BP's defense of Alaska pipeline safety is not reassuring

Assurances from British Petroleum, owner of the largest stake in the Alyeska consortium that operates the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, that the 800-mile oil pipeline is not deteriorating dangerously have apparently not satisfied congressional investigators looking into reports of inadequate maintenance. After all, the consortium's managing partner is BP, the company responsible for the catastrophic oil spill caused when a deep-water drill rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico in April, killing 11 workers. To its credit, BP has agreed to cover the cost of restitution and placed $20 billion in escrow for expected damage claims stemming from the Gulf spill. But BP has made no such offer for the deteriorating pipeline. According to Cable News Network (CNN), a little-reported spill of 5,000 gallons of oil on the ground near Delta Junction, Alaska, has reignited concerns about the safety of the pipeline. "There's incident after incident within the last six months (that) might seem like small things, but when you put them all together, in a relatively short period of time, it really tells you how poorly this pipeline is being maintained," Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, told CNN. The news service also said an unnamed source said deferred maintenance year after year was endangering the pipeline. Officials have refused to allow CNN to videotape near the site of the spill, the news service said. Alyeska's vice president of operations, Mike Joynor, told CNN that the pipeline was safe and said he was unaware of any incident involving a CNN news crew. Joynor said Alyeska was investigating the spill. He said Alyeska was developing rules to avoid such incidents in the future but that the rules would not be made public. "We stick to what our core values are: safety, integrity, environmental protection and protection of a safe workforce," Joyner said.

Trouble arrives: Obama proposes opening East Coast to oil drilling

There is a bright side to the Obama administration's surprise announcement Tuesday to open up 167 million acres of ocean along the Eastern Seaboard to oil and gas exploration. Isn't it better to get the work out of the way now, with a responsible government in Washington and strict safeguards in place, than to wait until the next oil shock forces a stampede to irresponsible exploitation? Hopefully, that's just what officials were thinking when they proposed the massive program that includes the Atlantic coast of the United States from Delaware to Florida, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska, according to the New York Times. The plan will be publicly revealed tomorrow at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, the Times said, even though officials began briefing members of Congress today. Under the proposal, years of geologic and environmental study by the U.S. Department of the Interior will be required before any of the tracts will be open for bidding, the Times said. The plan, developed after a series of public hearings and review of more than 500,000 public comments, is designed to help reduce the nation's oil imports, raise more revenue for the government and help gain support for the administration's climate change proposals. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said through aides that the proposal reflects the administration's desire to "rebalance" the nation's energy policies between drilling advocates and those who oppose any oil drilling on environmental grounds, the Times said. Sales of leases for the newly opened public lands are not expected before 2012, although a tract off Virginia already cleared for leasing could go out for bidding as early as next year, the newspaper said. The proposal also would open nearly 130 million acres in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea north of Alaska to exploration after extensive study, the Times said, but protect the environmentally sensitive Bristol Bay in southwestern Alaska, as well as the entire West Coast of the United States. The Obama proposal is sure to arouse opposition from his environmental allies, who oppose nearly all drilling out of concern for the environmental effects of oil spills, which are virtually certain to occur despite efforts to prevent them. But Obama argued during his successful 2008 campaign that he favored opening some areas to drilling to reduce the country's dependence on imported oil, the Times said. At Wednesday's announcement, Obama also is expected to announce an agreement between the Pentagon and Agriculture Department to use more biofuels in military vehicles and to purchase hybrid vehicles for the federal motor pool.

Public employee pensions, benefits threaten to bankrupt government as they soar out of control

Will state governments in the United States have to collapse before political leaders take the pension funding crisis seriously? What will happen to the already-gasping financial system if that happens? These questions returned to the headlines Thursday when the nonprofit Pew Center on the States released a new report revealing a $1 trillion shortfall nationwide in state contributions to employee pension and retirement plans. Only four states -- Florida, New York, Washington and Wisconsin -- had paid enough into their pension plans to cover their obligations, the report said, according to the Reuters international news service. Pew Center managing director Susan Urahn characterized the first 10 years of the new century as a "decade of irresponsibility," Reuters said. "Over the last 10 years, many states have shortchanged pension plans in good times and bad," Urahn said. "The growing bill coming due to states could have significant consequences for taxpayers -- higher taxes, less money for public services and lower state bond ratings." The situation with retiree health benefits also is dire, the report said, with only five percent of $587 billion in expected liabilities paid. Only Alaska and Arizona have more than 50 percent of the assets needed to pay that bill. It looks like it's well past time for states to change the system of having public management employees negotiate with public rank-and-file employees to set salaries and benefits, because it's obvious that no one is looking out for the taxpayer.

She says she wants a revolution

Maybe it's the language itself that's to blame. In American English, there are many words that mean the same thing, or almost the same thing. And sometimes, the different shades of meaning are regional, because the United States is a very big country with hundreds of millions of people speaking slightly different dialects. Perhaps that explains former Alaska governor Sarah Palin telling Saturday's national Tea Party Convention that "America is ready for another revolution," according to Cable News Network (CNN). Palin, who achieved national prominence in 2008 as the Republican Party nominee for vice president but who became the butt of irreverent jokes for her lack of command of domestic and foreign policy issues, told the conservative group that they were right to be concerned about the Obama administration's approach to the economy and national security. "The Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda will leave us less secure, more in debt and under the thumb of big government," she said, referring to the president and the top Democratic Party leaders in Congress. "We are drowning in national debt and many of us have had enough." Of course, Palin did not mention the astonishing increase in the national debt during the eight-year Bush administration, nor the financial crash that happened under its regulatory watch. Republicans rarely do, particularly on the national stage. But the voters certainly knew as they booted the party out of the White House and elected a large majority of Democratic Party legislators 16 months ago. On international affairs, Palin was critical of Obama's policies -- perhaps a sneak peak at the Republicans' 2012 campaign strategy. She, of course, denied that she was politicizing national security, even though that is exactly what she did. "It's not politicizing our security to discuss our concerns because Americans deserve to know the truths about the threats that we face." But her call for "another revolution" was truly amazing. Does the woman whose greatest claim to knowledge of world affairs was that she could see Russia across the water know what the original American Revolution was about? Does she know that colonists from Great Britain revolted to stop England from continuing what they saw as years of over-taxation and disrespect? Does she know that the Obama administration has been in office for 16 months and has continued nearly all of the policies of the previous, Republican, administration? Does she realize that the U.S. system has enabled her to rise to political prominence? Does she understand that after her preposterous campaign, she was able to get a book published under her name that will probably relieve her of the need to work again in her life? Does she know what revolution means?

Endangered polar bears get a little protection

News from Washington that the U.S. Interior Department had proposed protections for the entire range of the country's endangered polar bear population is yet another indication that the change at the White House signals major changes in policy for the world's most powerful military and economic giant. Thursday's announcement opens 60 days of public comment on the proposal, which designates more than 200,000 square miles of land, sea and ice along Alaska's north coast as critical habitat for the U.S. polar bear, according to the New York Times. A final rule is expected to be adopted June 30, 2009. Only 3,500 polar bears in the United States on land or U.S. territorial waters have been able to survive the loss of habitat blamed on global warming, which has melted the polar ice they live on. “Proposing critical habitat for this iconic species is one step in the right direction to help this species stave off extinction, recognizing that the greatest threat to the polar bear is the melting of sea ice caused by climate change,” said Thomas Strickland, the assistant interior secretary for fish, wildlife and parks under President Barack Obama, who took office in January. The previous administration under George W. Bush had declared the polar bear endangered due to melting ice and commercial activities but declined to take further steps to protect the creatures or their habitat, the Times said. If adopted, the new proposal would not remove the habitat from development but would require companies or government agencies to demonstrate that their activities will not negatively impact the species. Still, companies and environmentalists attacked the proposed regulations for opposite reasons. Commercial interests threatened to try to block the rules as being too broad and environmental groups complained they were too lax. In fact, the new rules are part of a settlement of a lawsuit filed by conservation groups that complained that the Bush administration had failed to designate protected habitat when it declared the polar bears endangered, the Times said.