It
isn't just science that is the issue, as important as that is. What is
also involved is
Obama's
professed desire to be a centrist, to govern impartially, to "cross the
aisle"
and
consult with the "other side" since, so he has said, it is the best
thing to do.
There
have been, it is true, some highly publicized WH meetings with
Republican
lawmakers,
but it seems as if none of these events has had any impact on policy
decisions.
In other words, there have been for-public-consumption soirees,
but
little by way of substance. Almost nothing, as a matter of fact.
Not
that Republicans have been especially co-operative. But here is an area
where
GOP political strategy should be irrelevant. The oil disaster calls for
a
strictly
non-partisan approach if anything does. We all want and need the
objectively
best solution to the problem. It is now obvious we won't get it.
I
cannot say that I was born a Radical Centrist. Yet it seems to have been
in
my blood for a long, long time. In 1971 when still a teacher in
Kentucky,
I
organized a conference about coal strip mining. Which, as everyone
realizes,
is
a practice I utterly --viscerally-- loathe.
However,
no way was I going to convene a meeting in which only one side
of
the issue was given a chance to be heard. Instead, I made it a point to
invite
not
only environmentalists but also representatives of the coal industry,
not only
community
activists, but academics with scientific interest in coal who had no
activist
axes to grind, and so forth. If I say so myself, it was an educational
experience
for everyone concerned. And an opportunity for 1 : 1
discussions
between
people who otherwise never talked with each other.
I
bring this up because ( 1 ) it is something I know about from first
hand experience
although
surely there are other examples which might make the same point, and
(
2 ) it is in stark contrast to the oil disaster panel that Obama has
recently
appointed,
consisting of environmentalists only, excluding any people
from
the industry. That is, to use social science jargon, it is a
card-stacked
panel, the equivalent of a kangaroo court.
>From the beginning I was skeptical of the new administration. For about
a year
most
of my comments were muted, waiting to see how the WH would govern
in
practice, rather than pre-judge with almost no evidence to make a case
upon.
But
now, admitting that there have been at least a few positive actions
taken,
the
pattern has become unmistakable. There is almost nothing centrist about
Mr Obama,
as
the Detroit News article makes clear.
Billy
==========================================================
Editorial:
Obama fills oil drilling panel with opponents of offshore exploration
Everyone wants the mess
in the Gulf of Mexico to get cleaned up, fast, and just as important,
to not be repeated. So the appointment of a high-level presidential
panel to help set future drilling policy is welcome -- as long as that
group is basing its work on solid science and not ideology.
Unfortunately, there
doesn't seem to be a lot of technological expertise on the panel
appointed by President Barack Obama. Instead, it is filled largely with
members who come out of the environmental movement, many of whom have
expressed opposition to offshore drilling. The panel includes no
members from the oil industry, which could bring valuable expertise to
the discussion as well as better insight into the economic impact of
policy proposals.
It isn't realistic to
think that the nation can abandon offshore drilling and still meet its
energy needs. The question the panel should be concerned with is how to
make such drilling as safe as possible.
Protecting the
environment is a high priority, but so is making sure these valuable
oil reserves can be harvested for the benefit of a nation that is still
a long, long way from replacing fossil fuel with althernative energy
sources.
What's needed at the
moment is a hard look at what went wrong on the oil rig BP was leasing
from Transocean that led to an explosion and oil gusher that hasn't yet
been contained.
This examination will now
have to move on a parallel track with a legal case. Obama declared a
six-month moratorium on all deepwater drilling that was overturned last
week by a federal district judge, who said the ban was not
"fact-specific' enough to overcome the economic damage it caused. The
moratorium affects more than 30 other rigs that are searching for oil
and reportedly puts about 40,000 jobs at risk. The administration is
appealing the court order.
The commission ought to
focus on additional safeguards that could be required for such
drilling. For example, both Norway and Brazil require rig operators to
have additional backups for drilling mishaps, including the use of a
remote shut-off device called an acoustic switch, which uses sound
waves to trigger a rig's blowout preventer if electronic cables are
damaged. They cost about $500,000; the cost of the oil spill will be
reckoned in the tens of billions, along with the loss of 11 lives.
Other oil companies have
said they have safer operations than BP as they have tried to distance
themselves from the disaster. If that's true, they shouldn't suffer the
consequences of BP's negligence. Obama promised when he was elected to
respect science, and not to allow politics to distort scientific
findings. This panel would have a greater chance of living up to that
pledge had the president filled it with better balance.
© Copyright 2010 The Detroit
News. All rights reserved. |
![]()
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
