Last week we clued you in to BP's plans to increase the levels of ammonia and sludge thhey are discharging into Lake Michigan from their Whiting, IN refinery. Responding to the wave of local bad press the company got, BP ran full page ads in newspapers, letters to the editor, and even blog advertising, including here on Chicagoist.
Yesterday the Chicago Tribune ran with a front page headline detailing the flogging that BP took on Capitol Hill Tuesday, as both Republicans and Democrats from Illinois took turns trashing the petroleum giant. "For my purposes, this bipartisan meeting was to discuss the terms of surrender for BP," Mark Kirk (R - 10) told the Tribune. Jan Schakowsky (D - 9) weighed in, saying after a meeting with the corporation's American President, Bob Malone, that he "gets it." Lest this only be an orgy of Illinois pols, Michigan Congressman Fred Upton (R - 6) chimed in as well, telling the press “the last thing we need to see is that the Great Lakes take a step back.” Senator Evan Bayh (D - IN) was less forthright, who's press secretary said "We can't compromise Lake Michigan or any part of our environment for economic progress," but the refinery "is vital to issues relating to the nation's energy supply and our economy."
While Illinois lawmakers warned that BP would lose any fight over expanded dumping in the lake, and Rahm Emanuel (D - 5) is sponsoring a resolution condemning the permit that Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels approved (and which officially took effect Monday), none of the actions taken at the federal level will really address the root issue that led to this brouhaha in the first place.Certainly protecting the integrity of the Great Lakes as an ecosystem is important, it is all too politically convenient to make a fuss out of some dumping in Lake Michigan. Even if Congress stops BP from processing Canadian Crude oil at it's Whiting facility, it won't change the fact that we are quickly approaching a point where we'll have to take increasingly desperate steps to produce fuels for our lifestyle. If this bipartisan group of lawmakers were really serious about protecting the Great Lakes, and therefore the environment that we all depend on, real energy reform would be the centerpiece of this legislation, not a resolution condemning more pollution.
Image via Site Selection Online
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
I read their "BP Responds to Accusations" clarification, and it didn't seem like a big deal.
Are we just getting huffy about something that won't do anymore damage to the lake than a wastewater treatment plant?
Or is BP lying in their clarification?
Why can't we just have electric cars.
I'm confused . . . why is Illinois leading the uproar over this and not Indiana?
Don't get me wrong, I am glad that Illinois is out front on this important issue, but I'm constantly surprised at the obvious silence coming from Inidana.
Kevin writes, "Even if Congress stops BP from processing Canadian Crude oil at it's Whiting facility, it won't change the fact that we are quickly approaching a point where we'll have to take increasingly desperate steps to produce fuels for our lifestyle."
While I agree with you, it would be nice if you could support such claims with, you know, actual figures or other information. This claim is by no means universally accepted (if it were, the political situation in the USA would likely be different), and though you often write as though you are among a select group of truth-tellers, this type of writing--one unsupported claim after another--does nothing to win over people. I realize you are writing opinion, but even opinions must be shown to be supported by facts.
I find it hard to believe you've not grapsed this fact yet in your education or work or writing experiences. Perhaps you don't take your Chicagoist volunteer work seriously enough to write as one of those good writers who uses facts to back up claims--hell if I know. Perhaps you never had the good fortune of having a professor or editor or boss educate you on how to write in ways that actually change people's minds and bring them over to your cause. Again, I am only speculating. If you need such guidance, however, there are numerous tutors. In fact, I can offer you my services at a very reasonable rate.
As I said, Kevin, I agree with you on this specific claim, but it would nice to know if we agree on this claim based on similar facts, or if we have different ideas about why we believe that statement to be true (peak theory?; economics of fuel distribution? effects of Chinese and Indian fuel consumption? political pressures? all of the above? something elese?). Just dropping bombs into copy is no way to go about writing anything of substance, unless all you intend to do is preach to the converted, which is a pretty small and meaningless activity, I think.
Certainly you realize this, right?
Bravo Guest #3!
I was just going to bitch about what a pretentious windbag Kevin is, but you Sir (or Madam), may do the boy some good!
I'm confused . . . why is Illinois leading the uproar over this and not Indiana?
Don't get me wrong, I am glad that Illinois is out front on this important issue, but I'm constantly surprised at the obvious silence coming from Inidana.
I suppose BP and the oil lobby lining Indiana politicians pockets and a population of people who are oblivious, look at who they elect over there.
#3
I'm glad you agree with him but look at all your asking him to do. He'd have to take over the whole first page of the Chicagoist site to scratch the surface of what you've requested. Can't we just say that there's a limited supply of oil and a booming demand for it? Should people have to quote figures and facts if they believe in Global Warming just because a small minority of naysayers exist.
Guest #3, I find it ironic that, instead of supplying Kevin with the statistics that would be needed to flesh out his argument -- one with which you apparently agree -- you do exactly what you claim he does, i.e. "drop bombs into copy," by speculating that he does not know the difference between a supported opinion and an unsupported one. The substance of your complaint appears to be the insinuation that Kevin is incompetent because his argument doesn't have any substance. But since insinuations are by definition insubstantial, your complaint doesn't actually have any substance, either.
Actually, guest #3, all the evidence out there indicates that if we have not already hit what is called "peak oil", then we are rapidly approaching it. Not even the oil industry itself denies this fact. The industry just says that we haven't hit peak oil, but it does not deny that we are approaching peak oil. We hit the peak of new oil field discoveries back in the late 1960's.
As far as peak oil theory goes, pessimists say we've already passed the peak, optimists say peak oil won't be hit until 2037. Either way, its coming and it will be bad for oil-reliant economies.
Therefore, Kevin's assertion is correct that if we continue to rely upon oil, increasingly desperate (and expensive) measures will be necessary to continue to acquire oil, from sources not previously considered, such as Canadian Tar Sands, greater reliance upon heavy crude (such as that which is produced by Venezuela (Gulf oil is the most desireable - light crude)) or from new techniques to suck out the last remnants of oil from old, shuttered wells.
Read up on peak oil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
All I asking is that Kevin hint at what drove him to his conclusion. Is that so hard?
I, for one, am basing my conclusion on peak theory and future distribution problems, among other factors, including continued war in energy-producing areas and increased global-warming remedies.
6: Ironic in a cheap way, I guess. I merely asked Kevin what his evidence was for this idea, and you attack me. Funny how that works. I though it was the duty of the writer to back up his opinion, and you will notice I simply asked him for his facts.
7: No shit. But do you expect readers, especially those who might be persuaded to Kevin's ideas, to read his mind with every post? Apparently, he does. I find it funny, in a sad way, that you try to argue with me on something we agree on. Apparently you are a barber school graduate as well?
Guest #3: "this type of writing--one unsupported claim after another--does nothing to win over people."
I agree with you... but being condescending isn't a particularly good way to win people over either. You sound like a real prick.
I'm no liberal but the oil companies saying things like "we'll have to take increasingly desperate steps to produce fuels for our lifestyle" reminds me of the war on terror and the changes we will reluctantly be forced to change in our lives.
To me this logic makes little sense. They are essentially saying, to preserve your lifestyle you will have to change it in the name of preserving it. So BP can ruin our lakes in order to preserve our lifestyle, though we can no longer fish or possibly swim in it, while the government says that they can cap certain freedoms we used to enjoy, like due process, in order to preserver our lifesytle. In taking these steps, isn't our lifestyles already changed?
I for one am confused.
Anyway, the great lakes is (are?) one of the most important freshwater ecosystems in the world. I am glad there has been a blacklash against this and that people care (they do!) and hopefully this will stall or stop completely any attempt to put more pollutants into our lake.
Lastly, can someone point a link to how I can get involved? Sign a petition go to a protest? Thanks.
Sorry for the long post but this is a very important issue to me.
Guest #3: I did not "attack" you. I simply wanted to point out that you were contradicting yourself by doing something that you professed to disdain. Your original comment did not merely ask Kevin what the evidence for his opinion was. It insinuated that he did not understand how to support an opinion. That is both an insubstantiated claim (as you say, "speculation) AND an attack. If you had just written, "Kevin, what is your evidence for making these claims? Don't you think it is problematic to make an argument without supporting evidence?" you would be right. But that isn't what you wrot
oh man! anyone see the google ad "called bp and lake michigan"??? it's an ad by BP re this issue. glad to see chicagoist getting paid off this. haha.
"wrote" -- excuse me for the typo!
also here's a link to swill mineral water with bill murray - dredged from the bottom of lake erie - he likes his with a twist!
metacafe.com/watch/253357/swill_mineral_water/
Joshua: Well, I've explained myself, so you can get your panties unbunched, but the burden still rests with Kevin to, at least one of these days, support his opinions--even the ones we might tend to agree with. That was the whole point of my rant, and your claims of irony, while technically correct, are weak and beside the point.
You are right--you did not attack me. My apologies.
Guest #3: My point was that it is silly to try and stop energy companies like BP from dumping in Lake Michigan if you aren't going to push comprehensive energy legislation that takes us off polluting technologies like oil. What they don't dump in the lake will be dumped somewhere else when they figure out a different location to refine it at.
matty: If you are concerned about this issue, a good place to start would be to contact your elected representitives. If I remember correctly from your previous comments, you live in the Rogers Park area. Your Congresswoman is Jan Schakowsky, so a phone call to her office would be helpful, even if she already opposes the permits. Politicians need all the encouragement we can give them. A few phone calls to environmental groups might also plug you into some other productive ways to take action.
Also, in regards to the BP ad that is appearing on Chicagoist, I believe that the advertising policy at Chicagoist is much like that at The Nation: if you're willing to pay for it, we're willing to publish it. So, while we may disapprove, or even feel repulsed by, the political views of some of our advertisers, we generally won't ban them from advertising with us. But we do reserve the right to attack them in our our columns. I'd like to believe that our readers are smart enough to read what's presented to them and draw their own conclusions with out Chicagoist acting as some sort of opinion filter.
Matty,
I'm not allowed to post links so go to environmentillinois[dot]org and you'll find petitions and alerts, look to the right of the homepage "How you can help".
Uh, Kevin, no (I'm guest 3)
If you recall, you wrote: " it won't change the fact that we are quickly approaching a point where we'll have to take increasingly desperate steps to produce fuels for our lifestyle. "
That is a huge claim. I was curious why you thought this: Peak theory, for instance?
I don't expect you to write a thesis, but even a dependent clause could do the trick. You do want people to take you seriously, don't you?
The truth is no one has come up with anything to effectively replace the combustible engine. So, Kevin, you are essentially asking politicians to create legislation mandating the use of something that doesn't exist.
Let's be realistic; until someone invents a cheaper and/or more efficient way to travel, the combustible engine is here to stay. The best we can all hope for right now is tougher MPG regulations. I mean, I don't see anything wrong with saying everyone needs to drive economy cars.
Somewhere Henry Ford is laughing, as the collective intelligence of the 21st century cannot significantly outdo him! Amazing!
Friday's Tribune is going to have an article that buried in the variance request is an increase in the mercury dumped into the lake!
Mercury!