Well, of course. Hell, every time it snows here it is THE STORM OF THE CENTURY. Well, if industry doesn't want to be regulated, there's a real simple solution: stop fucking up! not sure exactly what you were meaning to say there, but it isn't realistic to expect most people to care more about what happens on the other side of the globe as compared to what happens at home. The impact on American lives, and our economy, from this spill is going to be much larger than the impact from a similar spill in Angola. barfo
But it's not being couched (as much) in terms of "impact on lives and economy"--I wish it would. Instead it's being held up as "GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT", when in reality it's localized, and nowhere near as large or deadly as some other spills around the world. But now it's being held up as the poster child for why the government needs to crack down on Big Bad Oil. Want to enforce stringent testing and maintenance requirements for drills? No Problem. Want to make sure that heavy penalties are levied for even minor infractions? I'm all for that. Want to set up Federal Park areas in our most fragile ecological areas? Let's do it. Want to let the Government use this to show that oil = environmental disaster if not stopped? Not so much on board with that one.
http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10004661/the-gulf-oil-spill-worst-case-scenario/ Obama did stop drilling for now in some spots... Read the whole article! Give you some perception on how big this really can become and is heading that way.
I haven't really seen it being mostly discussed as "global environmental impact" (though there is some impact to the globe, as the Angola spill had). I see more of the consternation being about the effects on people. Even your sarcastic "Dead shrimp!" points to that. That "dead shrimp" thing is about Louisiana shrimpers' livelihood being destroyed for the foreseeable future. So if your problem with the coverage is that not enough attention is being paid to local effect on lives and economy, it's odd that you would mock that particular thing.
When it starts affecting the polar bears, people will care more. When it hits the glaciers in the arctic, it'll surely cause them to melt and all the coastal cities will be under 100 ft of water. But seriously, I'm really starting to think this is another case of "let's not let a good crisis go to waste." For decades, they've had technology like soap or burning the oil to deal with spills. I don't see any of that going on here. https://ceprofs.civil.tamu.edu/rhann/links/tools.asp
Look at the bright side. Al Gore says the oceans will dry up, then we won't have to drill through all that water.
Regardless of whether or not we should be drilling offshore (I think we should be maximizing our drilling efforts), the efforts to clean it up are going to be a textbook on what not to do. From here on out, the answer should be that all hands are on deck when it comes to the cleanup--BP, the Federal Government, the Coast Guard, the state National Guards, fishing vessels, etc. Also, every single option should be executed--dropping hay to absorb the oil, dropping dispersants, skimming oil and seawater into tankers, capping the well, pumping excess oil into tankers, building seawall barriers, etc. Rather than one big fix, execute a number of small ones and see which ones work. Don't worry about where the ideas came from or whose in charge.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OIL_SPILL_MYSTERIES_OF_THE_DEEP?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-05-31-17-11-56 Perhaps this has been played by the media to hype. and an interesting, for what it's worth point
[video]http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/37464824#37464824[/video] Might be years before it's fixed. Ouch!
I don't like a ton of things the Prez has done, but I don't really fault him much for this one. That said, why did he do in mid-April to get a 4% spike?!?