkowski succeeded in scoring an important political victory.


>>Shaping the Debate
Ending the Ethanol Experiment
Brian McGraw’s op-ed in the Washington Times

Movie Star Misses the Mark on Mining
William Yeatman’s op-ed in Human Events

America’s Nuclear Future Must Involve the Public
Iain Murray’s article in the Washington Examiner Opinion Zone


>>Best of the Blogs
Florida Property Insurance: Turning a Blind Eye is not Reform
by Michelle Minton

Pundits Gone Wild: Ronald Brownstein
by William Yeatman


>>LibertyWeek Podcast
Episode 97: Bailout Fatigue
Richard Morrison and Marc Scribner welcome co-host William Yeatman  for episode 97. We take on the latest federal bailout, attacks on Nancy Pelosi from the left, Obama and the BP blame, and opposition to supersizing the World Cup.


>>Support CEI

Like what you read?

The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s 25-year record of success is made possible by our over 3,000 supporters. Please be sure to stop by www.cei.org/support to make a donation today.  Curious about all the possible ways to donate to CEI? Contact Al Canata at acanata@cei.org or 202-331-2280 to find out more.



Follow CEI on the Web at:


Charles Huang

Web and Media Associate

Competitive Enterprise Institute

chuang@cei.org

http://www.cei.org

http://www.openmarket.org

202-331-1010

Obama Administration Blocks Clean-Up of Oil Spill by Louisiana and Foreign Allies By Imposing Red Tape

by Hans Bader on June 18, 2010 · 5 comments

in Agriculture, Economy, Energy, Environment, Ethanol, Global Warming, Health and Illness, International, Labor, Legal, Natural Resources, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Trade, Zeitgeist

The Obama Administration recently used red tape to force Louisiana to stop using 16 barges that were cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico by sucking thousands of gallons of oil out of Louisiana’s oil-soaked waters.

Earlier, it delayed the clean-up of the Gulf of Mexico by months, by blocking foreign crews from operating sophisticated clean-up vessels.  The Jones Act bans foreign vessels and crews from working in U.S. waters, but it gives the president the authority to completely waive that ban if he wishes.  Obama refused to lift the ban, even though American shippers who generally support the ban said they wouldn’t object to lifting it to fight the spill.  As a result of the ban, the U.S. has rejected a lot of foreign aid from counties with expertise in fighting oil spills, and accepted only a small amount of foreign equipment to fight the spill.

Even Democrats are now criticizing the Obama administration for refusing to waive the ban to allow America’s allies to clean up the oil spill:

“Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) said it was unacceptable that her state couldn’t utilize foreign vessels for skimming. She held up pictures of skimmers available in Mexico and Norway that could help.  ‘We are in emergency mode and we need skimmers,’ Brown said. ‘We need the big ones. I understand they’re available in other countries, including Mexico and Norway. What is the process for the state to utilize these vessels from other countries? … We’re talking about protecting Florida’s coast.’ . . .Deputy Maritime Administrator David Matsuda confirmed there has been one Jones Act waiver request for a foreign deck barge to operate within three miles of the U.S. coast. That request was denied . . . .Of course, the Obama administration could eliminate the bureaucratic delay entirely by simply following the precedent set by the Bush administration, which waived the Jones Act in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 to transport oil and gasoline throughout the Gulf region. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has the legal authority to suspend the law.”

“The BP clean-up effort in the Gulf of Mexico is hampered by the Jones Act. This is a piece of 1920s protectionist legislation, that requires all vessels working in U.S. waters to be American-built, and American-crewed. So” the U.S. Coast Guard ”can’t accept, and therefore don’t ask for, the assistance of high-tech European vessels specifically designed for the task in hand.”

The law itself permits the president to waive these requirements, and such waivers were “granted, promptly, by the Bush administration,” in the aftermath of hurricanes and other emergencies. But Obama refused to do so after the spill, notes David Warren in the Ottawa Citizen.  Instead, Obama rejected a Dutch offer to help clean up the spill, noted Voice of America News:

“The Obama administration declined the Dutch offer partly because of the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from certain activities in U.S. waters.  During the Hurricane Katrina crisis five years ago, the Bush administration waived the Jones Act in order to facilitate some foreign assistance, but such a waiver was not given in this case.”

“After the Obama administration refused help from the Netherlands, Geert Visser, the consul general for the Netherlands in Houston, told Loren Steffy: ‘Let’s forget about politics; let’s get it done.’” But for Obama, politics always comes first: “The explanation of Obama’s reluctance to seek this remedy is his cozy relationship with labor unions. . . ‘The unions see it [not waiving the act] as … protecting jobs. They hate when the Jones Act gets waived.’”

(The Obama Administration belatedly accepted some foreign equipment for use in fighting the spill, although it still blocked ships with foreign crews from working in U.S. waters.  As Voice of America notes, although ”the Netherlands offered help in April,” such as providing ”sophisticated” oil “skimmers and dredging devices,” the Obama Administration blocked their crews from working in U.S. waters, and as a result, this crucial ”operation was delayed until U.S. crews could be trained” in June.  “The Dutch also offered assistance with building sand berms (barriers) along the coast of Louisiana to protect sensitive marshlands, but that offer was also rejected, even though Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal had been requesting such protective barriers.”)

In April 2009, the Obama administration granted BP, a big supporter of Obama, a waiver of environmental regulations.  But after the oil spill, it blocked Louisiana from protecting its coastline against the oil spill by delaying rather than expediting regulatory approval of essential protective measures.  It has also chosen not to use what has been described as “the most effective method” of fighting the spill, a method successfully used in other oil spills.  Democratic strategist James Carville called Obama’s handling of the oil spill “lackadaisical” and “unbelievable” in its “stupidity.”

Obama is now using BP’s oil spill to push the global-warming legislation that BP had lobbied for.  Obama’s global-warming legislation expands ethanol subsidies, which cause famine, starvation, and food riots in poor countries by shrinking the food supply.  Ethanol makes gasoline costlier and dirtier, increases ozone pollution, and increases the death toll from smog and air pollution.   Ethanol production also results in deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution. Subsidies for biofuels like ethanol are a big source of corporate welfare: “BP has lobbied for and profited from subsidies for biofuels . . . that cannot break even without government support.”

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →