3 ms·

In 1967 the the house estimated that Medicare would cost $9 Billion a year by 1990. The real number would turn out to be $67 Billion. Every week or so the rate

In 1967 the the house estimated that Medicare would cost $9 Billion a year by 1990. The real number would turn out to be $67 Billion. Every week or so the rate of the oil leak is revised upwards. What was once a spill has turned into a bad spill and now is being called a disaster. This seems consistent with the way most government estimates work. Ironically it is almost as if we need an independent body with no power to spend money but with complete auditing power to get the public actual numbers.

grandalf 16y ago
Let us hope that someone involved sends the truth to WikiLeaks! We can't expect to get it from Obama or from BP. Now that the buck stops with Obama, we can expect him to actively work to prevent the public from getting outraged.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  I guess that's why he got BP to put $20 billion into an escrow fund. What is it you want him to do, exactly? Back when he was talking about the need for more alternative fuels etc. I kept hearing about how he was interfering too much with markets and was a closet statist/socialist/Communist. Of course a few months ago otherwise sane people were still chanting 'drill baby drill' at political rallies.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    Think about it this way: What should be done: A systematic review of all offshore drilling practices and regulations and a significant reassessment, which would likely lead to the closing of hundreds of productive wells. What will be done: A massive fine to BP and minor regulatory changes. Obama is acting like a company man on this one, of course BP will be scapegoated, with the primary goal being to prevent widespread reforms from occurring and focusing on the idea that the problem is BP's negligence rather than on using the new information (spills can be very very bad) to question the practice of offshore drilling being worthwhile in the first place.
    - anigbrowl 16y ago
      Your way of thinking seems to involve substituting portentous phrases for actual argument. We know spills can be bad; while the degree of damage resulting from this one should certainly be factored into cost-benefit calculations, and prospective drillers required to plan and put up security for such eventualities, we still need to consider probability too. The fact is that incidents of this kind are quite rare in developed countries nowadays. "Obama = coroporate shill" is just as stupid and mindless as "drill baby drill". 'Systematic review...significant reassessment' - mere buzzwords. If you think his policy should be to just halt deepwater drilling then OK, I can respect that point of view even if I don't fully agree. But please stop hiding behind a mask of pseudo-objectivity.
      - grandalf 16y ago
        We knew spills are bad before the Deepwater Horizon spill, however the estimates of environmental damage (for the worst case scenario foreseen) were far smaller than what has already occurred with the Deepwater Horizon spill. Why? Because spills of the magnitude of this one are quite rare. But, like any low probability event, as the time horizon increases the probability approaches 1. Obama knows that another spill is very unlikely to happen soon, so he is under no pressure to create a new regulatory environment that actually reduces that probability. The gulf is a public resource, and so the question for the American people should be something along the lines of: If we are likely to get a Deepwater Horizon level spill every 20 years, should we still allow drilling? My guess is that (barring misinformation) most Americans would agree that we should absolutely not allow any offshore drilling at all. Offshore drilling in the US does not have a meaningful impact on oil/gas prices as experienced by consumers. It simply enriches the firms that extract that oil, but not enough is extracted to significantly impact the market price of a global commodity. Supporters of offshore drilling claim that gas would be $10 at the pump without it... which is total nonsense. If anything we'd see about a $0.05 increase per gallon at the pump. What is your explanation for why Obama is not doing more to create systematic reforms that decrease the chances of another spill? It sounds like you think he wisely views the risk as acceptably low.

grandalf 16y ago

Let us hope that someone involved sends the truth to WikiLeaks! We can't expect to get it from Obama or from BP. Now that the buck stops with Obama, we can expect him to actively work to prevent the public from getting outraged.

anigbrowl 16y ago
I guess that's why he got BP to put $20 billion into an escrow fund. What is it you want him to do, exactly? Back when he was talking about the need for more alternative fuels etc. I kept hearing about how he was interfering too much with markets and was a closet statist/socialist/Communist. Of course a few months ago otherwise sane people were still chanting 'drill baby drill' at political rallies.
- grandalf 16y ago
  Think about it this way: What should be done: A systematic review of all offshore drilling practices and regulations and a significant reassessment, which would likely lead to the closing of hundreds of productive wells. What will be done: A massive fine to BP and minor regulatory changes. Obama is acting like a company man on this one, of course BP will be scapegoated, with the primary goal being to prevent widespread reforms from occurring and focusing on the idea that the problem is BP's negligence rather than on using the new information (spills can be very very bad) to question the practice of offshore drilling being worthwhile in the first place.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    Your way of thinking seems to involve substituting portentous phrases for actual argument. We know spills can be bad; while the degree of damage resulting from this one should certainly be factored into cost-benefit calculations, and prospective drillers required to plan and put up security for such eventualities, we still need to consider probability too. The fact is that incidents of this kind are quite rare in developed countries nowadays. "Obama = coroporate shill" is just as stupid and mindless as "drill baby drill". 'Systematic review...significant reassessment' - mere buzzwords. If you think his policy should be to just halt deepwater drilling then OK, I can respect that point of view even if I don't fully agree. But please stop hiding behind a mask of pseudo-objectivity.
    - grandalf 16y ago
      We knew spills are bad before the Deepwater Horizon spill, however the estimates of environmental damage (for the worst case scenario foreseen) were far smaller than what has already occurred with the Deepwater Horizon spill. Why? Because spills of the magnitude of this one are quite rare. But, like any low probability event, as the time horizon increases the probability approaches 1. Obama knows that another spill is very unlikely to happen soon, so he is under no pressure to create a new regulatory environment that actually reduces that probability. The gulf is a public resource, and so the question for the American people should be something along the lines of: If we are likely to get a Deepwater Horizon level spill every 20 years, should we still allow drilling? My guess is that (barring misinformation) most Americans would agree that we should absolutely not allow any offshore drilling at all. Offshore drilling in the US does not have a meaningful impact on oil/gas prices as experienced by consumers. It simply enriches the firms that extract that oil, but not enough is extracted to significantly impact the market price of a global commodity. Supporters of offshore drilling claim that gas would be $10 at the pump without it... which is total nonsense. If anything we'd see about a $0.05 increase per gallon at the pump. What is your explanation for why Obama is not doing more to create systematic reforms that decrease the chances of another spill? It sounds like you think he wisely views the risk as acceptably low.