BP Gets OK to Dump Sludge in Lake Michigan

[Fandango 1,440]

In a perfect world, everything would be great....but if this country is to lighten our reliance on Middle Eastern oil, then obviously there are going to be problems along the way....

And all your outrage for the fish and whatnot would cease when you're payin $10/gallon.

It still meets fed regulations. And why can't BP spend more on the water pollution? Cos that cost will be passed on to the consumer who's looking for the cheapest option & who would prolly drive 2 miles out of his/her way to save 2 cents a gallon.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

BP fuel is not the cheapest. Far from in actual fact.

[Fandango 1,440]

BP fuel is not the cheapest. Far from in actual fact.

right...and if they do this:

"But if they are investing all of these billions, they surely can afford to spend some more to protect the lake."

then the bottom line to consumer is even more expensive.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If we're talking about environmental pollution - cost isn't really the point.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

N6,

Cost is always the point.

[Fandango 1,440]

If we're talking about environmental pollution - cost isn't really the point.

Don't be so naive...cost is always the point.

N6,

Cost is always the point.

Quick draw McGraw!

Didn't see this before I posted.

[Jamie76 0]

The US EPA has pretty much been emasculated since the Bush Administration took office. You should see some of the "experts" he has appointed to EPA offices.

I read something on this the other week - regarding ####### Cheney's running of US energy policy. Neuter the regulatory organisations and allow energy companies to put their obscene profits ahead of any sense of enviromental responsibility.

YEP, its all Dicks fault. Its a frickin conspiracy. Send Gore a sympathy card and get over it.

Signed, chip on my shoulder

In a perfect world, everything would be great....but if this country is to lighten our reliance on Middle Eastern oil, then obviously there are going to be problems along the way....

And all your outrage for the fish and whatnot would cease when you're payin $10/gallon.

It still meets fed regulations. And why can't BP spend more on the water pollution? Cos that cost will be passed on to the consumer who's looking for the cheapest option & who would prolly drive 2 miles out of his/her way to save 2 cents a gallon.

Adding extra capacity does nothing when there is nothing to refine. As supply diminishes, you can have all the extra capacity you want, but you can't refine good intentions.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Then you should have no trouble putting a price on the environment.

[Fandango 1,440]

Adding extra capacity does nothing when there is nothing to refine. As supply diminishes, you can have all the extra capacity you want, but you can't refine good intentions.

Are you saying BP is doing this for no reason whatsoever?

You should let them know of your findings.

Then you should have no trouble putting a price on the environment.

The bottom line is that they still meet Federal Regulations for the dumping.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

N6,

Why do you think governments (not just ours) put upper limits on the allowable amount of known toxins in our drinking water supply? Why not just set it at zero?

Because studies are done of the cost to bring those numbers down to zero compared with the increased benefit to human health for each unit of decrease; and the point of decreasing marginal benefits is identified.

In reality, it's always about cost.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Adding extra capacity does nothing when there is nothing to refine. As supply diminishes, you can have all the extra capacity you want, but you can't refine good intentions.

Are you saying BP is doing this for no reason whatsoever?

You should let them know of your findings.

Then you should have no trouble putting a price on the environment.

The bottom line is that they still meet Federal Regulations for the dumping.

The bottom line is in who sets the Federal Regulations. The current government has spent 8 years chipping away at regulatory frameworks for environmental protection.

[Cassie 8]

Then you should have no trouble putting a price on the environment.

The bottom line is that they still meet Federal Regulations for the dumping.

somehow that fails to reassure me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

N6,

Why do you think governments (not just ours) put upper limits on the allowable amount of known toxins in our drinking water supply? Why not just set it at zero?

Because studies are done of the cost to bring those numbers down to zero compared with the increased benefit to human health for each unit of decrease; and the point of decreasing marginal benefits is identified.

In reality, it's always about cost.

Economics and Environmentalism are two diametrically opposed philosophies.

Same thing with recycling. The cost isn't really as important as that its the right thing to do.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Economics and Environmentalism are two diametrically opposed philosophies.

And yet, there's no escaping the economics of it. It all costs money and you can't pretend as if it isn't so.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Economics and Environmentalism are two diametrically opposed philosophies.

And yet, there's no escaping the economics of it. It all costs money and you can't pretend as if it isn't so.

Sure it does. But the excuse I think is over-used.