Something to think about from the P2P website.
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/manufacturing-contempt-through-the-commoditization-of-practically-everything/2010/11/29/comment-page-1#comment-451610
Monday, 29 November 2010
Platform - an organization we admire
Platform in it's own words:
For over 20 years, PLATFORM has been bringing together environmentalists, artists, human rights campaigners, educationalists and community activists to create innovative projects driven by the need for social and environmental justice.
This interdisciplinary approach combines the transformatory power of art with the tangible goals of campaigning, the rigour of in-depth research with the vision to promote alternative futures.
Since 1996, our work has focussed on the impact on our minds, our bodies, our society and our environment of that most potent of modern phenomena - the transnational corporation.
From the polluting of the air that we breathe, to the altering of the earth's climate, from the destruction of indigenous cultures to the demise of our town centres, transnationals are shaping our lives with unprecedented power.
To continue and expand their work they have a crowdfunding project up at indiegogo
http://www.indiegogo.com/licencetospill
They are offering some great rewards for supporters. Well worth checking it out.
For over 20 years, PLATFORM has been bringing together environmentalists, artists, human rights campaigners, educationalists and community activists to create innovative projects driven by the need for social and environmental justice.
This interdisciplinary approach combines the transformatory power of art with the tangible goals of campaigning, the rigour of in-depth research with the vision to promote alternative futures.
Since 1996, our work has focussed on the impact on our minds, our bodies, our society and our environment of that most potent of modern phenomena - the transnational corporation.
From the polluting of the air that we breathe, to the altering of the earth's climate, from the destruction of indigenous cultures to the demise of our town centres, transnationals are shaping our lives with unprecedented power.
To continue and expand their work they have a crowdfunding project up at indiegogo
http://www.indiegogo.com/licencetospill
They are offering some great rewards for supporters. Well worth checking it out.
The Ratcliffe Trial
http://ratcliffeontrial.org/
“On the issue of coal-fired power stations they are right … carbon emissions will kill us all … As politicians we do not grasp the urgency of scientific warnings about how little time we have left to radically transform our whole thinking about sustainable energy systems. Inevitably, this leaves the challenge to be picked up by the public rather than by parliament. In doing so, it just doesn’t help if we end up locking up those who would save the planet rather than those who drive us towards climate crises.”
Alan Simpson
Former MP for Nottingham South
Saturday, 27 November 2010
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
BP: a crude portrait of a repeat offender
In a Propublica report, journalist Abrahm Lustgarten, details BP's safety and maintenance failures and violations. He refers to the first dot in a crude portrait of a repeat offender:
Pascal was assigned to BP in 1998, when the company’s Alaska division was settling a criminal case involving a contractor who had illegally dumped hundreds of gallons of toxic waste back into a well hole. It was the company’s first federal felony, Pascal’s first assignment to BP and the first dot in a crude portrait of what would shape up to look like a repeat offender.
Read more at Propublica
http://www.propublica.org/article/bp-accidents-past-and-present
Pascal was assigned to BP in 1998, when the company’s Alaska division was settling a criminal case involving a contractor who had illegally dumped hundreds of gallons of toxic waste back into a well hole. It was the company’s first federal felony, Pascal’s first assignment to BP and the first dot in a crude portrait of what would shape up to look like a repeat offender.
Read more at Propublica
http://www.propublica.org/article/bp-accidents-past-and-present
Justice Department Letter to Feinberg regarding claims
Here is the link to Pro-Publica's article about the Justice Department's attempt to improve Feinberg's Gulf Coast Claims Facility.
http://www.propublica.org/article/read-justice-dept.s-letter-criticizing-gulf-spill-czars-final-claims-guidel
One of the main issues is 'releasing' BP from liability for a lump sum final payment.
http://www.propublica.org/article/read-justice-dept.s-letter-criticizing-gulf-spill-czars-final-claims-guidel
One of the main issues is 'releasing' BP from liability for a lump sum final payment.
Friday, 19 November 2010
An amazing video from Liberate Tate
This is an amazing video from an artist/activist action from Liberate Tate.
It doesn't seem to want to play on the blog but if you click the video it takes you to this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz-_2KLt1W0feature=player_embedded#at=94
Or you can watch it as part of an article about the action here:
http://www.tmponline.org/2010/07/01/liberate-tate-action-against-bp-sponsorship/
It's 5 minutes long but please watch to the end. The former Tate employee's words are so powerful and so touching.
It doesn't seem to want to play on the blog but if you click the video it takes you to this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz-_2KLt1W0feature=player_embedded#at=94
Or you can watch it as part of an article about the action here:
http://www.tmponline.org/2010/07/01/liberate-tate-action-against-bp-sponsorship/
It's 5 minutes long but please watch to the end. The former Tate employee's words are so powerful and so touching.
Friday, 12 November 2010
Louisiana Fairytale by Ellen and Arturo Ciompi
A Louisiana Fairytale - that's what we all wish for the people of the Gulf Coast - One with a happy ending please!
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
Sunday, 31 October 2010
From the Guardian
BP oil spill: Obama administration's scientists admit alarm over chemicals
Environmental Protection Agency experts expressed concerns to superiors about use of dispersants, says whistleblower group
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 August 2010 20.27 BST
larger | smaller
A plane releases chemical dispersant over the Gulf oil spill. Photograph: Reuters
The Obama administration is facing internal dissent from its scientists for approving the use of huge quantities of chemical dispersants to tackle the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Guardian has learned.
The US Environmental Protection Agency has come under attack in Congress and from independent scientists for allowing BP to spray almost 2m gallons of the dispersant Corexit on to the slick and, even more controversially, into the leak site 5,000ft below the sea. Now it emerges that EPA's own experts have been raising similar concerns within the agency.
Jeff Ruch, the exective director of the whistleblower support group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said he had heard from five scientists and two other officials who had expressed concerns to their superiors about the use of dispersants.
"There was one toxicologist who was very concerned about the underwater application particularly," he said. "The concern was the agency appeared to be flying blind and not consulting its own specialists and even the literature that was available."
Veterans of the Exxon Valdez spill questioned the wisdom of trying to break up the oil in the deep water at the same time as trying to skim it on the surface. Other EPA experts raised alarm about the effect of dispersants on seafood.
Ruch said EPA experts were being excluded from decision-making on the spill. "Other than a few people in the united command, there is no involvement from the rest of the agency," he said. EPA scientists would not go public for fear of retaliation, he added.
Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who introduced a ban on dispersants pending further testing in an oil spill bill passed by the House of Representatives last week, said the EPA had failed in its duty to protect the environment.
"We are undertaking a huge uncontrolled experiment with the entire Gulf," he said. "They have fallen down on the job very substantially because they allowed BP to use dispersants. Even when they told BP not to use dispersants they allowed BP to ignore their advice."
Independent scientists also criticised the EPA for claiming that the combination of oil and dispersants posed no greater danger to marine life on its own.
On Wednesday, a toxicologist from Texas Tech University is scheduled to tell a Senate hearing that the unprecedented use of dispersants "created an eco-toxicological experiment".
"The bottom line is that a lot of oil is still at sea dispersed in the water column," said Ron Kendall. "It's a big ecological question as to how this will ultimately unfold." Previous studies, including a 400-page study by the National Academy of Sciences, have warned that the combination of oil and dispersants is more toxic than oil on its own, because the chemicals break down cell walls, making organisms more susceptible to oil.
The EPA issued a report on Monday, based on a study of how much of the mixture was needed to kill a species of shrimp and small fish, just two of the 15,000 types of marine life in the Gulf. The EPA test did not address medium- or long-term effects, or reports last week that dispersants were discovered in the larvae of blue crab, entering the food chain.
"It was only one test and it was very crude. We knew going into this and the EPA knew that this mixture is highly toxic to many, many species. There is a whole weight of literature," said Susan Shaw, the director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute, who has been organising on the issue. "It is not the whole science. It's the convenient science."
Hugh Kaufman, a senior EPA policy analyst, dismissed the tests as little more than a PR stunt. "They are trying to spin this limited piece of information to make it look like dispersants are safe and that the Corexit dispersant is safe."
EPA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. It is under fire from Congress for allowing BP and the coast guard to ignore its order last May to cut the use of dispersants by 75%. Documents released by the Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey this week show the EPA allowed spraying of dispersants 74 times over a period of 48 days. At times, the EPA gave advance approval for the use of dispersants for up to a week. The documents also showed the EPA allowed BP to spray 36,000 gallons of Corexit in a single day. The controversy surrounding EPA's role in the oil spill marks a turning point for the Obama administration, which came to power vowing to repair the frayed relationship between scientists and government under George Bush and promising a new era of transparency.
Nine leading scientists have written a public letter calling on BP and the Obama administration to release all scientific data related to the spill, including wildlife death. "Just as the unprecedented use of dispersants has served to sweep millions of gallons of oil under the rug, we're concerned the public may not get to see critical scientific data until BP has long since declared its responsibility over," said Bruce Stein of the National Wildlife Federation.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010
Environmental Protection Agency experts expressed concerns to superiors about use of dispersants, says whistleblower group
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 August 2010 20.27 BST
larger | smaller
A plane releases chemical dispersant over the Gulf oil spill. Photograph: Reuters
The Obama administration is facing internal dissent from its scientists for approving the use of huge quantities of chemical dispersants to tackle the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Guardian has learned.
The US Environmental Protection Agency has come under attack in Congress and from independent scientists for allowing BP to spray almost 2m gallons of the dispersant Corexit on to the slick and, even more controversially, into the leak site 5,000ft below the sea. Now it emerges that EPA's own experts have been raising similar concerns within the agency.
Jeff Ruch, the exective director of the whistleblower support group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said he had heard from five scientists and two other officials who had expressed concerns to their superiors about the use of dispersants.
"There was one toxicologist who was very concerned about the underwater application particularly," he said. "The concern was the agency appeared to be flying blind and not consulting its own specialists and even the literature that was available."
Veterans of the Exxon Valdez spill questioned the wisdom of trying to break up the oil in the deep water at the same time as trying to skim it on the surface. Other EPA experts raised alarm about the effect of dispersants on seafood.
Ruch said EPA experts were being excluded from decision-making on the spill. "Other than a few people in the united command, there is no involvement from the rest of the agency," he said. EPA scientists would not go public for fear of retaliation, he added.
Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who introduced a ban on dispersants pending further testing in an oil spill bill passed by the House of Representatives last week, said the EPA had failed in its duty to protect the environment.
"We are undertaking a huge uncontrolled experiment with the entire Gulf," he said. "They have fallen down on the job very substantially because they allowed BP to use dispersants. Even when they told BP not to use dispersants they allowed BP to ignore their advice."
Independent scientists also criticised the EPA for claiming that the combination of oil and dispersants posed no greater danger to marine life on its own.
On Wednesday, a toxicologist from Texas Tech University is scheduled to tell a Senate hearing that the unprecedented use of dispersants "created an eco-toxicological experiment".
"The bottom line is that a lot of oil is still at sea dispersed in the water column," said Ron Kendall. "It's a big ecological question as to how this will ultimately unfold." Previous studies, including a 400-page study by the National Academy of Sciences, have warned that the combination of oil and dispersants is more toxic than oil on its own, because the chemicals break down cell walls, making organisms more susceptible to oil.
The EPA issued a report on Monday, based on a study of how much of the mixture was needed to kill a species of shrimp and small fish, just two of the 15,000 types of marine life in the Gulf. The EPA test did not address medium- or long-term effects, or reports last week that dispersants were discovered in the larvae of blue crab, entering the food chain.
"It was only one test and it was very crude. We knew going into this and the EPA knew that this mixture is highly toxic to many, many species. There is a whole weight of literature," said Susan Shaw, the director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute, who has been organising on the issue. "It is not the whole science. It's the convenient science."
Hugh Kaufman, a senior EPA policy analyst, dismissed the tests as little more than a PR stunt. "They are trying to spin this limited piece of information to make it look like dispersants are safe and that the Corexit dispersant is safe."
EPA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. It is under fire from Congress for allowing BP and the coast guard to ignore its order last May to cut the use of dispersants by 75%. Documents released by the Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey this week show the EPA allowed spraying of dispersants 74 times over a period of 48 days. At times, the EPA gave advance approval for the use of dispersants for up to a week. The documents also showed the EPA allowed BP to spray 36,000 gallons of Corexit in a single day. The controversy surrounding EPA's role in the oil spill marks a turning point for the Obama administration, which came to power vowing to repair the frayed relationship between scientists and government under George Bush and promising a new era of transparency.
Nine leading scientists have written a public letter calling on BP and the Obama administration to release all scientific data related to the spill, including wildlife death. "Just as the unprecedented use of dispersants has served to sweep millions of gallons of oil under the rug, we're concerned the public may not get to see critical scientific data until BP has long since declared its responsibility over," said Bruce Stein of the National Wildlife Federation.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010
Science or Propaganda ?
BP has been running 'outreach' sessions which are meant to help 'the small people' understand the oil disaster and the clean-up. But are these sessions, in which NOAA appears to be complicit, science or propaganda.
http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100923/ARTICLES/100929639
http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100923/ARTICLES/100929639
Pro-publica also see a problem with this.
In School Outreach, BP and NOAA ‘Dispel Myths’ About Dispersants, Subsurface Oil
by Marian Wang ProPublica, Oct. 4, 2010, 3:12 p.m.
Even as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calls for more research into the long-term effects of the chemical dispersants BP used in the Gulf, representatives of BP and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have reached out to local schools to “dispel myths” about dispersants and subsurface oil, according to recent reports in the Houma Courier and the Tri-Parish Times. (We first noticed the Tri-Parish Times piece via TreeHugger.)
BP and NOAA appear to be doing demonstrations for local schools using a 10-gallon fish tank full of water, some cooking oil, and some dishwashing detergent to simulate the properties of oil and the effects of dispersants.
The Houma Courier quoted NOAA science support coordinator Gary Ott as telling the children, “Oil floats. See, we’ve tested it.” (The oil-floats argument is also what then-BP CEO Tony Hayward said when first confronted with evidence of underwater oil plumes this summer.)
According to the two reports, Ott had the children try to use eyedroppers to suck up the oil, simulating the inefficiency of skimmers. He had them use paper towels to simulate absorbent booms.
And then he applied dishwashing detergent to the floating oil to break it down — simulating dispersants. Though he acknowledged the dispersed oil doesn’t disappear and could hurt some fish species, Ott told the children that the chemicals were broken down within weeks by microbes, the Courier reported. He also assured the children that Gulf seafood was safe to eat.
Scientists, as we’ve reported, have found thick layers of oily sediment on the Gulf sea floor. And more recently, researchers at Oregon State University found abnormally high levels of carcinogenic chemicals in water off the coast of Louisiana, Mother Jones noted.
We’ve asked both NOAA and BP for comment regarding the demonstrations. A BP spokeswoman told me she was working on putting together a response, but has not yet provided one. We’ve asked specifically what “myths” about dispersants the company was trying to dispel.
In any case, here’s how the company explained the outreach to the Tri-Parish Times:
"The primary purpose [of the demonstration] is to inform and educate students on the methods used to clean up the oil in the Gulf and the wetlands and marshes," Janella Newsome, BP media liaison said in a press release. "It's also to dispel myths about dispersants, subsurface oil and seafood safety." According to BP representatives, it won't be the last demonstration. "This is the first session of many going on," Charles Gaiennie, a BP representative said at Oaklawn's library last week. "We are starting here in Terrebonne Parish with eighth grade because they are the first of school age kids that have a defined science class. We wanted to reach out to schools that are near communities that have been directly impacted by the oil spill, so Terrebonne was a good choice. There's a lot of information that's out there isn't current or accurate."
During one demonstration, reported the Tri-Parish Times, a BP representative asked the students questions about the oil spill. Students who answered correctly received a BP hat or pen as a prize.
Friday, 29 October 2010
Reappearance of Huge Plumes of Oil is Making It Hard to Pretend that the Problem Has Disappeared
Guest Post: Reappearance of Huge Plumes of Oil is Making It Hard to Pretend that the Problem Has Disappeared
Posted By George Washington On October 28, 2010 (12:35 am) In Guest Post
Posted By George Washington On October 28, 2010 (12:35 am) In Guest Post
There is a flood of information coming out on the Gulf oil spill.
Why?
The reappearance of huge plumes of oil is making it hard to pretend that it has all gone away.
Here’s a roundup of some of the Gulf oil headlines from just the last 4 days:
- “We have dolphins that are hemorrhaging. People who work near it are hemorrhaging internally.” — BP dispersants are causing sickness (this is published by Al Jazeera, but is written by award-winning American reporter Dahr Jamail and quotes American scientists)
And Frontline and ProPublica released a new documentary called The Spill which says:
- BP has a terrible track record of safety
- Workers had “an exception degree of fear” and worried about dying at BP’s texas oil refinery, and BP’s own plant manager pleaded for safety measures to be implemented. Headquarters said no.
- BP’s giant Alaska facility was only designed to last until 1987, and then was supposed to be torn down. But instead, according to one of BP’s Alaska workers: “They’re going to run everything to failure”.
- BP’s philosophy is: “How many lives can we afford to lose before we have to deal with this?”
- BP stopped doing a basic oil pipeline safety measure, which caused a huge spill in Alaska
- BP used too few inspectors, and used unqualified inspectors
- The giant Thunderhorse platform fell over because a key part was installed backwards
- Internal documents show BP engineers trying to find ways to cut costs and cut corners, so BP bypassed numerous normal safety measures.
- When Tony Hayward took over as CEO, he said he was going to increase safety … at the same time he insisted on substantial new cost cutting measures.
- Because BP is not being reined in or restricted, and still has a cost-cutting culture, giant, future accidents will occur.
But as Greg Palast notes, The Spill is a whitewash sponsored by Chevron, rehashing information which Palast and others reported on years ago, and falsely implying that other oil companies have stellar safety records.
More on this topic (What's this?)Read more on Oil, Gulf Oil at Wikinvest
This Oil Driller is on Steroids: From Zero to $1.3 Billion in Four Years (Investment U, 10/11/10)
Best Oil Dividend Stocks (Learn Mining News, 9/10/10)
Weekly Oil Roundup: Crude Prices Sag (Hard Assets Investor, 10/27/10)
Article taken from naked capitalism - http://www.nakedcapitalism.com
URL to article: http://www.nakedcapitalism.
URL to article: http://www.nakedcapitalism.
Thursday, 28 October 2010
Miles of OIl Reported in Waters Open to Fishing
http://www.truth-out.org/fishermen-report-louisiana-bays-filled-with-oil64564
facingthegulf-potraitsofoil
 |
| http://thebigcaption.com/post/598505433/the-worlds-most-expensive-oil-painting-original In the waters of Chandeleur Sound, Louisiana, Wednesday, May 5, 2010. (AP Photo/Eric Gay) |
BP Facing the Gulf Portraits in Oil is a community arts project documenting the experience of empowering Gulf Coast residents to paint portraits of the Gulf Coast to enter into the BP Portrait Award.
Working with local artists, art schools and galleries we'll be running portrait painting ateliers in the most disadvantaged communities on the Gulf Coast.
Follow the story of the workshops and the paintings from endangered Gulf Coast communities to the UK National Portrait Gallery where the annual BP Portrait Award is held.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)