A less restrained analysis, from Cryptogon.com:
Oil Slickonomics
May 3rd, 2010
Three scenarios lie ahead. They rank as bad, worse, and ugliest (the latter being catastrophic and unprecedented). There is no “good” here. The Bad... Cont.: cryptogon.com
--
FAC: I see a common thread emerging here with respect to all three: (1) my previous post concerning dependence on submarine cables; (2) the oil platforms, about which the article above speaks; and (3) natural disasters of the type we witnessed with Katrina.
I now hear rumblings from the talk-radio set that government should have stepped in here a lot sooner than it did (mainly recriminatory bashings from loud-mouths intended to take the heat off the last administration's handling of Katrina, even if there is some substance behind what they are saying), although as I think about these issues some more, I'm forced to wonder if, in fact, the gub has, or should have, any province in such matters that do not relate to mother nature's own doings, but are instead the result of industrial mishaps. Then again, one might think of the financial meltdown along these lines as well. And what are the semantics delineating where acts of terrorism leave off and where utter skulduggery in the servitude of greed, under the guise of innocence or incompetence picks up?
Of course government at some point has a role to play, especially when disasters become extreme (how's that for an anticlimactic, oxymoronic inversion?), but what are the criteria dictating where entry points or thresholds are to be set? Thoughts?
------ |
