CHART OF THE DAY: Here's How To Cut The Trade Deficit In Half Right Now
Joe Weisenthal | Dec. 10, 2010, 9:51 AM
It's simple. All you have to do is eliminate oil imports from the trade deficit.
As this chart from Calculated Risk shows, based on today's data, eliminating our net petroleum imports would reduce the trade deficit from around $40 billion to closer to $20 billion.
Crudely annualizing this difference to $240 billion would represent a 1.7% boost to GDP of around $14 trillion.
This is what the fossil fuel oligopoly costs America in terms of trade deficit. It has plenty of other costs as well, including, of course, the imminent collapse of civilization due to global warming, and the immediate health and environmental costs, $51 billion a year just for premature deaths in Appalachia, for example.
But the trade deficit is a particularly "hard" measure of economic cost incured by this energy sector oligopoly. If oil weren't an oligopoly, if it were a part of a government-owned energy sector that therefore had no economic (or should we anti-economic) bias toward its existing holdings and investments as opposed to the optimal well-being of society as a whole, then the economic impediments to a swift transition to a more rational, cost-effective alternative would be far, far smaller. And that political impediments would be even smaller still.
This is but one example of how socialism--state ownership of the basic means of production--would significantly outperform our existing economic system, which calls itself "capitalism", but is arguably much better described as oligopoly capitalism. Freed from the competitive pressures of the "free market", whose ideology is used to justify it, any oligopoly will tend to soak up far more than it's fair share of income and profits--and with them the power to grab even larger and larger shares. But some oligopolies are much more powerful and dangerous than others, and the fossil fuel oligopoly is among the very worst there is.
On Thursday, a manageable explosion on a Gulf Coast oil rig reignited fears founded by the BP spill and revived calls for a reassessment of the country's drilling policies.
Just before 9 a.m. Thursday morning, the Vermilion Oil Rig 380 exploded. Unlike the Deepwater Horizon rig, this one was located in shallow waters. By late afternoon, a sheen of oil had been spotted, spreading a mile long from the burning rig; but by Friday morning the Coast Guard was saying the that was a mistake-there was no sheen.
Mariner Energy, the company that owns the well, said the fire burned off the oil used to power the well and was out by 3 p.m. The rig had seven actively producing oil wells, but they were quickly shut off after the fire began.
Media coverage and the spill
After more than four months of worry over the BP oil spill, the entire political apparatus-politicians and journalists, activists and lobbyists-shot into action at the news of the fire.
In April, when the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, the media was slow to realize how serious a disaster the explosion represented. (The Mulch was as guilty as anyone else: the rig exploded April 20, but on April 23, this column featured the Cochabamba climate conference.) BP's initial estimates of the spill's volume, later increased by thousands of barrels per day, encouraged this impression.
On Thursday, however, the Vermilion story topped the agenda. Groups like the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity blasted out reactions, and as Andrew Restuccia reported at The Washington Independent, drilling opponents like Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) seized on the incident to push their legislative agenda.
"As the U.S. Coast Guard responds to this latest incident, we must redouble our efforts to accelerate the push for clean, renewable energy and end our nation's dependence on oil," Lautenberg said, in a statement.
Ticking time bombs in the Gulf
It looks like this explosion, unlike the one at BP's Macondo well, will not extract a lasting price from the Gulf. That doesn't mean it's not a problem. Like the BP explosion, the Mariner incident shows the systemic risk that drilling requires. The system would benefit from better regulation and oversight.
Consider this image, from Mother Jones, that shows 33,000 miles of pipeline, 50,000 wells, and thousands of abandoned rigs.
At Earth Island Journal, Jason Marks puts Thursday's explosion into perspective. "Sure, this incident is frightening, and in that sense it's newsworthy," he writes. "But the fact is that fires, explosions, spills, and blowouts aren't all that uncommon in the Gulf's industrial archipelago...accidents happen all the time in the ocean oil fields."
Oil on the mainland
The ocean isn't the only place where the industry presents a danger, either. Grist's Jonathan Hiskes flags a recent spill in North Dakota totaling more than 1,000 barrels of oil. And the Michigan Messenger has been reporting for more than a month on the fall-out from a significant pipeline spill in that state.
It's notable, however, that incidents like these aren't getting as much attention as Thursday's non-spill. They represent real environmental disasters for the communities affected, but because they're more than 100 miles from BP's well, their problems don't raise the same fears.
Follow through
Politicians like Lautenberg who want to clamp down on drilling would do well to keep playing off of those fears, however. By the time Congress was ready to respond to the BP incident, stories about the spill had become so routine as to be easily tuned out. Even if the Mariner explosion has a minimal environmental impact, the specter of Deepwater Horizon could breath new life into legislative efforts to limit drilling.
"The best outcome would be that the only lasting impact is political," writes Change.org's Jess Leber. "Let this incident- "accident" already seems too light be more than just a reminder that the existing deep water moratorium needs to be in place longer....It should tell our elected officials they need to stop listening to inflated claims by the oil industry, and start looking at the evidence right before their eyes. All offshore drilling, in all its forms, needs to be reexamined at minimum."
Should Obama lift the drilling moratorium?
The Obama administration has been making noise about lifting the drilling moratorium early, but perhaps this new incident will push the White House to reconsider. Over the past few months, president has had terrible timing vis-à-vis drilling: as soon as he made it a keystone of a compromise on the Senate's energy bill, the BP spill happened. Now, just as his team has started making noise about lifting the ban, this explosion triggers memories about how bad the BP spill really was.
What if this explosion had triggered another oil spill? A temporary moratorium on new deep water drilling is not enough to make the entire endeavors of oil extraction a safe one. Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard puts a fine point on it:
The moratorium was put in place so regulators could evaluate whether offshore drilling can be done safely. And despite the outcry from the industry, the moratorium is only temporary (six months), and it's only on new exploratory operations. It doesn't even touch the existing deep water platforms, or drilling in shallow waters. If anything, today's news should be an indicator that we need to take the time to evaluate all offshore operations.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
I am one of those people who will actually watch those boring, boring, hearings on C-SPAN that most of us flip right on past while watching TV, and this past week I've been watching one of the longer events the channel broadcasts...but it's been far from boring.
The Coast Guard and what used to be the MMS were in Houston looking into what caused the Gulf oil spill and they're taking testimony from representatives of the involved parties...and let me tell you, this is more than just an accident inquiry-it's also a warm-up for the lawsuits that are surely going to follow.
This is the sixth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
Today, we examine Ohio's 15th Congressional District, which includes downtown Columbus and parts of neighboring Franklin, Madison and Union counties. Columbus is home to the Ohio State University and has the highest proportion of young professionals, aged 25-34, of any city in the country. In 2008, Mary Jo Kilroy became the first Democrat elected in the district since 1982, when she narrowly (by less than 2,500 votes) defeated Republican Steve Stivers. Kilroy and Stivers will be matched up again this fall.
Since coming to Washington, Rep. Kilroy has consistently voted for environmental protections and moving America to a clean energy economy. In her first year in the House, she received a perfect 100% rating from the League of Conservation Voters, which means she voted the right way on every environmental vote. This includes voting for the historic American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the first climate bill to ever pass in a chamber of Congress. In a statement following the vote, Kilroy said "The clean energy economy is the future of our country and of central Ohio...We are seeing the consequences of not investing in the next big idea with our auto industry. [ACES] secures Ohio's strong position to make the solar panels and wind turbines that will power our nation in the very near future. It will also benefit Ohio's agricultural sector, which can provide the plant material needed for the bio mass products that boost energy production." She added, "This bill puts the central consumers first and insulates them from shifts in prices. For less than a trip to the movie theater, Americans are going to create 1.7 million (jobs), end the stranglehold foreign countries have on energy and work to save our planet."
In sharp contrast, Steve Stivers falsely calls cap and trade a "job killer" that will lead to higher electricity bills for Ohio families. In reality, strong clean energy and climate legislation would create a net of 1.9 million jobs, according to in-depth study by the University of Illinois, Yale University and the University of California. In Ohio, this would mean 61,000 new, good-paying jobs created over the next ten years. And, as analysis by the experts in the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office shows, the effect of ACES on electricity bills will be, as Rep. Kilroy said, less than going to the movies once a month.
Stivers doesn't just stop at opposing clean energy and climate legislation, he also "disagree[s]" with the statement, "Man-made global warming is a scientific fact and immediate action to lower CO2 emissions is necessary to prevent an environmental catastrophe." And, if denying the unassailable science behind climate change wasn't enough, Stivers also opposes our right to hold the government accountable in court for protecting our public health and environment.
Koch Industries is privately owned by Charles and David Koch, who, according to Greenpeace, have "quietly funneled [$50 million] to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming." Robert Murray, the head of Murray Energy, is an outspoken climate denier, who said in testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee that global warming is "one of the biggest con jobs in the history of the Republic." Murray continued to criticize the legacy of Rachel Carson, saying that "She and her environmental followers killed millions of human beings around the World with the ban on DDT." Murray concluded by claiming that climate change legislation will "result in no environmental benefit." Finally, the Texas Freedom PAC is headed by Joe Barton, who infamously apologized to BP, and who also called the BP escrow fund that will pay businesses that lost money because of the Gulf disaster a "$20 billion shakedown."
These are a few of Stivers' big donors, all major polluters or supporters of major polluters, which makes you wonder what they think they're getting for their large donations to the Steve Stivers for Congress campaign.
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
(Waiting on Democratic strategists to figure out what to do is simply a passive way of committing suicide. Nuts to that. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
The following is the culmination of something I've been working on for several weeks. I've put a great deal of my time into this so whatever you do please make sure you watch the video.
Yesterday, the NRDC Action Fund launched a campaign featuring a powerful new ad by renowned environmental activist and celebrated actor, Edward James Olmos. In the video, which you can view here, Olmos explains what makes people - himself included - "locos" when it comes to U.S. energy and environmental policy. Now, as the Senate moves towards a possible debate on energy and climate legislation, we need to let everyone hear Olmos' message.
Hi, I'm Edward James Olmos. They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I guess that's what makes Americans "locos." We keep yelling "drill baby drill" and expecting things to turn out ok. But the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is nothing new. The oil industry has been poisoning our oceans and wilderness for decades. It's time to regain our sanity. America doesn't want more oil disasters. We need safe, clean and renewable energy now. Think about it.
Sadly, Olmos' definition of "insanity" is exactly what we've been doing for decades in this country -- maintaining policies that keep us "addicted" to fossil fuels instead of moving towards a clean, prosperous, and sustainable economy.
As we all know, dirty, outdated energy sources have caused serious harm to our economy, to our national security, and of course - as the horrible Gulf oil disaster illustrates - to our environment. In 2008 alone, the U.S. spent nearly $400 billion, about half the entire U.S. trade deficit, importing foreign oil. Even worse, much of that $400 billion went to countries (and non-state actors) that don't have our best interests at heart.
As if all that's not bad enough, our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels also has resulted in tremendous environmental devastation, ranging from melting polar ice caps to record heat waves to oil-covered pelicans and dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico.
As Edward James Olmos says, it's enough to drive us all "locos."
Fortunately, there's a better way.
If you believe, as we passionately do, that it's time to kick our addiction to the dirty fuels of the past, then please help us get that message out there. Help us air Edward James Olmos' ad on TV in states with U.S. Senators who we believe can be persuaded to vote for comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. If we can convince our politicians to do their jobs and to pass comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation this year, we will be on a path to a brighter, healthier future.
Good afternoon, I'm Forrest Brown, senior organizing fellow at the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.
This morning, we sent out an email to PCCC members letting them know that BP blocked workers cleaning up the oil disaster in the Gulf from wearing protective respirators.
In just 8 hours, more than 23,000 Today more than 27,000 people have joined our coalition. Can you help us keep up the momentum? Join here.
At present, oil saturates the Gulf Stream. An official six-month cessation of permits for new drilling did not actually affect the industry or government decisions. Despite Moratorium, Drilling Projects Move Ahead. To explain such an authorization and waiver, the Department of the Interior and the Minerals Management Services Division which regulates drilling, pointed to public statements by Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar. He did not intend to forbid all first cuts in the Earth's crust. Absolutely not. The Federal Government approved wells off the coast of Louisiana in June. Regardless of the day, or realities that are anathema to our citizenry, little has truly changed. Today, just as in yesteryear, we, the people of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect Union, polishpolicies to appear as though our civilization would wish to protect and defend all beings, equally.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is hosting four public information meetings on the proposed study of the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and its potential impacts on drinking water...The meetings will provide public information about the proposed study scope and design. EPA will solicit public comments on the draft study plan.
The public meetings will be held on:
* July 8 from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. CDT at the Hilton Fort Worth in Fort Worth, Texas * July 13 from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. MDT at the Marriot Tech Center's Rocky Mountain Events Center in Denver, Colo. * July 22 from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. EDT at the Hilton Garden Inn in Canonsburg, Pa. * August 12 at the Anderson Performing Arts Center at Binghamton University in Binghamton, N.Y. for 3 sessions - 8 a.m. to 12 p.m., 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. EDT
Brighton, Colorado (FNS)-Attorneys from the Republican Study Group (RSG) descended upon the 17th Judicial District courtroom of Judge John T Bryan today to present an amicus brief and associated oral arguments in order to prevent a settlement in a lawsuit related to an automobile accident in this Colorado city.
The intervening attorneys claim the settlement reached between the two parties to the accident is a "shakedown" because the plaintiff had not yet exhausted all possible legal remedies when the agreement was finalized, and because the agreement was executed in the presence of the plaintiff's brother, a well-known local attorney.
They hope Judge Bryan will decline to approve the settlement in today's hearing, and that he will order the parties to move forward to trial.
"What we have is government transferring property from one party, an admittedly unattractive one, to others, not based on preexisting laws but on decisions by one man, a car czar", said Crush Mimbaugh, attorney for the RSG, "and we are here today to protect all Americans from this legally sanctioned rape of an innocent driver."
Honestly, I am absolutely sick of commercial air travel these days. Just dealing with security is bad enough, but then there's the airlines, and...hey, all you really need to know here is that there has to be a pretty good reason for me to fly cross-country.
Well, I had one Saturday night, which is how I came to be in the Colonnade Room of the Fairmount Hotel, Washington DC with about 250 of my closest friends, in a classic shawl-collar tuxedo, attending one of the most exclusive "passing of the torch" ceremonies in recent Washington memory.
And when it was all over, Douglas Feith was a happy man.
BP is using a chemical dispersant, Corexit, supposedly to break up the oil so bacteria can eat it faster. This is not what is happening. It is causing the oil to sink out of sight to relieve pressure on the company, but may be causing far more damage than the spill otherwise would.
Environmental engineer Joe Taylor has a dire warning for BP: they have to stop using their chemical dispersant, Corexit, immediately. Or else, according to a report from WKRG in Mobile, everything is going to die!
He says the sulfur and sulfuric acid based dispersant makes the oil spewing into the gulf sink, where its impossible to clean up--and where it depletes oxygen levels under the water, killing plankton and everything above plankton in the food chain. "Corexit is toxic, petroleum is toxic, and its depleting the oxygen levels," he says.
What's worse says Taylor, is that if he knows this information, so does BP. "They have a lot of chemists who are a lot smarter than I am, and they know this," he says.
BP's use of a toxic dispersant to break up oil on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico will cause worse long-term damage to the ecosystem than had the company allowed the spill to reach coastal shorelines, contends a group of oystermen suing the petroleum corporation.
For more than a century, in unison, the planets' population proclaimed, thankfully petroleum flows. Oil powers our machines. The refined product has helped us manufacture massive quantities of clothing, aluminum sheet, and photovoltaic (PV) solar cells. "Plastics." As was professed in a popular film decades ago, "There's a great future in plastics." Presently, and in the past, BP understood this and much more. The company's Executives knew petroleum could and would provide endless profits, power, and a perpetual presence.
I just wanted to take a minute to say hello and to see how things have been for you lately, and to maybe bring you up to date on a bit of news from here.
Well, right off the bat, we hear you have a new Conservative Prime Minister and that his Party and Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems are in partnership, which I'm sure will be interesting; you probably heard that us Colonials are again having Tea Parties, which has also been very interesting.
I have a Godson who's getting married this September, so we're all talking about that, and I hear Graham Norton was even better than last year at hosting Eurovision, despite the fact that it's...frankly, it's Eurovision.
Oh, yeah...we also had a bit of an oil spill recently that you may have heard about-and hoo, boy; you should see how the Company that spilled the oil has been acting.
Americans acknowledge there is a problem. Petroleum pours out from a broken pipe. Thousands of barrels of fuel flow freely through the Gulf of Mexico, just as they have for more than a month. Plants, animals, and people are affected. People express distress. Millions are dismayed. What can BP do. Indeed what can any company or citizens do? Most call upon the President. Mister Obama, the electorate pleads, please, protect us. These same citizens ignore that the protection we need is from ourselves. Our present circumstances are a reflection of our past. Many Americans have forgotten an earlier time, when another of this country's Chief Executives attempted to avoid the nightmare we experience today.
STATE BLOGS
