By the time DwH happened we had already learned that
exposed, high-energy habitats bounce back;
sheltered and deep-sea habitats do not.
ref: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles...WarOnPrivacy 16 minutes ago
By the time DwH happened we had already learned that
exposed, high-energy habitats bounce back;
sheltered and deep-sea habitats do not.
ref: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles...jsbisviewtiful 4 hours ago
RankingMember 3 hours ago
asdff an hour ago
But the real danger is that we have given certain members of our species superhuman abilities to unilaterally make decisions, where these then go on to cause harm on a scale that would never be possible as just 1% of our species operating within the scope of what 1% of our species can reach with their two hands. We've creating living gods essentially. We've even created nonliving gods: pools of capital people are beholden to grow that they themselves do not even own or control, but are enslaved to them nonetheless. Decisions are what is good for the nonliving god: what grows the money pile in the quarterly time frame, not what is good for our species or even what is truly individually good for the people believing themselves to have any control over these pools of capital.
tristanj 3 hours ago
That's a massive amount of money that could have went to paying shareholders, and that's why they don't want it happening again.
nilamo 2 hours ago
asdff an hour ago
appreciatorBus an hour ago
noworld 11 minutes ago
Edit: want to add the sprawl also makes efficient mass public transportation nearly impossible.
usefulcat 2 hours ago
That's more than their current market cap ($127B), and the stock price right now is not that far from where it was just before the spill ($49 now, around $59 just prior to the spill).
I'm just curious how that was accomplished, given that it would not have been a great time for them to be borrowing or issuing new shares, for obvious reasons. Maybe if it was spread out over like 10 years it could be more doable, but still that seems like a lot.
missedthecue an hour ago
tristanj 41 minutes ago
If you checked the share price via Google Finance, it's off by 2x. The share price on April 19, 2010 (a day before the disaster) was $59.48, not >$100. Google Finance is erroneously reporting the price.
fermisea 10 minutes ago
zdragnar an hour ago
gilrain 29 minutes ago
ojame an hour ago
Sold a bunch of assets to raise funds (about 38b apparently), cut the dividend, borrowed the remaining (you'd think after such an event it's 'hard' to raise capital but in reality BP has a great financial record and there's a chance they had prior agreements in place) and then spread cost out over ~10 years.
jsbisviewtiful an hour ago
Related, but the American gov recently invaded a country to take its oil while simultaneously shutting down funding for green energy projects. Exhausting.
nradov 33 minutes ago
palata 19 minutes ago
Well in this case the consequence is "we are destroying the conditions of our own survival". Open question is whether an advanced industrial civilisation can survive at all.
goatlover 17 minutes ago
giantg2 3 hours ago
Because most people don't want to know. Cognitive dissonance keeps many people from realizing the inconvenient truth that modern life requires accidents like this. We have stats or projections about how many people earth can support, but none about how many people it can sustainably support. People want their plastic items and cars to be cheap, even if it results in occasional accidents of this scale (not to mention the minor accidents that occur frequently and don't make the news).
bill_joy_fanboy an hour ago
This is a completely baseless claim. It is entirely possible to have both a technologically advanced civilization and simultaneously one that doesn't have catastrophic industrial mistakes like this.
atomic_cattlepr an hour ago
pnw 29 minutes ago
IncreasePosts 3 hours ago
rexpop 2 hours ago
its_ethan 2 hours ago
Seems like you believe the current system is not conducive to clean/sustainable infrastructure, but the world I think you want is actually the one we're already in.
jiggawatts 2 hours ago
We’re plopping down enormous grid scale batteries like it’s Sim City.
Electricity in the middle of the day is free!
hinkley 2 hours ago
dam_jackalopes an hour ago
jmclnx 31 minutes ago
To get people off of fossil fuels, remove oil subsidizes and tax fossil fuels a lot. Otherwise moving to renewals will take a very long time.
And yes, we can put up solar panels on your house, but that cost $ which people do not have. Solar Panels should be subsidized in an easy manner for people to get funds for installation.
superxpro12 2 hours ago
darth_avocado 3 hours ago
Why though? Why are we so afraid of accountability? Because this is what people point to when trying to deny things are true: ThErE iS NO EviDeNce, sHoW Me THe StUdY, etc. etc.
rcoveson 3 hours ago
This behavior, being skeptical and precise, is the very thing that makes scientists more trustworthy than the average Joe with his motivated reasoning.
I'm confident that the people working on this would have made the causal claim if they had been able to collect enough data to support it. They may well be working on gathering data to support the causal claim right now.
bobson381 an hour ago
rcoveson 41 minutes ago
But as long as we're bringing up general social woes, I'll point out that those misleading statements are pretty tame by today's standards. The more popular strategy now is to just lie outright.
atomic_cattlepr 36 minutes ago
Scientists write for other scientists who already know why they use the language they use. Compromising that language to try to cater to fools who couldn't care less about the truth would just make the scientist a greater fool for trying.
slibhb 2 hours ago
adjejmxbdjdn 2 hours ago
Humans don’t operate at a scientific level in our day to day.
Politicians need to make decisions about the economy with little to no data, and the legal system convicts people at a much lower standard than that science requires us to meet.
And we run our lives at an incredibly lower standard than what science needs to maintain.
It’s fairly easy to see that the Deep Horizon incident should have easily met any of those non science standards (it may have possibly fallen short of the legal standard), to actually enact changes in terms of regulations, or punishment.
Unfortunately, on one side you have an indifferent public that largely depends on activists that it maligns to protect its interests, and on the other side you have billion dollar industries that can buy out the decision makers.
abletonlive 18 minutes ago
dghlsakjg 2 hours ago
Scientists should not change the scientific method so morons can continue to ignore or cherrypick their studies.
arjie 2 hours ago
> Available evidence rules out natural phenomena as likely drivers, suggesting a large-scale pollution event and its associated mitigation measures most likely precipitated the declines...That the declines began shortly after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill points to that event as the most parsimonious explanation. These findings suggest that despite its immense size the deep-pelagic biome is vulnerable to human-induced disturbance and possesses limited resilience to facilitate recovery.
This means "the oil spill caused the declines". That is what this means in English.
hisfraudulency 3 hours ago
gambiting 3 hours ago
hisfraudulency 3 hours ago
SoftTalker 2 hours ago
bonesss 3 hours ago
Nuclear power threatens oil companies.
We used to talk about replacing transportation fuels and low-carbon shipping (global energy). Now we talk about personal responsibility and rooftop solar (residential electricity). You can find oil company PR slide decks explaining why and how. Greenwashing worked, pushing the renewable ‘debate’ worked. We missed the windows on critical infrastructure change, and seemingly enjoy an unstable chunk of desert dictating global energy, inflation & food prices. <shrug>
SoftTalker 2 hours ago
For long distance heavy transport, alternative fuels or battery-electric is not feasible yet.
The transition will take decades.
downrightmike 2 hours ago
micromacrofoot an hour ago
missedthecue 36 minutes ago
Consistently 2-3x the cost of wind or gas on an LCOE basis. And new build cost is about 7x as high, which has to be amortized over an extremely long period, which rates regulators do not like utilities doing.
atomic_cattlepr 33 minutes ago
daedrdev 22 minutes ago
atomic_cattlepr 19 minutes ago
causesothere 3 hours ago
No? The companies are largely free from consequence?
Maybe our system is a bit broken.
gambiting 3 hours ago
Guid_NewGuid 3 hours ago
gambiting 2 hours ago
Guid_NewGuid 2 hours ago
dghlsakjg 2 hours ago
Its kind of deceptive to talk about nearing an all time high without mentioning that the current all time high was 2 decades ago.
Guid_NewGuid 2 hours ago
My point is merely that reasonable people can disagree if there was a suitable consequence to the event. Sure they're out 140 billion, but to a company like this that's not as grand as it sounds and not at all fatal. You provided your view, I am providing mine, which is that they did not suffer sufficiently.
dghlsakjg an hour ago
I just said that the evidence that you are picking from tells a more complex story than "their stock is near an ATH" when it hasn't even recovered to where it was the day before the disaster.
palata 12 minutes ago
When a company fucks up like that, it should die, and the people deemed responsible should go to jail. And if we cannot find who is responsible, then the top-level executives should go to jail. They are paid so much because they are "responsible", aren't they?
"But think about the normal employees losing their job when such a company fucks up", I hear. Well, think about the employees who lose their job when a normal company bankrupts "normally", who cares? And maybe, just maybe, there would then be whistleblowers from the inside because they would actually risk their job by just not contributing to preventing the company from fucking up that bad.
testing22321 an hour ago
That was 1989, 37 years ago.
After years of appeals that the $5 Billion they were ordered to pay was excessive, they paid a whopping $507 Million in 2009.
MaxHoppersGhost 3 hours ago
frmersdog 4 hours ago
rafterydj 3 hours ago
positr0n 3 hours ago
The implication was they could have contained it at the surface, sucked it up and treated it to remove oil from the water.
dotancohen 2 hours ago
SoftTalker 2 hours ago
aksss 3 hours ago
dotancohen 2 hours ago
aksss 12 minutes ago
superxpro12 2 hours ago