The Deepwater Horizon oil disaster is about to raise some important new questions about the costs and limits of U.S. policy toward Cuba.
According to Brad Johnson, a climate researcher at the Center for American Progress, oil from the spill carried by the Loop Current is likely to reach the Florida Strait by tomorrow, posing a direct threat to Cuba's marine environment.
News agencies are reporting that U.S. diplomats in Havana informed the Cuban government just days ago of details on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and where it is likely to move.
A State Department spokesman said, "It is incumbent upon us to inform all of our neighbors ... those countries that could be affected by disasters that happen within our territorial waters."
The United States needs to come completely clean with Cuba - and with all of us - about the size, location, extent, and severity of the disastrous flow of oil and chemical dispersants into the Gulf of Mexico following the explosion at the Deepwater Horizon Rig that took place on April 20th and killed eleven workers.
We know already that figures released by BP concerning the volume of oil pouring into the Gulf since the accident woefully underestimate what most experts believe is actually occurring. In addition to the millions of gallons of oil released, there is now more than 600,000 gallons of chemical dispersants in the Gulf being used to contain the spill.
The extent and boundaries of the oil plume beneath the surface of the Gulf are unknown. The toxic effect of the dispersants being used to control the spill is unknown. The U.S. is expanding the closures of fisheries in our territory, but questions surrounding this decision are yet to be fully answered. Is the entire 20% contaminated? Should Cuba take a similar action? If so, why?
The U.S. should be communicating all of this to the Cuban government so it can make its own risk assessment and establish its own priorities for the policy actions it should consider taking to protect its people, its climate, its fisheries, and its tourism industry.
As Robert Muse and Jorge R. Piñon wrote recently in a Brookings Institution issue brief, there are international frameworks under which the two countries could and should cooperate to protect their shared interests.
However, there is a larger point at stake. We shouldn't have to be talking about how, or whether, or to what extent we should be cooperating with Cuba in the face of this crisis, just as we don't have to invent or improvise a relationship with Mexico to do so. But our policy of not talking to Cuba, not having diplomatic relations with Cuba, demanding concessions from Cuba to engage with the U.S. cooperatively has precisely this kind of cost, and produces this kind of outcome.
So let the discussions confirmed by the State Department take place. Let's hope they're comprehensive and fruitful. Let's hope the U.S. government discloses more information to the Cubans - and to all of us - about the dangers to which the Gulf has been exposed.
But let's also hope that the bigger lesson of this crisis is learned and acted upon; we don't have to like the Cuban system to benefit from a normal relationship with the Cuban government, and we shouldn't allow ideology and domestic political concerns to block the orderly transfer of information about a disaster to a neighbor who shares with us stewardship of a gorgeous but now threatened eco-system.
Follow Sarah Stephens on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sarahatcda
Author Dominique Browning has recently suggested giving this disaster a name that will stick - and one that includes the name of the perpetrator, just as the name "Exxon Valdez" eternally linked the company.
I totally agree with her. To leave out BP's name is ridiculous. Let's start calling this what it is:
The 2010 BP-Gulf Gusher.
I invite you to take note of this name, use it in any and all comments and references. Perhaps we can begin to erode BP's brilliant PR strategy (perhaps they've spent more time and money trying to manipulate the coverage for this purpose than address the problem?!) and link them to this disaster forever more.
Are you in?
"Gusher" is a far more powerful image than "spill", but disaster really nails it.
From this point forward, let's call it what it is: the BP Oil Disaster. We need to stop passively accepting it as a "spill". There is so much about this that is outside of our control. At least let's name it and christen it with the BP brand. We need to destroy their current narrative forever more - like they've destroyed the Gulf...and the elegant ecosystem...and the livelihood of so many...and animal life...and...
Is it supposed that Castro can do anything that Obama can't? As far as Cuba getting anything out of BP, that's about as far-fetched as Bush being charged with war crimes. Since there are no mechanisms for Cuban access to US courts, the only judicial avenue for Cuba is the International Court for Justice in the Hague, but of course the US and BP are free to ignore its rulings.
Cuba, to put it simply, is screwed. How screwed will depend on the US Congress and the weather.
The accident may have been due to error or negligence, but the catastrophe is what has become of such a corrupt political system aligned with a corrupt government regulatory environment.
President Obama is certainly reluctant to 'take the reins' of the crisis because 'by law' he must let BP lead the crisis response. If he removes BP from the lead position it is no different that when Bush went to war in Iraq, "you broke it, now you have to fix it". Is there any doubt that BP would like to divert the cost to the US government, which it is going to try to do anyway. Obama is having none of that, so he 'sits the bench' while BP fumbles, time after time.
"Mr. President, if you have not declared a "State of Emergency" for the entire Gulf Coast by the time that oil coats the beaches of Florida this will indeed be your 9/11, and there is nothing you will be able to do, because that oil will still be washing up on those beaches in 2012."
http://granma.co.cu/secciones/opinion-grafica/lapiz298.html
Incredible news organization that Granma is, huh?
Now that the oil catastrophe may spill into the Atlantic, a scientist suggests: "constructing a long, floating boom between Key West and Cuba, in an eastward-pointing, V-shaped weir, the natural current flow can be enlisted to funnel the petroleum to the nearest refinery.
Other booms can be constructed to direct petroleum farther out in the Gulf toward the Straits of Florida for collection. The booms can be maintained by a flotilla of fishing craft and pleasure craft."
This is an emergency that needs to be addressed by strong leadership, as in wartime.
After Pearl Harbor was attacked, within months FORD's Willow Run plant completed a bomber every 59 minutes.
Fortunately, what is needed now to fight the oil cataclysm and climate change is much simpler technology. However, gutsy, effective action is required, without delay!
To learn about revolutionary alternatives, see Moving Beyond Oil, and to read the complete comments by this scientist, see Worst Case Scenario, both at: http://www.aesopinstitute.org
He also states: "The petroleum film will ...(cause) water temperature to rise accelerat(ing) Arctic Ocean melting. Mammals such as polar bears will probably not survive.
We may be watching (a) tipping point. This severe environmental catastrophe may turn into humanity’s greatest challenge."
The release of Methane from a tipping point may end millions of human lives, if not life on earth, in very few years.
We need to see real leadership before it's too late!
http://www.freewebhostingworld.com/