Pages

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Pakistan’s Double Game

July 26, 2010


There is a lot to be disturbed by in the battlefield reports from Afghanistan released Sunday by WikiLeaks. The close-up details of war are always unsettling, even more so with this war, which was so badly neglected and bungled by President George W. Bush.
But the most alarming of the reports were the ones that described the cynical collusion between Pakistan’s military intelligence service and the Taliban. Despite the billions of dollars the United States has sent in aid to Pakistan since Sept. 11, they offer powerful new evidence that crucial elements of Islamabad’s power structure have been actively helping to direct and support the forces attacking the American-led military coalition.
The time line of the documents from WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to exposing secrets, stops before President Obama put his own military and political strategy into effect last December. Administration officials say they have made progress with Pakistan since, but it is hard to see much evidence of that so far.
Most of the WikiLeaks documents, which were the subject of in-depth coverage in The Times on Monday, cannot be verified. However, they confirm a picture of Pakistani double-dealing that has been building for years.
On a trip to Pakistan last October, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested that officials in the Pakistani government knew where Al Qaeda leaders were hiding. Gen. David Petraeus, the new top military commander in Afghanistan, recently acknowledged longstanding ties between Pakistan’s Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, known as the ISI, and the “bad guys.”
The Times’s report of the new documents suggests the collusion goes even deeper, that representatives of the ISI have worked with the Taliban to organize networks of militants to fight American soldiers in Afghanistan and hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders.
The article painted a chilling picture of the activities of Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul of Pakistan, who ran the ISI from 1987 to 1989, when the agency and the C.I.A. were together arming the Afghan militias fighting Soviet troops. General Gul kept working with those forces, which eventually formed the Taliban.
Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States said the reports were unsubstantiated and “do not reflect the current on-ground realities.” But at this point, denials about links with the militants are simply not credible.
Why would Pakistan play this dangerous game? The ISI has long seen the Afghan Taliban as a proxy force, a way to ensure its influence on the other side of the border and keep India’s influence at bay.
Pakistani officials also privately insist that they have little choice but to hedge their bets given their suspicions that Washington will once again lose interest as it did after the Soviets were ousted from Afghanistan in 1989. And until last year, when the Pakistani Taliban came within 60 miles of Islamabad, the country’s military and intelligence establishment continued to believe it could control the extremists when it needed to.
In recent months, the Obama administration has said and done many of the right things toward building a long-term relationship with Pakistan. It has committed to long-term economic aid. It is encouraging better relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is constantly reminding Pakistani leaders that the extremists, on both sides of the border, pose a mortal threat to Pakistan’s fragile democracy — and their own survival. We don’t know if they’re getting through. We know they have to.
It has been only seven months since Mr. Obama announced his new strategy for Afghanistan, and a few weeks since General Petraeus took command. But Americans are increasingly weary of this costly war. If Mr. Obama cannot persuade Islamabad to cut its ties to, and then aggressively fight, the extremists in Pakistan, there is no hope of defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Getting Lost in the Fog of War


Washington
ANYONE who has spent the past two days reading through the 92,000 military field reports and other documents made public by the whistle-blower site WikiLeaks may be forgiven for wondering what all the fuss is about. I’m a researcher who studies Afghanistan and have no regular access to classified information, yet I have seen nothing in the documents that has either surprised me or told me anything of significance. I suspect that’s the case even for someone who reads only a third of the articles on Afghanistan in his local newspaper.
Let us review, though, what have been viewed as the major revelations in the documents (which were published in part by The Times, The Guardian of London and the German magazine Der Spiegel):
First, there are allegations made by American intelligence officers that elements within Pakistan’s spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, have been conspiring with Taliban factions and other insurgents. Those charges are nothing new. This newspaper and others have been reporting on those accusations — often supported by anonymous sources within the American military and intelligence services — for years.
Second, the site provides documentation of Afghan civilian casualties caused by United States and allied military operations. It is true that civilians inevitably suffer in war. But researchers in Kabul with the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict have been compiling evidence of these casualties, and their effect in Afghanistan, for some time now. Their reports, to which they add background on the context of the events, contributed to the decision by the former top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to put in place controversially stringent new measures intended to reduce such casualties last year.
Third, the site asserts that the Pentagon employs a secret task force of highly trained commandos charged with capturing or killing insurgent leaders. I suspect that in the eyes of most Americans, using special operations teams to kill terrorists is one of the least controversial ways in which the government spends their tax dollars.
The documents do reveal some specific information about United States and NATO tactics, techniques, procedures and equipment that is sensitive, and will cause much consternation within the military. It may even result in some people dying. Thus the White House is right to voice its displeasure with WikiLeaks.
Yet most of the major revelations that have been trumpeted by WikiLeaks’s founder, Julian Assange, are not revelations at all — they are merely additional examples of what we already knew.
Mr. Assange has said that the publication of these documents is analogous to the publication of the Pentagon Papers, only more significant. This is ridiculous. The Pentagon Papers offered the public a coherent internal narrative of the conflict in Vietnam that was at odds with the one that had been given by the elected and uniformed leadership.
The publication of these documents, by contrast, dumps 92,000 new primary source documents into the laps of the world’s public with no context, no explanation as to why some accounts may contradict others, no sense of what is important or unusual as opposed to the normal march of war.
Many experts on the war, both in the military and the press, have long been struggling to come to grips with the conflict’s complexity and nuances. What is the public going to make of this haphazard cache of documents, many written during combat by officers with little sense of how their observations fit into the fuller scope of the war?
I myself first went to Afghanistan as a young Army officer in 2002 and returned two years later after having led a small special operations unit — what Mr. Assange calls an “assassination squad.” (I also worked briefly as a civilian adviser to General McChrystal last year.) I can confirm that the situation in Afghanistan is complex, and defies any attempt to graft it onto easy-to-discern lessons or policy conclusions. Yet the release of the documents has led to a stampede of commentators and politicians doing exactly that. It’s all too easy for them to find field reports to reaffirm their preconceived opinions about the war.
The Guardian editorialized on Sunday that the documents released reveal “a very different landscape ... from the one with which we have become familiar.” But whoever wrote that has not been reading the reports of his own newspaper’s reporters in Afghanistan.
The news media have done a good job of showing the public that the Afghan war is a highly complex environment stretching beyond the borders of the fractured country. Often what appears to be a two-way conflict between the government and an insurgency is better described as intertribal rivalry. And often that intertribal rivalry is worsened or overshadowed by the violent trade in drugs.
The Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel did nothing wrong in looking over the WikiLeaks documents and excerpting them. Despite the occasional protest from the right wing, most of the press in the United States and in allied nations takes care not to publish information that might result in soldiers’ deaths.
But WikiLeaks itself is another matter. Mr. Assange says he is a journalist, but he is not. He is an activist, and to what end it is not clear. This week — as when he released a video in April showing American helicopter gunships killing Iraqi civilians in 2007 — he has been throwing around the term “war crimes,” but offers no context for the events he is judging. It seems that the death of any civilian in war, an unavoidable occurrence, is a “crime.”
If his desire is to promote peace, Mr. Assange and his brand of activism are not as helpful as he imagines. By muddying the waters between journalism and activism, and by throwing his organization into the debate on Afghanistan with little apparent regard for the hard moral choices and dearth of good policy options facing decision-makers, he is being as reckless and destructive as the contemptible soldier or soldiers who leaked the documents in the first place.

Andrew Exum is a fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

We're Still at War:

Photo of the Day for July 26, 2010

Mon Jul. 26, 2010 2:00 AM PDT
 
US Army Soldiers from Charlie Company, 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, provide security during a mission in the Zirat Mountain Area, Waza Kwah District, Paktika province, Afghanistan, on July 7. The purpose of the mission is to disrupt anti-Afghan forces and find enemy caches. Photo via the US Army.

A Renewable Energy Hail Mary?

 
| Mon Jul. 26, 2010 11:14 AM PDT

Climate legislation is now officially dead in the Senate, but does that mean that we can't accomplish anything on clean energy this year? With Majority Leader Harry Reid set to bring what's left of the energy package to the floor this week, environmental and labor groups, along with a number of clean technology companies, are making a last-ditch effort to get a renewable electricity standard attached to the bill.
Reid said Saturday that he doesn't think he can pass even a bare-minimum renewable electricity standard, or RES, which would mandate that every state draw a specific portion of their power from renewable resources. "Right now, I don't think I have 60 votes to get that done," Reid told a crowd at the Netroots Nation conference Saturday.
But advocates of the RES say he's mistaken. "I certainly know that finding 60 votes in the Senate on the verge of an important election is no easy task," said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. "But the votes are there for an RES."
A Senate Democratic aide told me that leadership is concerned about including the RES now that the other climate provisions have been axed, because the RES "would replace the cap in terms of scare tactics from the right."
But some Senate Democrats are pushing back on the idea that the votes aren't there, including some moderate Midwestern Dems who were considered "no" votes on a carbon cap like Byron Dorgan (N.D.). Dorgan, Mark Udall (Colo.) and Tom Udall (N.M.) took the lead on a letter to Reid on the issue, which at least 17 other Democrats have reportedly signed as well so far.
The sad thing is, an RES really shouldn't be a tough measure to pass. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia already have one in place. Most importantly, both the House and the Senate have passed an RES multiple times in the past decade, though it still has not made it into law.
The Senate actually passed a renewable energy standard calling for 10 percent of power to come from renewables by 2020 for the first time back in 2002, and passed it again in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. Then the House got its act together and, during the prolonged debate over the 2007 energy bill, the twice passed versions of the bill that included an RES. But then the Senate couldn't muster enough votes and it didn't make it into the conference bill, either, after the Bush White House pledged to veto the measure.
The House managed to pass an even more ambitious RES last June as part of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, one that requires 20 percent of electricity to come from renewables by 2020 (though it gave states an out if they couldn't meet the target). But now the Senate can't seem to muster support for even a minimal RES right now, like the 15 percent by 2021 RES that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed last June with bipartisan support.
Solar and wind advocates say that even the House-passed standard is actually less ambitious than the path that the industry is already on, and have advocated for a 25 perecent standard by 2025. But at this point, they'll take anything to put the US government on record in support of a renewables mandate. "Getting a signal in place that we're open for business is going to be critical to build the base in the US and attract manufacturing," said Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) in a call with reporters Monday. "In this political climate we have to do what we can do."
AWEA, United Steelworkers, Sierra Club, Xcel Energy, and 11 other groups representing labor, environmental, and green business interests sent a letter to Reid asking him to include an RES in the package. "Without immediate passage, hundreds of thousands of future jobs in the clean energy sector could be lost and surrendered to other countries forever," the groups wrote to the leader.
Governors are also joining the drumbeat for an RES, including Iowa's Chet Culver (D), who extolled the value the state portfolio rule has had for Iowa, bringing the state to 20 percent renewables from just 5 percent four years ago. "Our energy future in this country depends on it," said Culver.
For environmental groups, the RES has become the last best hope for anything resembling a clean energy requirement in a bill this year. "While we are deeply disappointed that the Senate is not moving a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill at this time, we think it would be a huge missed opportunity if this package did not include a strong renewable electricity standard, which creates jobs and has bipartisan support," said Sara Chieffo, deputy legislative director at the League of Conservation Voters.
It's still anybody's guess whether the RES stands a chance of making it into the package this year. The RES could be the last hope for calling the Senate energy bill meaningful movement forward, or it could go down in flames along with the idea of mandatory carbon reductions this year.

On the death of the climate bill

"With all dead there’s usually only one thing you can do." ’What’s that?’ "Go through its clothes and look for loose change."  


 


As Jon noted, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has officially announced that there will be no climate bill this year. But Jon's post doesn't fully convey the extent of the capitulation. What's happened is total and complete surrender. There's no silver lining in this cloud.
Not only will the bill not contain any restrictions on greenhouse gases -- not even a watered-down utility-only cap -- it won't even contain the two other key policies that would have moved clean energy forward: the Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) and the energy efficiency standards.
Basically, Reid canvassed his caucus and figured out what they could pay for (without a carbon price for funding) and what already had 60 votes. This is it:
  • Some response to the Gulf oil spill, in the form of tighter restrictions on offshore drilling.
  • Some pork for natural gas vehicles. (T-Boone gets his money.)
  • Home Star.
  • Some money for land and water conservation. (Baucus demanded $5 billion for this, leaving other, much more worthy clean energy programs begging.)
Home Star is good, but as an energy bill? This is f*cking pathetic. It's little better than what the Republican Congress produced under George Bush.
I'm running around at Netroots Nation right now, so I don't have a lot of time, but just a few quick notes.
Blame where it is due: I'm frustrated with Obama's passivity on this issue. I'm frustrated with Reid. I'm frustrated with the environmental movement. But we should be clear about where the bulk of the responsibility for this farce ultimately lies: the Republican Party and a handful of "centrist" Democrats in the Senate. They are the ones who refused to vote for a bill, no matter how many compromises were made, no matter how clear the urgency of the problem. They are moral cowards, condemning their own children and grandchildren to suffering to serve their own narrow electoral interests. There isn't enough contempt in the world for them. So when the anger and recrimination get going -- as they already are -- let's at least try to keep the focus on the real malefactors.
The cap is dead this year, but the RES & efficiency don't have to be: I've heard that some environmental groups are loath to push for an RES this year, because they think it's a kind of sweetener that will help the cap go down next year. That is dangerously short-sighted and wrong-headed. We know that the RES and efficiency have bipartisan support, and with a little bit of pressure, they could be strengthened. Green groups (and progressive senators) should rally around these two policies, and only these two policies, for the next few weeks.
Big Coal will be back begging for cap-and-trade: No, really. Right now there are EPA rules in the pipeline that are going to shut down a third or more of the existing coal fleet. No new coal plants are going to get built -- they're not cost-competitive with natural gas or wind, and every one runs into a buzzsaw of grassroots opposition. In other words, carbon caps or no carbon caps, Big Coal is in trouble. Sooner or later, the industry will realize that the funding it can get from cap-and-trade, to support carbon capture and sequestration, is its only path to survival. Robert Byrd tried to tell the industry the truth before he died. Byron Dorgan tried to tell it the truth just the other day. By 2012, certainly by 2015 when many of the rules kick in, the industry will be forced to acknowledge this basic truth. And they'll come begging Congress for cap-and-trade.
Protecting the EPA is now job one for progressives: Murkowski already tried to block EPA on carbon. Rockefeller's going to try again shortly, and his bid is going to be even trickier to block than hers. The EPA's ability to act must be protected. It won't be as comprehensive, as economically efficient, or as socially cooperative as smart climate legislation would have been, but it will reduce carbon. And you know what? Senators from coal-heavy states have poorly served their constituents, so as far as I'm concerned, they deserve a big ol' EPA boot to the ass. They made this bed, they can sleep in it.
"We don't have 60 votes" is bull: Every cowardly senator repeats it like a talisman to ward off the terrible threat of having to act: "We don't have the votes." Two things to say about that. First, of course you don't have votes for something this controversial before you go to the floor and force the issue. Pelosi didn't have the votes before she took the House bill to the floor. She got the votes by twisting arms and making deals. She forced the issue. That was the only way the Senate vote could ever work -- if the bill was put on the floor, the issue was forced, and Dems united in daring the GOP to vote against addressing the oil spill. There's no guarantee that would have worked, but at least it would have been a political rallying point. It would have put senators on record. And it's not like the wimpy avoidance strategy is producing better results.
Second, senators need to stop talking about "60 votes" as though it's in the Constitution that the U.S. Senate -- unlike every other legislative body on the planet -- has a supermajority requirement. It's not in the Constitution. It's an accident, an informal rule that Republicans have taken to relentlessly abusing, not to extend debate but simply to degrade the Senate's ability to act. The filibuster is anti-democratic and it is thwarting the country's will. The American people need to be told this and senators who still want their institution to be minimally functional need to start getting angry about it.
It's a sad, corrupt state of affairs this country finds itself in. I wish I had some hopeful words to offer. But at this point, American government appears to be broken. And our children and grandchildren will suffer for it.

Obama slams GOP on Disclose Act

By Eric Zimmermann - 07/26/10 03:06 PM ET
President Obama called out Senate Republicans on Monday for holding up a vote on a contentious piece of campaign finance legislation.
Senate Democrats plan to vote on cloture for the Disclose Act on Tuesday, though it remains unclear whether they have the 60 votes necessary to end debate.

Democrats need at least one Republican vote, which they so far lack.
“You’d think that making these reforms would be a matter of common sense,” Obama said in brief remarks from the Rose Garden. “But of course this is Washington in 2010, and the Republican leadership in the Senate is once again using every tactic and manuever they can to prevent the Disclose Act from even coming up for a vote.”
The legislation was crafted in response to a Supreme Court decision that opened the door to unlimited corporate and union spending in elections. The bill would require such groups to disclose their role in campaign spending, namely advertisements.

“A vote to oppose these reforms is nothing less than to allow a corporate and special interest takeover of our elections,” Obama said.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said a campaign finance bill should not be a priority with the economy still struggling.
“The mere suggestion that a bill designed to save politicians’ jobs should take precedent over helping millions of Americans find work is an embarrassing indictment of Democrats’ priorities,” McConnell said in a statement.
The legislation exempts nonprofits with memberships of above 500,000 from the disclosure requirements. Republicans have argued the exemptions aid Democratic-friendly groups. (The NRA, which mainly supports Republicans, was one of the exempted groups.)
“The Disclose Act seeks to protect unpopular Democrat politicians by silencing their critics and exempting their campaign supporters from an all out attack on the First Amendment,” McConnell said.
The legislation passed the House last month by a vote of 219-206. Two House Republicans supported the legislation.



Senate GOPers block vote on campaign finance reform




First, a win for corporate interests in the Supreme Court with the Citizens United decision. Now, a follow-up victory in the U.S. Senate.

The Senate Republicans, voting as a bloc, just sustained their filibuster of campaign finance reform. The vote was 57 - 41. All the Democrats present, even Ben Nelson, voted to end the filibuster. (Reid voted no for procedural reasons.) Remember when John McCain used to be an advocate for campaign finance reform, before he flipped on that issue like every other? What a fraud. And, Maine has a Clean Elections law, which passed as a citizen initiative back in 1996. So, this should have been an easy vote for Snowe and Collins, but they must show fealty to Mitch McConnell and the GOP funders, not Mainers.

During the floor debate, Chuck Schumer, who is the sponsor of the DISCLOSE Act, said:
This is a sad day for our democracy. Not only does the Supreme Court give those special interests a huge advantage, but this body says they should do it all in secret without any disclosure. That, my colleagues, transcends this election, transcends Democrat or Republican. It eats at the very fabric of our democracy. It makes our people feel powerless and angry.
It is another sad day for our democracy. And, while Schumer thinks this might transcend Democrat or Republican, the GOPers sure benefit from it.

Markey voices reservations about incoming BP CEO

By Michael O'Brien - 07/26/10 09:38 AM ET
A top Democrat expressed reservations on Monday toward BP's choice to replace outgoing CEO Tony Hayward with Managing Director Bob Dudley.

Rep. Edward Markey (Mass.), a leading Democrat on energy and environmental issues who helms several committees on those topics, said he was hopeful that Dudley could change the culture at BP, but held out some skepticism.

"Well, Bob Dudley was part of the team all along. And in fact, he's the one who announced that they would have the relief well completed by July 27, which also happened to be the day when the quarterly financial reports of BP are due," Markey said on "The Early Show" on CBS. "That was too much of a coincidence, in terms of limiting liability, increasing the share value of BP."
Reports emerged over the weekend that the gaffe-prone Hayward had finally negotiated a deal to leave as the top official at BP. Those same reports suggested that BP was likely to name Dudley, a Mississippi native, as its next chief executive.

Markey said that Hayward "had to go" because of his work at the company, which the Massachusetts Democrat said was too focused on BP's bottom line, and not enough on the relief and cleanup efforts in the Gulf of Mexico.

It was that culture that caused Markey some pause in fully endorsing Dudley.

"So I'm hopeful that Mr. Dudley will be more responsible, but a total change in culture of this company is necessary," he said on CBS.

"Ultimately, I think that many people in the Gulf of Mexico — and the United States — believe that BP has been much too interested in its own liability, and not the livability of the Gulf of Mexico," Markey said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"Mr. Dudley now has to turn the page and move beyond the era that Mr. Hayward presided over," he added.

See the video of the CBS interview

Who Cooked the Planet?



Never say that the gods lack a sense of humor. I bet they’re still chuckling on Olympus over the decision to make the first half of 2010 — the year in which all hope of action to limit climate change died — the hottest such stretch on record.
Of course, you can’t infer trends in global temperatures from one year’s experience. But ignoring that fact has long been one of the favorite tricks of climate-change deniers: they point to an unusually warm year in the past, and say “See, the planet has been cooling, not warming, since 1998!” Actually, 2005, not 1998, was the warmest year to date — but the point is that the record-breaking temperatures we’re currently experiencing have made a nonsense argument even more nonsensical; at this point it doesn’t work even on its own terms.
But will any of the deniers say “O.K., I guess I was wrong,” and support climate action? No. And the planet will continue to cook.
So why didn’t climate-change legislation get through the Senate? Let’s talk first about what didn’t cause the failure, because there have been many attempts to blame the wrong people.
First of all, we didn’t fail to act because of legitimate doubts about the science. Every piece of valid evidence — long-term temperature averages that smooth out year-to-year fluctuations, Arctic sea ice volume, melting of glaciers, the ratio of record highs to record lows — points to a continuing, and quite possibly accelerating, rise in global temperatures.
Nor is this evidence tainted by scientific misbehavior. You’ve probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers — allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly damning e-mail messages of “Climategate,” and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media. You don’t believe such things can happen? Think Shirley Sherrod.
Did reasonable concerns about the economic impact of climate legislation block action? No. It has always been funny, in a gallows humor sort of way, to watch conservatives who laud the limitless power and flexibility of markets turn around and insist that the economy would collapse if we were to put a price on carbon. All serious estimates suggest that we could phase in limits on greenhouse gas emissions with at most a small impact on the economy’s growth rate.
So it wasn’t the science, the scientists, or the economics that killed action on climate change. What was it?
The answer is, the usual suspects: greed and cowardice.
If you want to understand opposition to climate action, follow the money. The economy as a whole wouldn’t be significantly hurt if we put a price on carbon, but certain industries — above all, the coal and oil industries — would. And those industries have mounted a huge disinformation campaign to protect their bottom lines.
Look at the scientists who question the consensus on climate change; look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you’ll find that they’re on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil, which has spent tens of millions of dollars promoting climate-change denial, or Koch Industries, which has been sponsoring anti-environmental organizations for two decades.
Or look at the politicians who have been most vociferously opposed to climate action. Where do they get much of their campaign money? You already know the answer.
By itself, however, greed wouldn’t have triumphed. It needed the aid of cowardice — above all, the cowardice of politicians who know how big a threat global warming poses, who supported action in the past, but who deserted their posts at the crucial moment.
There are a number of such climate cowards, but let me single out one in particular: Senator John McCain.
There was a time when Mr. McCain was considered a friend of the environment. Back in 2003 he burnished his maverick image by co-sponsoring legislation that would have created a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. He reaffirmed support for such a system during his presidential campaign, and things might look very different now if he had continued to back climate action once his opponent was in the White House. But he didn’t — and it’s hard to see his switch as anything other than the act of a man willing to sacrifice his principles, and humanity’s future, for the sake of a few years added to his political career.
Alas, Mr. McCain wasn’t alone; and there will be no climate bill. Greed, aided by cowardice, has triumphed. And the whole world will pay the price.

Why are there 435 in the House?

"The Constitution states that the number of representatives is one for every 30,000 people. How is it now limited to 435?" — Randall Woodman, Dallas, Texas


You're right. The Constitution states that "the Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representative."
The key here is that the founders set a maximum number, not a minimum.
With a current U.S. population of over 300 million, that would work out to about 10,000 representatives — not to mention the chiefs of staff, legislative analysts and spokesmen for each of them.
Until the 20th century, the size of the House increased after each census to reflect the growth in the country's population.
Over time, the growth in new states and the country's population threatened to make the House too large to be a workable legislative body in the views of many in D.C.
After the 1910 census, Congress fixed the size of the House at 435, where it remains today. Congress later made the cap official when it passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, which also established a procedure for automatically reapportioning seats after every census.
The cap on the House's size has made battles over how they are distributed inevitable.
A new complication arose after the 1920 census showed that for the first time there were more Americans living in cities than in rural areas.
Rural representatives fought a reapportionment that would have granted more representation to urban states while cutting House seats in rural states, arguing that people who lived on farms and in small towns were the heart and soul of America.
The battle between the rural and urban factions caused the House to fail to reapportion itself throughout the 1920s. When reapportionment finally did take place after the 1930 census, 21 states lost at least one House seat, while California nearly doubled its delegation.
That trend continued over the course of the 20th century due to population growth, migration and immigration. Ohio, for instance, has gone from a high of 24 representatives to 18, while Pennsylvania has dropped from 36 to 19.
California's delegation, on the other hand, has grown from 11 members in the 1920s to 53 today. Florida, Texas and Arizona have also seen similar exponential jumps.
The cap on the House's size also affects small states in unusual ways.
In 1950, Congress adopted "the method of equal proportions" which allocates House seats according to a complicated mathematical formula designed to minimize population variation among districts.
But the variance in size of congressional districts is still a source of controversy.
Seven states have only one member, but the population of those states is widely varying. Montana, which has only one at-large representative in the House, has a population of nearly a million, while Wyoming's at-large member represents roughly half as many constituents.
— Frances Symes, Congress.org

Schumer promises flurry of votes on Disclose Act until passage

By Jordan Fabian and Michael O'Brien - 07/27/10 03:18 PM ET
Sen. Charles Schumer, the sponsor of the stalled campaign finance bill, promised Tuesday that Democrats would hold round-after-round of votes on it until it passes.
Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke to reporters following the weekly caucus luncheons, slamming Republicans for holding up the response to the Citizens United Supreme Court case, which allowed unlimited political spending by corporations and unions.
"And we will go back at this bill again and again and again until we pass it," he said. "It's that vital, not to Democrats, not to Republicans, but to the future of people's faith in the functioning of this government."
Schumer made his comments just before the Senate was scheduled to vote to invoke cloture on the measure. The vote was expected to fail.
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) was absent heading into the vote, while centrist GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine), whose vote was closely watched on the issue, said the bill wasn't in a position yet where she could support it.
The Senate's 59 Democrats need at least one Republican to advance the bill and avoid a filibuster. Unless a Republican comes onboard, Democrats will almost certainly need to make changes to the legislation to win a GOP backer.
Schumer said that the legislation's failure would do harm to the health of U.S. democracy.
"It's the amount of money, not who you are, that is affected. And so we've seen a campaign of desperation, of full muscle, to try to do everything they can to stop this bill because they realize, as already in some campaigns we have seen, how this will fundamentally change the balance of American politics," he said. "It will make the average citizen feel more and more remote from his or her government. It will hurt the fabric of our democracy."

Take a Break: Behind-the-Scenes Video with the Jonas Brothers

Last month, President Obama awarded Paul McCartney  the annual Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Popular Song. Artists from all the genres and backgrounds paid tribute to the music legend with a concert hosted by the President and First Lady at the White House. Take a break and go behind-the-scenes with the Jonas Brothers as they prepare for and perform the Beatles classic “Drive My Car” for President Obama and Sir Paul.



Don’t miss the “In Performance at the White House" music special with performances by McCartney himself, Jonas Brothers, Stevie Wonder, Elvis Costello, Herbie Hancock, Corinne Bailey Rae, Dave Grohl, Faith Hill, Emmylou Harris, Lang Lang and Jack White, with remarks by Jerry Seinfeld on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 at 8:00 PM EDT on PBS stations nationwide. Check your local listings here.

Antiwar groups mobilize

They are protesting Tuesday's vote to fund more troops in Afghanistan.


Antiwar groups prepared for a major vote on war spending expected Tuesday.
As the House decides whether to fund additional troops in Afghanistan, activists called lawmakers and planned an evening protest.
"If you vote yes, plan on getting a different job in January," activists with the War Is a Crime coalition said in an e-mail urging supporters to call Congress about H.R. 4899.
The group also backed Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Ron Paul (R-Texas) on the resolution they planned to introduce demanding that all U.S. troops leave Pakistan.
The activists acknowledged that the funding is likely to go through anyway, but they urged voters to treat the votes as a litmus test.
"We will now be able to identify clearly and unambiguously the war supporters and war opponents," they said. "They will need to be punished and rewarded while they're home for August and at the polls in November."
Antiwar activists also plan to gather for a protest Tuesday evening as the vote approaches. Code Pink, a group known for its brightly colored attire and theatrical approach to protest, is leading the effort.
-- Ambreen Ali, Congress.org

House strongly rejects measure urging removal of troops from Pakistan

By Jordan Fabian - 07/27/10 06:01 PM ET
The House on Tuesday overwhelmingly opposed a resolution demanding the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Pakistan.
The measure, sponsored by anti-war Reps. Dennis Kucinich (R-Ohio) and Ron Paul (R-Texas), was in reaction to reports that the government is running a secret war in Pakistan, which the lawmakers say violates the War Powers Act.
It was voted down 38-372. Thirty-two Democrats and six Republicans voted for the measure. Four congressmen voted "present," three Democrats and one Republican.
The vote took place days after newspapers published leaked documents suggesting that Pakistani intelligence has cooperated with Islamic extremist groups while simultaneously accepting U.S. aid to fight terror.
Though the resolution was expected to fail, it gave Kucinich and Paul floor time to criticize the war in Afghanistan, which they both oppose.
“It is important to debate our presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan now as the website Wikileaks yesterday released more than 90,000 classified reports on the war in Afghanistan," Kucinich said in a statement Monday. "These documents provide a fuller picture of what we have long known about Afghanistan: The war is going badly. Nine years on, and we are still uncovering evidence that our presence is counterproductive in Afghanistan. Now we want to further expand drone attacks and the presence of U.S. Special Forces in Pakistan? Congress must act to nip in the bud any attempt to expand the war across the border into Pakistan."
The Obama administration has strongly condemned the leak as a danger to national security, but war critics have used the information to argue the conflict has is increasingly becoming unwinnable. The vote took place just before the House took up a bill providing $33 billion in funds for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Kucinich introduced a similar resolution earlier this year to force the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan immediately. It was easily defeated.

Oil pipeline leak pollutes major Michigan river

BATTLE CREEK, Mich. – Crews were working Tuesday to contain and clean up more than 800,000 gallons of oil that poured into a creek and flowed into the Kalamazoo River in southern Michigan, coating birds and fish.
Authorities in Battle Creek and Emmett Township warned residents about the strong odor from the oil, which leaked Monday from a 30-inch pipeline built in 1969 that carries about 8 million gallons of oil per day from Griffith, Ind., to Sarnia, Ontario.
Crews waded in oily water as they worked to stop the oil's advance downstream. Oil-covered Canada geese walked along the banks of the Kalamazoo River, and photos showed dead fish floating in the spill. The Kalamazoo River eventually flows into Lake Michigan, but officials didn't expect the oil to reach the lake.
"This is just a disaster," said Raymond Woodman, 33, of Emmett Township, who watched workers use a vacuum truck to suck oil from the water at the Ceresco Dam, downstream from leak. "It shouldn't matter how much it costs to clean this up. They need to clean it up."
Calgary, Alberta-based Enbridge Inc.'s affiliate Enbridge Energy Partners LP of Houston estimated about 819,000 gallons of oil spilled into Talmadge Creek before the company stopped the flow. Enbridge crews and contractors deployed oil skimmers and absorbent booms to minimize its environmental impact.
"We are going to do what it takes to make this right," Enbridge's president and CEO Patrick D. Daniel said during a news conference in Battle Creek.
The company had begun testing the air near the spill, with the primary concern being the possible presence of the cancer-causing chemical benzene. On Tuesday, the company said it hadn't found any levels that would be of concern in residential areas. Groundwater testing also was planned. Authorities evacuated two homes near the leak, and some locals said they were concerned about the fumes. But there were no reports of sickened residents.
As of Tuesday afternoon, oil was reported in about 16 miles of the Kalamazoo River downstream of the spill, said Mary Dettloff, spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment. She said state officials were told during a company briefing that an estimated 877,000 gallons spilled — a figure more than 50,000 gallons higher than the company's public estimate.
U.S. Rep. Mark Schauer, D-Mich., said he discussed the spill with President Barack Obama. Schauer called the spill a "public health crisis," and said he plans to hold hearings to examine the response.
"The company was originally slow to respond and it is now clear that this is an emergency," Schauer told reporters on a conference call.
Obama has pledged a swift response to requests for assistance, White House spokesman Matt Lehrich said.
The cause of spill was under investigation. The site is in Calhoun County's Marshall Township, about 60 miles southeast of Grand Rapids. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm activated the State Emergency Operations Center.
"Our focus is protecting Michigan citizens and our environment by providing any needed state resources to expediently address the situation," Granholm said in a written statement.
Enbridge said it had about 200 employees and contractors working on the spill. Local, state and federal agencies also were involved, and the National Transportation Safety Board launched an investigation. The pipeline was shut down Monday and isolation valves were closed, stopping the source of the oil, the company said.
The Kalamazoo River eventually bisects the city of Kalamazoo and meanders to Saugatuck, where it empties into Lake Michigan. Officials didn't think the oil would spread past Morrow Lake, which has a dam upstream of Kalamazoo, Dettloff said.
The river already faced major pollution issues. An 80-mile segment of the river and five miles of a tributary, Portage Creek, were placed on the federal Superfund list of high-priority hazardous waste sites in 1990. The Kalamazoo site also includes four landfills and several defunct paper mills.
The Michigan Department of Community Health warned the public to stay away from the creek and river during the cleanup. It also said people shouldn't eat fish from the waterways or have contact with the water, and farmers and homeowners who use the water for irrigation or livestock should stop.
___
Associated Press Writer David Runk in Detroit contributed to this report.

MEET THE PRESS July 25, 2010



The economy and jobs top the minds of many Americans this summer as two major pieces of financial legislation were signed into law this week. First, after a seven week stalemate, President Obama signed a bill Thursday restoring and extending unemployment benefits for more than 2.5 million jobless Americans. But Republicans say the new measure will only increase the federal deficit. Are they right? Will this act tip our already shaky economy over the edge? And when will all those searching for jobs finally get back to work? Plus, on Wednesday the President signed a sweeping Wall Street reform bill. Will this finally bring consumers the protections they need and help strengthen the economy? We ask the man charged with overseeing the nation's financial well-being: Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.




Roundtable: Brooks, Dionne, Dunn, Morial, Santelli
Meet the Press
William B. Plowman/NBC Universal
A teachable moment? The rush to judgment and subsequent firing of a USDA federal employee over perceived racist comments has sparked a discussion on several fronts: race relations, the politics of governing, and the media - including conservative outlets, the Tea Party, and the overall tone in Washington.  We look at all facets of this story that overshadowed so much in politics this week.  Plus - the very latest on Decision 2010 with: The New York Times' David Brooks; The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne; Former Obama White House Communications Director Anita Dunn; National Urban League President Marc Morial and a man often credited with helping to spark the tea party movement, CNBC's Rick Santelli.

Women on the Verge

Robert Kuttner

Posted: July 25, 2010 07:55 PM

The campaign to get Elizabeth Warren appointed to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau got me thinking -- why is it that so many of the heroic leaders who have pushed the Obama administration to be more steadfastly progressive on financial issues just happen to be female?
That honor roll would begin with Warren; it would include Sheila Bair, who heads the FDIC; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington State; former commodities regulator Brooksley Born; and Heather Booth who spearheaded Americans for Financial Reform.
Inside the administration, the member of the senior economics team who has pushed hardest for a more expansive approach to economic recovery is the chair of President Obama's Economic Council, Christina Romer.
What these people have in common is that they are not members of the financial old boys' club, in both senses. They are neither one of the boys, nor did they come out of the Wall Street milieu.
And two of the three Republican senators who broke ranks to provide the sixty votes to pass financial reform, Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, are also women. The third, Senator Scott Brown, who must run for re-election in liberal Massachusetts in 2012, in less fluky circumstances than the special election of January 2010, is not so much a profile in courage as an expedient politician.
It's not that all the good guys are female -- Rich Trumka and Damon Silvers of the AFL-CIO have played a heroic role, too; as has Paul Volcker; as well as other leading Senate progressives such as Dick Durban, Jeff Merkley, and Ted Kaufman.
But Warren and the other female members of the Administration's loyal opposition have displayed real bravery. Warren surely knew that when she was asking hard questions of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, she was reducing the chances that she would be welcomed into the administration. But she never pulled her punches.
Sheila Bair, when she was resisting Geithner's plans to bail out and prop up banks without drastically reforming them at the same time, made herself the odd woman out. Read any of the several books on the financial crisis that rely on insider background interviews, and you will read the same putdowns of Bair emanating from the Geithner camp. Yet Bair has remained steadfast.
Gender, of course, is no guarantee of progressive politics, clear thinking, or political bravery. One of the odd things of our era is that two generations after radical feminists began battering down barriers to full participation, some of the most visible beneficiaries are rightwing women, many of them truly whacked out in their views. The fact that Sarah Palin can thank Gloria Steinem is small comfort.
For instance, the prize for the most disingenuous commentary on the Shirley Sherrod affair has to go to that female pioneer, Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan. Writing in Saturday's Wall Street Journal, and spinning the Sherrod affair to suggest symmetrical blame, Noonan began,
"She was smeared by rightwing media, condemned by the NAACP, and canned by the Obama Administration. It wasn't pretty, what was done this week to Shirley Sherrod."
But in the entire piece, which took up nearly half of the Journal's op-ed page, you never learn what actually happened. The details of the doctored video and the Fox pile-on are left out, suggesting that the entire establishment just happened to gang up on poor Sherrod, while good old Noonan, a paladin of the respectable right, is seeking lessons of redemption.
Shamelessness evidently knows no bounds of gender. Sherrod, by contrast, was a picture of dignity and bravery, as she has been throughout her career.
It would be comforting believe that greater gender equality, per se, will produce a more constructive substantive politics. Linda Tarr-Whelan has written an important book titled Women Lead the Way. Her research demonstrates that when women hit a tipping point of about 30 percent in leadership roles in organizations of all kinds, the dynamic changes and there is more receptivity to fresh thinking.
But we are a long way from that magic number in the House or the Senate, nor in large corporations, nor among President Obama's top financial officials. (Still, it is to Obama's credit that his first two selections for the Supreme Court have been women, as have two of his three recent appointees to the powerful Federal Reserve Board.)
The Atlantic recently ran one of its patented cover pieces that combine serious exploration of a complex topic with pop-culture hyperbole. This one, titled "The End of Men," speculated that something about post-industrial society at last will overthrow male dominance ("What if the economics of the new era are better suited to women?"), and that the displacement of males is already well advanced. But this breathless proclamation of writer Hanna Rosin may be a bit premature.
Wall Street, after all, is the ultimate post-industrial redoubt -- they don't make anything, they just manipulate paper -- and it doesn't get much more male. The typical trading floor is pure frat-house. And the crowd making financial policy in Washington are only a shade more in touch with their inner-woman.
Elizabeth Warren would be a serious offset to the usual financial Animal House. Alas, that's why her nomination remains something of a long shot.

Robert Kuttner's new book is A Presidency in Peril. He is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos.

Elizabeth Warren and Her Discontents

Richard (RJ) Eskow

Posted: July 26, 2010 04:38 PM

Somebody really, really doesn't want Elizabeth Warren to run the new Consumer Protection Financial Bureau, or "CFPB," which she first envisioned and proposed. Who? The big banks, for sure, as well as others who don't want their misbehavior brought to light. And Tim Geithner, whose vision of Wall Street and its problems is fundamentally different from Warren's. There are others, too -- ideologues like Megan McArdle of the Atlantic, who has made something of a cottage industry out of attacking Warren on specious grounds.
The President's attempting to split the baby when it comes to appointing Ms. Warren, but the facts and public perception are aligned and present him with a stark reality: He must choose between appointing Ms. Warren or placating the big banks. There is no Third Way. Unfortunately for the President, Elizabeth Warren is a yes or no question.
The ideological opposition to Warren's appointment is usually grounded in the false notion that the relationship between, say, a bank and a lender, is a symmetrical exchange between equals taking place in a mythical "free market." They've failed to heed the lesson taught by Freud in Civilization and its Discontents: "Civilization ... obtains mastery over the individual's dangerous desire for aggression by weakening and disarming it and by setting up an agency within him to watch over it, like a garrison in a conquered city."
An agency outside the individual is necessary to a well-functioning civilization, too, especially when confronting an oligopolistic banking system with a history of fraud and predation.
There have been at least two empty and ineffective lines of attack against Elizabeth Warren: The first is that she's opposed to "financial innovation," and the second is that she lacks the necessary "managerial experience." Ms. McArdle attempts to open a third: That Prof. Warren is a bad scholar. McArdle fails miserably, misquoting or misunderstanding other academic papers and Warren's own work while failing some basic analytical challenges. She does succeed, however, in showing the lengths to which some will go to block this appointment.
Despite the fact that McArdle is " the business and economics editor for The Atlantic," numbers don't seem to be her thing. She infamously miscalculated the effect of repealing Bush's tax cuts for each American by a factor of 10, arriving at $25 instead of $250 per person, and then blithely explained: "The calculator on my computer won't go into the billions, and I truncated incorrectly. The main point stands; even a very optimistic set of assumptions doesn't yield huge net benefit." Actually, $250 for every man, woman, and child in the US -- and that's only for the next two years -- is serious money. And as for that calculator problem, Ms. McArdle, there's only one word for that: spreadsheets. You've heard of them, I trust.
Spreadsheets are particularly handy when you're making statements like this: "Does it matter if we have a regulator that can use data consistently?" In this piece McArdle leans on an old Wall Street Journal anti-tax screed by Todd Wysocki. "More weird metrics for Elizabeth Warren," her headline quavers. McArdle eagerly repeats Wysocki's suggestion that family living expenses are actually less than they were in the 1970s. But Wysocki's stacking the deck (and making a completely different point) by using pre-tax rather than after-tax figures. Warren's point is that two-earner families have less disposable income today than one-earner families did in the seventies, even with both adults working.
She's right. I used a spreadsheet (highly recommended) to look at the increases in expenses, using the figures Wysocki (and the McArdle) cites. Here's what I found: Mortgage costs increased from 18% to nearly 20% of after-tax income. Health insurance premiums increased from 3.5% to 3.63%. (That doesn't include increases in out of pocket expenses like copays and deductibles.) And there was a whopping new expense of nearly 20% for day care, which wasn't needed with a one-earner family. Add in car payments and the expenses Wysocki cites went from 39% of after-tax income to 62.3% -- which pretty effectively underscores Prof. Warren's point, don't you think?
McArdle saves her real "firepower," such as it is, for a piece she calls "Considering Elizabeth Warren, the Scholar." It's a blend of deception, misdirection, and poor analysis, chock full of comments like this one about Warren's book on two-earner families: "... Warren simply fails to grapple with what her thesis suggests ... Admittedly, I don't quite know what to say, but at least I can acknowledge that it's a pretty powerful problem for the current family model. Warren kind of waves her hands and mumbles about social programs and more supportive work environments. There is no possible solution outside of a more left-wing government."
Got it? McArdle says Warren's book is a failure because a) Warren fails to solve one of the problems she identifies, b) not that McArdle knows what the answer is, but c) "Warren kind of waves her hands" (get me a rewrite!) and "d) mumbles about social programs etc." -- which means she does propose solutions, but they're ones that involve e) "more left-wing government." Which McArdle doesn't think is the solution, even though she acknowledges that she doesn't have a solution.
Does it matter if we have a "business and economics editor" who can use data ... and logic ... consistently?
McArdle then suggests that Warren doesn't understand numbers because Warren asserts that (says McArdle) "housing consumption hasn't increased much ... by less than a room per house." McArdle conclues that this is a "twenty percent" increase, given a starting size of five rooms per house, although if consumption's gone up by less than a room per house it's less than twenty percent per house (no calculator needed for that one!) And that's with two people working full-time instead of one.
"The square footage of new homes has increased dramatically since 1960," writes McArdle. But how much of that is McMansions and other high-end homes? She doesn't say, presumably because she doesn't know. Since we're talking about housing consumption among middle- and lower-income working families, a basic understanding of "mean," "median," and "average" would make that kind of information critical to McArdle's argument.
But McArdle's main line of attack is on the papers that Warren has co-authored on medical bankruptcy. Yet at times she's not criticizing the paper itself, but what Warren's co-authors may or may not have told the press. As for the article itself, it's entitled "Illness And Injury As Contributors To Bankruptcy," and comes replete with appropriate cautions like these: " We cannot presume that eliminating the medical antecedents of bankruptcy would have prevented all of the filings we classified as 'medical bankruptcies.'" Yet McArdle repeatedly claims Warren et al. suggested medical bills were the sole cause of these bankruptcies, then beating this nonexistent claim to death.
McArdle also makes the analyst's most basic mistake -- fallacy based on anecdote -- by repeatedly saying that by definition "Patty Barreiro" is a "medical bankruptcy" case. Barreiro is the wife of Edmund Andrews, the financial writer who wrote about their own bankruptcy. She's become a bete noir for all of those who believe that bankruptcy is most commonly a character defect, not an unfortunate combination of circumstances. McArdle's fixation on her isn't just bizarre. It's also bad analysis. The definition Warren et al. use for "medical bankruptcy" is $5,000 or 10% of income, and those are appropriately high figures for anyone familiar with the real world.
(McArdle also grossly mis-states the contents of another academic paper, but fortunately this piece does the heavy lifting on that misrepresentation - hat tip Atrios.)
For those who argue that Warren lacks managerial experience, I have three words: "Chief Administrative Officer." Warren understands the mission better than anyone, and she'll be able to hire someone to handle the logistics. And, as for her alleged hostility to "financial innovation," there's no sign of that. Some "financial innovations" destroyed the economy, and she's right to be a little "hostile" to them.
Elizabeth Warren's view of what needs to be done to fix Wall Street is fundamentally different from Tim Geithner's or Larry Summers'. Her view is correct -- and it's also more popular politically. The President's attempt at a "nuanced" solution -- that Elizabeth Warren will "play a role" even if she's not appointed to lead CFPB - is a nonstarter. The banks, and the public, would see that decision for what it is: A surrender to financial interests at the expense of the American consumer.
The Megan McArdles of this world will wail and gnash their teeth If Elizabeth Warren is appointed, but that doesn't matter. What does matter is that if Warren doesn't run CFPB, the same regulators who mismanaged the economy in general - and consumer protection in particular - will still have the upper hand. Any answer but "yes" to the Warren question would be a disaster, both on its merits and politically. You don't need a spreadsheet to figure that out.

Al Franken Endorses Elizabeth Warren For Consumer Protection Bureau






First Posted: 07-25-10 12:08 AM   |   Updated: 07-25-10 12:11 AM
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) joined the effort to persuade President Obama to appoint Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Bureau in an interview with the Huffington Post on Saturday. Earlier that day, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) said he was endorsing Warren for the position and has made his position known to the White House, as has Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). More than 60 House members have called on the president to nominate Warren and more than 160,000 people have signed an online petition. "I really like Elizabeth Warren," said Franken, adding that he often had her on as a guest on his talk-radio show. "Her work on bankruptcy is what put her on our radar at the show in 2005." Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) has questioned whether she'd be able to get 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, though the statute would allow the president to appoint her on an indefinite basis until a nominee is confirmed. Franken said he wasn't sure whether the White House wanted the fight. "The White House has to decide if they want a confirmation fight. I don't know what their considerations are. In my consideration, I think Elizabeth would be the best," he said.
Jeff Merkley For Warren: I've Told The White House To Appoint Her
The gathering of online and progressive activists at the Netroots Nation convention this year has produced a fairly overt and direct campaign to get Elizabeth...
Gibbs: Elizabeth Warren Is A 'Terrific Candidate'
Elizabeth Warren is a "terrific candidate" to lead the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and is "very confirmable" for the job, White House spokesman...
Barney Frank: Elizabeth Warren Should Head CFPB, By Recess Appointment If Necessary
If President Obama fears Elizabeth Warren won't be confirmed by the Senate to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he should just appoint her...
Elizabeth Warren Backed By Consumer Protection Advocates, Editorial Cartoons (PICTURES)
Elizabeth Warren faces significant obstacles if she wants to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but some consumer advocates think she's got them covered. Via...
Dems Line Up To Back Elizabeth Warren, 'She Predicted What Was Going To Happen'
Democratic lawmakers are lining up to back the appointment of Elizabeth Warren to head the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)...




July 22, 2010
Sen. Sanders took part in a Capitol Hill press conference on to call for the appointment of Prof. Elizabeth Warren to lead the new consumer financial protection bureau.

List of oil spills

 This list is from Wikipedia, and hoping it is close to accurate so I have also posted The Mariner List....

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a reverse-chronological list of oil spills that have occurred throughout the world and spill(s) that are currently ongoing. Quantities are measured in tonnes of crude oil with one tonne roughly equal to 308 US gallons, or 7.33 barrels, or 1165 liters. This calculation uses a median value of 0.858 for the specific gravity of light crude oil; actual values can range from 0.816 to 0.893, so the amounts shown below are inexact. They are also estimates, because the actual volume of an oil spill is difficult to measure exactly.

Contents

[hide]

[edit] Ongoing

 
Spill / vessel Location Dates Estimated flow rate (tonnes/day) Spilled (min tonnes) Spilled (max tonnes) Link Notes
Xingang Port oil spill  China, Yellow Sea 02010-07-16 July 16, 2010 to present (11 days) not known 1,500 not known [1][2][3]







Two pipelines exploded at an oil storage depot belonging to China National Petroleum Corporation near Dalian's Xingang Harbour in Liaoning province that spilled an estimated 1,500 tonnes of crude into the Yellow Sea. The worst of the spill, which initially covered 180 km2 (69 sq mi), had grown to 430 km2 (170 sq mi) within a week. By July 21, the spill had spread to 946 km2 (365 sq mi)








Jebel al-Zayt oil spill  Egypt, Red Sea 02010-06-16 June 16, 2010 to June 23, 2010 (8 days) not known not known not known [4]












 
Oil spilled from a platform in the Red Sea fouled beaches along the coast near Hurghada. Leak is sealed but cleanup continues and quantity remains unknown.












Deepwater Horizon  United States, Gulf of Mexico 02010-04-20 April 20, 2010 to June 5, 2010 (47 days)

June 6, 2010 to July 15, 2010 (39 days)
(total 86 days)
4,800 – 8,200

2,000 – 5,500

220,000

80,000
(total 300,000)

380,000

210,000
(total 600,000)
[5] [6] [7]













An underwater well gushed oil into the Gulf unrestrained until June 6, when a containment cap began capturing some. On July 15, a better-fitting containment cap was attached. Relief wells are being drilled to stop the flow permanently.

Taylor Energy wells  United States, Gulf of Mexico 02004-09-16 September 16, 2004 to present (2140 days) 0.03 – 0.05 62 96 [8] [9]

 Leaks resulting from Hurricane Ivan have been largely contained, but not entirely. Ocean Saratoga is drilling a relief well to permanently seal the leaks

[edit] Occurred

Spill / Vessel↓ Location↓ Dates↓ Min Tonnage↓ Max Tonnage↓ Link(s)↓
Red Butte Creek oil spill  United States, Salt Lake City, Utah 02010-06-11 June 11, 2010 – June 12, 2010 &0000000000000065.00000065 &0000000000000107.000000107 [10][11]
MT Bunga Kelana 3  Singapore, Singapore Strait 02010-05-25 May 25, 2010 &0000000000002000.0000002,000 &0000000000002500.0000002,500 [12][13][14]
2010 ExxonMobil oil spill  Nigeria, Niger Delta 02010-05-01 May 1, 2010 &0000000000003246.0000003,246 &0000000000095500.00000095,500 [15][16][17]
2010 Great Barrier Reef oil spill / MV Shen Neng 1  Australia Great Keppel Island 02010-04-03 April 3, 2010 &0000000000000003.0000003 &0000000000000004.0000004 [18][19][20]
2010 Port Arthur oil spill  United States, Port Arthur, Texas 02010-01-23 January 23, 2010 &0000000000001500.0000001,500 &0000000000001500.0000001,500 [21]
Yellow River oil spill  China, Chishui River (Shaanxi) 02010-01-05 January 5, 2010 &0000000000000130.000000130 &0000000000000130.000000130 [22]
Montara oil spill  Australia, Timor Sea 02009-08-21 August 21, 2009 &0000000000004000.0000004,000 &0000000000030000.00000030,000 [23][24]
Full City oil spill  Norway, Rognsfjorden near SÃ¥stein south of Langesund 02009-07-31 July 31, 2009 &0000000000000200.000000200 &0000000000000200.000000200 [25]
2009 Lüderitz oil spill  Namibia, Southern coast 02009-04-08 April 8, 2009 Unknown Unknown [26]
2009 Queensland oil spill  Australia, Queensland 02009-03-10 March 10, 2009 &0000000000000230.000000230 &0000000000000260.000000260 [27]
West Cork oil spill  Ireland, Southern coast 02009-02 February 2009 &0000000000000300.000000300 &0000000000000300.000000300
2008 New Orleans oil spill  United States, New Orleans, Louisiana 02008-07-28 July 28, 2008 &0000000000008800.0000008,800 &0000000000008800.0000008,800 [28]
2007 Statfjord oil spill  Norway, Norwegian Sea 02007-12-12 December 12, 2007 &0000000000004000.0000004,000 &0000000000004000.0000004,000 [29]
2007 Korea oil spill  South Korea, Yellow Sea 02007-12-07 December 7, 2007 &0000000000010800.00000010,800 &0000000000010800.00000010,800 [30][31]
Kerch Strait oil spill  Ukraine
 Russia, Strait of Kerch
02007-11-11 November 11, 2007 &0000000000001000.0000001,000 &0000000000001000.0000001,000 [32]
COSCO Busan oil spill  United States, San Francisco, California 02007-11-07 November 7, 2007 &0000000000000188.000000188 &0000000000000188.000000188 [33]
Kab 101  Mexico, Bay of Campeche 02007-10-23 October 23, 2007 – December 17, 2007 &0000000000001869.0000001,869 &0000000000001869.0000001,869 [34]
Guimaras oil spill  Philippines 02006-08-11 August 11, 2006 &0000000000000172.000000172 &0000000000001540.0000001,540 [35]
Jiyeh power station oil spill  Lebanon 02006-07-14 July 14, 2006 – July 15, 2006 &0000000000020000.00000020,000 &0000000000030000.00000030,000 [35]
Citgo refinery oil spill  United States, Lake Charles, Louisiana 02006-06-19 June 19, 2006 &0000000000006500.0000006,500 &0000000000006500.0000006,500 [36]
Prudhoe Bay oil spill  United States, Alaska North Slope, Alaska 02006-03-02 March 2, 2006 &0000000000000866.000000866 &0000000000000866.000000866 [37]
Bass Enterprises (Hurricane Katrina)  United States, Cox Bay, Louisiana 02005-08-30 August 30, 2005 &0000000000012000.00000012,000 &0000000000012000.00000012,000 [38]
Shell (Hurricane Katrina)  United States, Pilottown, Louisiana 02005-08-30 August 30, 2005 &0000000000003400.0000003,400 &0000000000003400.0000003,400 [38]
Chevron (Hurricane Katrina)  United States, Empire, Louisiana 02005-08-30 August 30, 2005 &0000000000003200.0000003,200 &0000000000003200.0000003,200 [38]
Murphy Oil USA refinery spill (Hurricane Katrina)  United States, Meraux and Chalmette, Louisiana 02005-08-30 August 30, 2005 &0000000000002660.0000002,660 &0000000000003410.0000003,410 [38] [39]
Bass Enterprises (Hurricane Katrina)  United States, Pointe à la Hache, Louisiana 02005-08-30 August 30, 2005 &0000000000001500.0000001,500 &0000000000001500.0000001,500 [38]
Chevron (Hurricane Katrina)  United States, Port Fourchon, Louisiana 02005-08-30 August 30, 2005 &0000000000000170.000000170 &0000000000000170.000000170 [38]
Venice Energy Services Company (Hurricane Katrina)  United States, Venice, Louisiana 02005-08-30 August 30, 2005 &0000000000000081.00000081 &0000000000000081.00000081 [38]
Shell Pipeline Oil (Hurricane Katrina)  United States, Nairn, Louisiana 02005-08-30 August 30, 2005 &0000000000000044.00000044 &0000000000000044.00000044 [38]
Sundown Energy (Hurricane Katrina)  United States, West Potash, Louisiana 02005-08-30 August 30, 2005 &0000000000000042.00000042 &0000000000000042.00000042 [38]
MV Selendang Ayu  United States, Unalaska Island, Alaska 02004-12-08 December 8, 2004 &0000000000001560.0000001,560 &0000000000001560.0000001,560 [40]
Athos 1  United States, Delaware River, Paulsboro, New Jersey 02004-11-26 November 26, 2004 &0000000000000860.000000860 &0000000000000860.000000860 [41]
MP-80 Delta 20" pipeline (Hurricane Ivan)  United States, Louisiana 02004-09-16 September 16, 2004 – September 19, 2004 &0000000000000963.000000963 &0000000000000963.000000963 [42]
MP-69 Nakika 18" & MP-151 Nakika 18" pipeline (Hurricane Ivan)  United States, Louisiana 02004-09-16 September 16, 2004 – October 6, 2004 &0000000000000618.000000618 &0000000000000618.000000618 [42]
Chevron-Texaco tank collapse (Hurricane Ivan)  United States, Louisiana 02004-09-16 September 16, 2004 – September 17, 2004 &0000000000000423.000000423 &0000000000000423.000000423 [42]
Tasman Spirit  Pakistan, Karachi 02003-07-28 July 28, 2003 &0000000000028000.00000028,000 &0000000000030000.00000030,000 [43][44]
Bouchard No. 120  United States, Buzzards Bay, Bourne, Massachusetts 02003-04-27 April 27, 2003 &0000000000000320.000000320 &0000000000000320.000000320 [45]
Prestige oil spill  Spain, Galicia 02002-11-13 November 13, 2002 &0000000000063000.00000063,000 &0000000000063000.00000063,000 [46][47]
Limburg (bombing)  Yemen, Gulf of Aden 02002-10-06 October 6, 2002 &0000000000012200.00000012,200 &0000000000012200.00000012,200
Manguinhos refinery  Brazil, Guanabara Bay, Rio de Janeiro 02001-11-23 November 23, 2001 &0000000000000034.00000034 &0000000000000097.00000097 [48]
Trans-Alaska Pipeline gun shot spill  United States, Alaska 02001-10-04 October 4, 2001 &0000000000000932.000000932 &0000000000000932.000000932 [49]
2001 Shell Ogbodo oil spill  Nigeria 02001-06-25 June 25, 2001 &0000000000009500.0000009,500 &Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown".Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Unknown [50]
2001 Shell Ogoniland oil spill  Nigeria 02001-05 May 2001 &Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown".Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Unknown &Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown".Expression error: Unrecognised word "unknown"Unknown [51]
Petrobras 36  Brazil, Roncador Oil Field, Campos Basin 02001-03-15 March 15, 2001 &0000000000000274.000000274 &0000000000000274.000000274 [52]
Amorgos oil spill  Taiwan, Southern coast 02001-01-14 January 14, 2001 &0000000000001150.0000001,150 &0000000000001150.0000001,150 [53]
Jessica  Ecuador, Galapagos Islands 02001-01 January 2001 &0000000000000568.000000568 &0000000000000568.000000568 [54] [55]
Project Deep Spill Helland Hansen ridge, Norway 02000-06 June 2000 &0000000000000100.000000100 &0000000000000100.000000100 [56]
Treasure  South Africa, Cape Town 02000-06 June 2000 &0000000000001400.0000001,400 &0000000000001400.0000001,400 [54]
Petrobras pipeline  Brazil, Guanabara Bay, Rio de Janeiro 02000-01 January 2000 &0000000000001100.0000001,100 &0000000000001100.0000001,100 [48][54]
Erika  France, Bay of Biscay 01999-12-12 December 12, 1999 &0000000000015000.00000015,000 &0000000000025000.00000025,000 [40][54]
Mobil Nigeria oil spill  Nigeria 01998-01-12 January 12, 1998 &0000000000005500.0000005,500 &0000000000005500.0000005,500 [40]
Nakhodka  Japan, Sea of Japan 01997-12 December 1997 &0000000000006240.0000006,240 &0000000000006240.0000006,240 [57]
Julie N.  United States, Portland, Maine 01996-09-27 September 27, 1996 &0000000000000586.000000586 &0000000000000586.000000586 [58]
Sea Empress  United Kingdom, Pembrokeshire 01996-02-15 February 15, 1996 &0000000000040000.00000040,000 &0000000000072000.00000072,000 [40][46]
North Cape  United States, Rhode Island 01996-01-19 January 19, 1996 &0000000000002500.0000002,500 &0000000000002500.0000002,500 [59]
Seki oil spill  United Arab Emirates 01994-03-31 March 31, 1994 &0000000000015900.00000015,900 &0000000000015900.00000015,900 [40]
Morris J. Berman oil spill  Puerto Rico 01994-01-07 January 7, 1994 &0000000000002600.0000002,600 &0000000000002600.0000002,600 [60]
MV Braer  United Kingdom, Shetland 01993-01-05 January 5, 1993 &0000000000085000.00000085,000 &0000000000085000.00000085,000 [46]
Aegean Sea  Spain, A Coruña 01992-12-03 December 3, 1992 &0000000000074000.00000074,000 &0000000000074000.00000074,000 [46]
Katina P  Mozambique, Maputo 01992-04-26 April 26, 1992 &0000000000072000.00000072,000 &0000000000072000.00000072,000 [46]
Fergana Valley  Uzbekistan 01992-03-02 March 2, 1992 &0000000000285000.000000285,000 &0000000000285000.000000285,000 [40]
Kirki  Australia, Indian ocean, off the coast of Western Australia 01991-07-21 July 21, 1991 &0000000000017280.00000017,280 &0000000000017280.00000017,280 [61]
ABT Summer  Angola, 700 nmi (1,300 km; 810 mi) offshore 01991-05-28 May 28, 1991 &0000000000260000.000000260,000 &0000000000260000.000000260,000 [46]
MT Haven  Italy, Mediterranean Sea near Genoa 01991-04-11 April 11, 1991 &0000000000144000.000000144,000 &0000000000144000.000000144,000 [46]
Gulf War oil spill  Iraq, Persian Gulf 01991-01-23 January 23, 1991 &0000000000270000.000000270,000 &0000000000820000.000000820,000 [62] [63]
Mega Borg  United States, Gulf of Mexico, 57 mi (92 km) SE of Galveston, Texas 01990-06-08 June 8, 1990 &0000000000016499.00000016,499 &0000000000016501.00000016,501 [64]
American Trader  United States, Bolsa Chica State Beach, California 01990-02-07 February 7, 1990 &0000000000000979.000000979 &0000000000000981.000000981 [40] [65]
Khark 5  Spain, 350 nmi (650 km; 400 mi) off Las Palmas de Gran Canaria 01989-12-19 December 19, 1989 &0000000000070000.00000070,000 &0000000000080000.00000080,000 [40][46]
Presidente Rivera  United States, Delaware River, Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania 01989-06-24 June 24, 1989 &0000000000000993.000000993 &0000000000000993.000000993 [66]
Exxon Valdez  United States, Prince William Sound, Alaska 01989-03-24 March 24, 1989 &0000000000037000.00000037,000 &0000000000104000.000000104,000 [46][67]
Odyssey  Canada, 700 nmi (1,300 km; 810 mi) off Nova Scotia 01988-11-10 November 10, 1988 &0000000000132000.000000132,000 &0000000000132000.000000132,000 [46]
Ashland oil spill  United States, Floreffe, Pennsylvania 01988-01-02 January 2, 1988 &0000000000010000.00000010,000 &0000000000010000.00000010,000 [68][69]
Nova  Iran, Gulf of Iran, Kharg Island 01985-12-06 December 6, 1985 &0000000000070000.00000070,000 &0000000000070000.00000070,000 [46]
Grand Eagle  United States, Delaware River, Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania 01985-09-28 September 28, 1985 &0000000000001400.0000001,400 &0000000000001400.0000001,400 [70]
Castillo de Bellver  South Africa, Saldanha Bay 01983-08-06 August 6, 1983 &0000000000252000.000000252,000 &0000000000252000.000000252,000 [46]
Nowruz Field Platform  Iran, Persian Gulf 01983-02-04 February 4, 1983 &0000000000260000.000000260,000 &0000000000260000.000000260,000 [71]
Tanio  France, Brittany 01980-03-07 March 7, 1980 &0000000000013500.00000013,500 &0000000000013500.00000013,500 [72]
Irenes Serenade  Greece, Pylos 01980-02-23 February 23, 1980 &0000000000100000.000000100,000 &0000000000100000.000000100,000 [46]
MT IndependenÅ£a  Turkey, Bosphorus 01979-11-15 November 15, 1979 &0000000000095000.00000095,000 &0000000000095000.00000095,000 [46]
Burmah Agate  United States, Galveston Bay, Texas 01979-11-01 November 1, 1979 &0000000000008440.0000008,440 &0000000000008440.0000008,440 [73]
Atlantic Empress / Aegean Captain  Trinidad and Tobago 01979-07-19 July 19, 1979 &0000000000287000.000000287,000 &0000000000287000.000000287,000 [46][74][75]
Ixtoc I oil spill  Mexico, Gulf of Mexico 01979-06-03 June 3, 1979 – March 23, 1980 &0000000000454000.000000454,000 &0000000000480000.000000480,000 [76][77]
Betelgeuse  Ireland, Bantry Bay 01979-01-08 January 8, 1979 &0000000000064000.00000064,000 &0000000000064000.00000064,000 [78]
Amoco Cadiz  France, Brittany 01978-03-16 March 16, 1978 &0000000000223000.000000223,000 &0000000000227000.000000227,000 [40][40][46][79][80]
Ekofisk oil field  Norway, North Sea 01977-04-22 April 22, 1977 &0000000000027600.00000027,600 &0000000000027600.00000027,600 [81][82]
Hawaiian Patriot  United States, 300 nmi (560 km; 350 mi) off Honolulu, Hawaii 01977-02-26 February 26, 1977 &0000000000095000.00000095,000 &0000000000095000.00000095,000 [40][46]
Borag  Taiwan, Northern coast 01977-02-07 February 7, 1977 &0000000000034000.00000034,000 &0000000000034000.00000034,000 [83]
Argo Merchant  United States, Nantucket Island, Massachusetts 01976-12-15 December 15, 1976 &0000000000025000.00000025,000 &0000000000028000.00000028,000 [84][85]
NEPCO 140 oil spill  United States, Saint Lawrence River 01976-06-23 June 23, 1976 &0000000000001000.0000001,000 &0000000000001000.0000001,000 [86][87]
Urquiola  Spain, A Coruña 01976-05-12 May 12, 1976 &0000000000100000.000000100,000 &0000000000100000.000000100,000 [46]
Niger Delta  Nigeria, Niger Delta 01976 1976 – 1996 &0000000000258000.000000258,000 &0000000000328000.000000328,000 [88]
Corinthos  United States, Delaware River, Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania 01975-01-31 January 31, 1975 &0000000000035700.00000035,700 &0000000000035700.00000035,700
Jakob Maersk  Portugal, Oporto 01975-01-29 January 29, 1975 &0000000000088000.00000088,000 &0000000000088000.00000088,000 [46]
VLCC Metula  Chile, Strait of Magellan 01974-08-09 August 9, 1974 &0000000000050000.00000050,000 &0000000000051000.00000051,000 [89]
Sea Star  Iran, Gulf of Oman 01972-12-19 December 19, 1972 &0000000000115000.000000115,000 &0000000000115000.000000115,000 [40][46]
Arizona Standard / Oregon Standard collision  United States, San Francisco Bay 01971-01-17 January 17, 1971 &0000000000002700.0000002,700 &0000000000002700.0000002,700 [90][91]
Othello  Sweden, Trälhavet Bay 01970-03-20 March 20, 1970 &0000000000050000.00000050,000 &0000000000060000.00000060,000 [40][54]
1969 Santa Barbara oil spill  United States, Santa Barbara, California 01969-01-28 January 28, 1969 &0000000000010000.00000010,000 &0000000000014000.00000014,000 [92]
Torrey Canyon  United Kingdom, Isles of Scilly 01967-03-18 March 18, 1967 &0000000000080000.00000080,000 &0000000000119000.000000119,000 [40][46]
African Queen oil spill  United States, Ocean City, Maryland 01958-12-30 December 30, 1958 &0000000000021000.00000021,000 &0000000000021000.00000021,000 [93][94]
Avila Beach pipeline  United States, Avila Beach, California 01950 1950's – 1996 &0000000000001300.0000001,300 &0000000000001300.0000001,300 [95]
Guadalupe Oil Field  United States, Guadalupe, California 01950 1950's – 1994 &0000000000029000.00000029,000 &0000000000029000.00000029,000 [95]
Greenpoint, Brooklyn oil spill  United States, Newtown Creek, Greenpoint, Brooklyn, New York 01940 1940s – 1950s &0000000000055200.00000055,200 &0000000000097400.00000097,400 [96]
SS Frank H. Buck / SS President Coolidge collision  United States, San Francisco Bay, California 01937-03-06 March 6, 1937 &0000000000008870.0000008,870 &0000000000008870.0000008,870 [90][97]
Lakeview Gusher  United States, Kern County, California 01910-03-14 March 14, 1910 – September 10, 1911 &0000000001230000.0000001,230,000 &0000000001230000.0000001,230,000 [98]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ The Associated Press (21 July 2010). "China Oil Spill Grows, Official Warns Of 'Severe Threat'". The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/21/china-oil-spill-grows-off_n_653852.html. Retrieved 22 July 2010. 
  2. ^ An (ed.) (22 July 2010). "China races to prevent oil slick spreading to open sea". Xinhua News Agency. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-07/21/c_13408743.htm. Retrieved 22 July 2010. 
  3. ^ Agence France-Presse (22 July 2010). "Clean-up crews use bare hands against China oil spill". Yahoo! News. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100722/world/china_environment_oil_pollution. Retrieved 22 July 2010. 
  4. ^ Karin Kloosterman (June 24, 2010). "Egypt Eco-Group HEPCA Reports Red Sea Spill is Capped, Beaches Cleaned". Green Prophet. http://www.greenprophet.com/2010/06/24/23137/egypt-oil-spill-hurgada/. 
  5. ^ "BP chief to testify to uncertainty of efforts to stop oil leak". CNN. 2010-06-17. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/06/16/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html. Retrieved 25 June 2010. 
  6. ^ "Press Briefing by National Incident Commander June 21, 2010". Deepwater Horizon Unified Response Command. 21 June 2010. http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/683223. Retrieved 25 June 2010. 
  7. ^ "The Ongoing Administration-Wide Response to the Deepwater BP Oil Spill". Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center. 15 July 2010. http://app.restorethegulf.gov/go/doc/2931/786995/. Retrieved 16 July 2010. 
  8. ^ David Wethe and Edward Klump (9 June 2010). "Taylor Gulf Wells Leaks for Years; Diamond Drills Relief Wells". Bloomberg BusinessWeek. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-09/taylor-gulf-wells-leaks-for-years-diamond-drills-relief-wells.html. Retrieved 13 June 2010. 
  9. ^ Paul Rioux (8 June 2010). "Second Gulf oil spill releasing small amounts, federal officials say". The Times-Picayune. http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/second_gulf_oil_spill_releasin.html. Retrieved 13 June 2010. 
  10. ^ Amy Joi O'Donoghue; Josh Smith (Saturday, June 12, 2010). "Oil spill in Red Butte Creek threatens waters, wildlife". The Deseret News. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700039797/Oil-spill-in-Red-Butte-Creek-threatens-waters-wildlife.html?pg=1. Retrieved 14 June 2010. 
  11. ^ Derek P. Jensen (17 June 2010). "Chevron: We won't be difficult on oil-spill cleanup costs". The Salt Lake Tribune. http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_15320863. Retrieved 18 June 2010. 
  12. ^ "Oil leaks from tanker collision off Singapore". BBC News. Tuesday, May 25, 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_pacific/10151722.stm. Retrieved 7 June2010. 
  13. ^ "Oil spill threatens Singapore coast". ABC News. 25 May 2010. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/25/2909203.htm. Retrieved 7 June2010. 
  14. ^ "Singapore closes popular beaches after oil spill hits coast". The Hindu. Thursday, 27 May 2010. http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article439706.ece. Retrieved 7 June2010. 
  15. ^ Dulue Mbachu (6 June 2010). "Exxon Nigerian Unit Oil Spill Caused by Corrosion". BusinessWeek. 
  16. ^ Joe Brock (18 May 2010). "Africa's oil spills are far from U.S. media glare". Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE64G12X. Retrieved 29 May 2010. "100,000 bpd of oil had leaked for a week from a pipeline that has since been mended" 
  17. ^ Vidal, John. "Nigeria's agony dwarfs the Gulf oil spill. The US and Europe ignore it.". The Observer. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell. Retrieved 1 June 2010. 
  18. ^ "Coal carrier Shen Neng 1 oil spill dispersed, says Queensland Government". The Herald and Weekly Times. 6 April 2010. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/coal-carrier-shen-neng-1-oil-spill-dispersed-says-queensland-government/story-e6frf7l6-1225850228506. Retrieved 7 June 2010. 
  19. ^ "Battle to stabilise ship aground near Barrier Reef". BBC News. 5 April 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8603083.stm. Retrieved 7 June 2010. 
  20. ^ "Chinese coal ship runs aground, leaks oil". United Press International. 5 April 2010. http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2010/04/05/Chinese-coal-ship-runs-aground-leaks-oil/UPI-91301270488651/. Retrieved 7 June 2010. 
  21. ^ "Collision Causes Crude Oil Spill in Texas". The Wall Street Journal. 24 January 2010. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704562504575021540843701582.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news. Retrieved 24 January 2010. 
  22. ^ Mu Xeuquan (5 January 2010). "Diesel spill contaminates Yellow River tributaries". Xinhua News. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/05/content_12754632.htm. Retrieved 19 July 2010. 
  23. ^ "WA oil spill 'one of Australia's worst'". ABC News. August 24, 2009. Archived from the original on November 5, 2009. http://www.webcitation.org/5l3RrgF24. Retrieved November 5, 2009. 
  24. ^ "Oil leaking 'five times faster' than thought". ABC News. October 22, 2009. Archived from the original on November 5, 2009. http://www.webcitation.org/5l3RU9Sv0. Retrieved November 5, 2009. 
  25. ^ "Reuters". http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL391060. 
  26. ^ "The Namibian". http://www.namibian.com.na/news/full-story/archive/2009/april/article/oil-spill-hits-luederitz/. 
  27. ^ "Oil spill: Qld beaches declared disaster zones". ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). 13 March 2009. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/13/2514943.htm. Retrieved 14 July 2010. 
  28. ^ Kirkham, Chris; Ramon Antonio Vargas (July 24, 2008). "Oil spill shuts down 80 miles of river". New Orleans Times-Picayune: pp. A1. 
  29. ^ Oil Spill in North Sea Off Norway http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7140645.stm
  30. ^ "Tanker oil spill off S Korea coast". Al Jazeera English. 2007-12-08. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2007/12/2008525133041570288.html. Retrieved 2008-11-16. 
  31. ^ "S Korea declares slick 'disaster'". BBC News. 2007-12-09. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7134967.stm. Retrieved 2008-11-16. 
  32. ^ "Fuel spill disaster reported in waters near Russia". CNN International. 2007-11-11. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/11/russia.spill/index.html. Retrieved 2008-11-16. 
  33. ^ "Spill closes bay beaches as oil spreads, kills wildlife". San Francisco Chronicle. 2007-11-09. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/08/BAD8T8PLU.DTL. Retrieved 2008-11-16. 
  34. ^ Usumacinta and Kab 101 Blowout
  35. ^ a b "Oil spills - Philippines, Indian Ocean and Lebanon". Greenpeace. 2006-08-18. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/recent-oil-spills. Retrieved 2008-11-16. 
  36. ^ "CITGO Oil Spill" (PDF). Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 2006-07-25. http://kplc.images.worldnow.com/images/incoming/Citgo/CitgoIncident.pdf. Retrieved 2008-11-16. 
  37. ^ "Oil spill is the North Slope's biggest ever". Anchorage Daily News. 2006-03-10. http://www.adn.com/news/environment/story/7519250p-7431265c.html. Retrieved 2008-11-16. 
  38. ^ a b c d e f g h i Miguel Llanos (19 September 2005). "44 oil spills found in southeast Louisiana". MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9365607/. 
  39. ^ Response and Prevention Branch Oil Team (May 2006) (.PDF). Murphy Oil USA Refinery Spill, Chalmette & Meraux, LA Presentation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6. http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fss/fss06/franklin_2.pdf. Retrieved 27 May 2010. 
  40. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n "Oil Spill History". The Mariner Group. http://www.marinergroup.com/oil-spill-history.htm. Retrieved 2008-11-02. 
  41. ^ University of Delaware Sea Grant Program. "Athos 1 Oil Spill". http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/oilspill/. Retrieved 31 May 2010. 
  42. ^ a b c Research Planning, Inc. (2005) Preassessment Data Report, The MP-69 / Hurricane Ivan Oil Discharges, Mississippi River Delta, Louisiana (pp. 10, 18). Damage Assessment Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (Report).
  43. ^ ITOPF Case History: Tasman Spirit
  44. ^ Hans van de Veen (2004) (.PDF). Saving Pakistan's Green Gold. DGIS-ICD Programme, WWF International. p. 19. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwfdgispakistan2.pdf. Retrieved 4 June 2010. 
  45. ^ "Buzzards Bay Oil Spill: Bouchard Barge No. 120". Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program. Tuesday, 06 April 2010. http://www.buzzardsbay.org/oilspill-4-28-03.htm. Retrieved 4 June 2010. 
  46. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u "Major Oil Spills". International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation. http://www.itopf.com/stats.html. Retrieved 2008-11-02. 
  47. ^ Raul Garcia (November 2003) (.PDF). : The Prestige: one year on, a continuing disaster. WWF-Spain. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/finalprestige.pdf. Retrieved 4 June 2010. 
  48. ^ a b Oil spills at Guanabara Bay
  49. ^ http://www.solcomhouse.com/trans.htm
  50. ^ "The Land is Dead". Urhobo Historical Society. 30 July 2001. http://www.waado.org/Environment/OilCompanies/States/Rivers/OgbuduSpill/TerisaTurner.html. 
  51. ^ "Alarm at oil spill in Ogoniland". BBC News. 2 May 2001. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1309288.stm. 
  52. ^ "Petrobras P-36". Oil Rig Disasters. Monday, 14 April 2008. http://home.versatel.nl/the_sims/rig/p36.htm. Retrieved 21 May 2010. 
  53. ^ Cabinet frees Greek crew at the Taipei Times
  54. ^ a b c d e "Major Oil Spills". http://www.endgame.org/oilspills.htm. Retrieved 2008-11-02. 
  55. ^ Oil Spills at thinkquest.org
  56. ^ LaBelle, Robert. "Technology Assessment and Research". Minerals Management Service. http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/deepspill.htm. Retrieved 21 June 2010. 
  57. ^ "Nakhodka". Centre de Documentation de Recherche et d'Expérimentations. http://www.cedre.fr/en/spill/nakhodka/nakhodka.php. Retrieved 2010-06-01. 
  58. ^ How do oil spills impact Casco Bay? report by the Casco Bay Estuary Partnership
  59. ^ Rhode Island Oil Spill Is More Serious Than Initially Thought, New York Times, January 22, 1996
  60. ^ "Fact Sheet: Morris J. Berman Oil Spill". http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache%3AXphRBsAVVwgJ%3Awww.wqis.com%2Fnews%2Farticles%2FWQIS_BermanSpill.pdf+morris+berman+oil&hl=en&gl=ca&sig=AHIEtbRU_qSWVJrCDufqeCQRMP8xR6jmHA&pli=1. Retrieved 5 January 2010. 
  61. ^ Major Oil Spills in Australia: Kirki, Western Australia, 21 July 1991 from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority
  62. ^ Hosny Khordagui; Dhari Al-Ajmi (July 1993), "Environmental impact of the Gulf War: An integrated preliminary assessment", Environmental Management (Springer New York) Volume 17 (Number 4): 557–562, doi:10.1007/BF02394670, ISSN 0364-152X, http://www.springerlink.com/content/5258v78174284298/ 
  63. ^ http://employees.oneonta.edu/baumanpr/geosat2/Environmental_Warfare/ENVIRONMENTAL_WARFARE.htm
  64. ^ "M/V Mega Borg". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6748. Retrieved 2009-10-28. 
  65. ^ American Trader Oil Spill, California Office of Spill Prevention and Response
  66. ^ "Presidente Rivera Spill – June 24, 1989". University of Delaware Sea Grant Program. 2004. http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/oilspill/PresidenteRiveraSpill.html. Retrieved 2 June 2010. 
  67. ^ Riki Ott. Interview with Brooke Gladstone. How Much Oil Really Spilled From the Exxon Valdez? (audio/transcript). On The Media. National Public Radio. Friday, 18 June 2010. Retrieved on 29 June 2010.
  68. ^ Oil Spills report from the Air and Waste Management Association
  69. ^ Nightmare on The Monongahela, Time Magazine, January 18, 1988
  70. ^ University of Delaware Sea Grant Program. "1985 Grand Eagle Oil Spill". http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/oilspill/Grandeagle.html. Retrieved 31 May 2010. 
  71. ^ "Oil Spills and Disasters". http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001451.html. Retrieved 2008-11-16. 
  72. ^ ITOPF: TANIO (France, 1980)
  73. ^ "Burmah Agate". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6253. Retrieved 2008-11-16. 
  74. ^ "Atlantic Empress". Centre de Documentation de Recherche et d'Expérimentations. http://www.cedre.fr/uk/spill/atlantic/atlantic.htm. Retrieved 2008-11-10. 
  75. ^ "Tanker Incidents". http://www.maritime-connector.com/ContentDetails/1479/gcgid/193/lang/English/Tanker-Incidents.wshtml. Retrieved 2009-07-19. 
  76. ^ "IXTOC I". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6250. Retrieved 2008-11-03. 
  77. ^ "Ixtoc 1 oil spill: flaking of surface mousse in the Gulf of Mexico". Nature Publishing Group. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v290/n5803/abs/290235a0.html. Retrieved 2008-11-03. 
  78. ^ "Betelgeuse". Centre de Documentation de Recherche et d'Expérimentations. http://www.cedre.fr/uk/spill/betelgeuse/betelgeuse.htm. Retrieved 15 March 2009. 
  79. ^ "Amoco Cadiz". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6241. Retrieved 2008-11-16. 
  80. ^ "AMOCO CADIZ (France, 1978)". International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation. Wednesday, 10 February 2010. http://www.itopf.com/information-services/data-and-statistics/case-histories/alist.html#amoco. Retrieved 30 May 2010. 
  81. ^ "Amoco Cadiz". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6237. Retrieved 2010-05-22. 
  82. ^ "Ekofisk Bravo". Oil Rig Disasters. Monday, 14 April 2008. http://members.tele2.nl/the_sims/rig/ekofiskb.htm. Retrieved 28 May 2010. 
  83. ^ Fingas, Merv (2000). The Basics of Oil Spill Cleanup (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers. ISBN 1566705371. 
  84. ^ ITOPF: Argo Merchant (USA, 1976)
  85. ^ "Argo Merchant". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6231. Retrieved 2008-11-16. 
  86. ^ "Albert T. McKINNEY v. US - 30 April 1979= 2009-07-01". http://www.uscg.mil/Legal/Suspension_Revocation/Commandant_Decisions/S_and_R_1980_2279/2153%20-%20MCKINNEY.pdf. 
  87. ^ "Save The River Report= 2009-07-01". http://www.savetheriver.org/docs/76_NEPCO_spill_fact_sheet.pdf. 
  88. ^ "Shell And The N15bn Oil Spill Judgement Debt". The Daily Independent (Lagos). 2010-07-19. http://www.independentngonline.com/DailyIndependent/Article.aspx?id=17332. Retrieved 27 July 2010. "between 1976 and 1996, a total of 4,835 incidents resulted in the spillage of at least 2.4 million barrels of oil, of which an estimated 1.89 million barrels were lost to the environment in the Niger Delta" 
  89. ^ ITOPF: METULA (Chile, 1974)
  90. ^ a b "After 30 years, tankers safer but spills still a threat". The Associated Press. Friday January 19, 2001. http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2001-01-19/article/3054?headline=After-30-years-tankers-safer-but-spills-still-a-threat. Retrieved 28 May 2010. 
  91. ^ Wood, Roger Holmes (2006). When Tankers Collide, a Preview. AuthorHouse. ISBN 9781425955984. http://rogerholmeswood.com/pages/when-tankers-collide/preview-when-tankers-collide.php. Retrieved 28 May 2010. 
  92. ^ Brief Oil and Gas History of Santa Barbara County from the County of Santa Barbara, California
  93. ^ "The African Queen Shipwreck". ShipwreckExpo. 2010. http://www.shipwreckexpo.com/mdshipwreckafricanqueen.htm. Retrieved 2010-04-28. 
  94. ^ Howard (Delmar, Delaware) (Sunday, December 30, 2007). "African Queen". Delmar DustPan. http://delmardustpan.blogspot.com/2007/12/african-queen.html. Retrieved 2010-05-05. 
  95. ^ a b Phuong Le (August 10, 1999). "Beach town forced to scrape away oil leak -- and a chunk of its past". Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Hearst Seattle Media, LLC). http://www.seattlepi.com/pipelines/avil10.shtml. 
  96. ^ Russell Berman (Sunday, 18 November 2005). "Greenpoint, Maspeth Residents Lobby To Get 55-Year-Old Oil Spill Cleaned Up". TheNew York Sun. http://www.nysun.com/article/23231. Retrieved 2 June 2010. 
  97. ^ Harry R. Carter (2003). "Oil and California’s Seabirds: An Overview" (.PDF). Marine Ornithology 31: p. 2. http://www.marineornithology.org/PDF/31_1/31_1_1_carter.pdf. Retrieved 2 June 2010. 
  98. ^ Rintoul, William; Hodgson, Susan F. (1990). Drilling Through Time: 75 Years with California's Division of Oil and Gas. Sacramento: Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas. pp. 13–15. ISBN 096271240X.