Author Archives: IssacTenreajbyw

BP convicted of gross negligence in Deepwater Horizon spill, really salty about it

by IssacTenreajbyw Posted on September 4, 2014

BP convicted of gross negligence in Deepwater Horizon spill, really salty about it

By

4 Sep 2014 3:46 PM

Share

Share

BP convicted of gross negligence in Deepwater Horizon spill, really salty about it

×

Today, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier of the New Orleans federal court issued a ruling finding BP guilty of gross negligence in the Deepwater Horizon disaster of 2010. Halliburton and Transocean, companies also involved in operating the rig, received lesser smackdowns in the same ruling. BP, of course, will be appealing the decision, because why not drag these legal proceedings out for a few more years!

The ruling has coincidentally come about at the same time as the Society of Environmental Journalists conference — also taking place in New Orleans — where Geoff Morrell, BP’s vice president of U.S. communications, had a lot of crybaby-ish things to say about the media’s handling of BP’s behavior in the aftermath of the crisis.

In that regard, we imagine* that the handing down of this decision may have gone a little like this:

Judge Carl Barbier: So listen … four years ago, y’all fucked up. Big time. You know this!

BP: PROVE IT.

CB: What — ? That’s really not my job. Do you know how the U.S. judicial system works? I’m the judge, you morons — I don’t have to prove shit. But just to review: your Deepwater Horizon rig spilled over 200 million gallons of oil, contaminated 650 miles of coastline and 87,000 square miles of the Gulf, and killed 11 people. Not to mention, you impacted the livelihoods of 20 million people in the United States alone.

Halliburton and Transocean, in unison: Okay, fair, but really not our fault.

CB: I’ll get to you bozos in a minute. Anyway, BP, I’m aware this isn’t your first federal court rodeo. You’ve already pleaded guilty to no fewer than 14 federal charges, including 11 for manslaughter, and also one for deliberately lying about the size of the oil spill. And now we’ve spent the past few months hearing — in detail — how your enormous screw-up­ has been detrimental to the environment, food system, and economy of the Gulf region. Do you have anything to say for yourself?

BP: Thank you for asking. We’ve set aside $46 billion to cover all of the cleanup, legal fees, and penalties that we may or may not be responsible for. That’s a lot of money! It should be more than enough.

CB: It will definitely not be even close to enough, but that’s on you. On that note, I find you guilty of reckless conduct and gross negligence in setting off the Deepwater Horizon disaster, for which you are hereby levied a penalty of $18 billion.

BP: Wow. WOW.

HB: DO YOU WANT SOME ICE FOR THAT BUUUURRRRRNNNNNN??!!

TO: HEY BP CAN YOU LOAN ME A COUPLE BIL?? OH WAIT JUST KIDDING YOU BROKE AS F –

CB: Seriously, you two — I’ll get to you in a minute.

BP: Are you kidding me with that number? I am prepared to offer you exactly $3.5 billion.

CB: Does this look like a goddamn Moroccan marketplace to you, BP? Are you seriously haggling with me right now?

HB and TO: Take that penalty and take a seat!

BP: You both need to shut up.

CB: I’m going to have to break character and agree with BP on this one. Transocean and Halliburton, I find you each guilty of negligent conduct.

BP: HA!

CB: … and you don’t have to pay anything. God damn it.

BP: WHAT.

HB: Already took care of it. (High-fives TO.)

CB: I really do just hate all of you, for the record.

*In case you couldn’t tell (!), this exchange is fictional.

Source:
BP Found Grossly Negligent in 2010 Spill; Fines May Rise

, Bloomberg.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

More:  

BP convicted of gross negligence in Deepwater Horizon spill, really salty about it

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, KTP, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on BP convicted of gross negligence in Deepwater Horizon spill, really salty about it

Why It’s Getting Harder to Sue Illegal Movie Downloaders

by IssacTenreajbyw Posted on February 17, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The company behind the Oscar-nominated film Dallas Buyers Club sued 31 people in a federal district court in Texas this month for allegedly using the legal file-sharing service BitTorrent to download the movie illegally. The lawsuit is one of thousands that have been brought by companies against BitTorrent users in recent years, in an effort to crack down on Americans who are stealing movies, music, porn, books, and software. But it could have a tough time. Recently, several federal judges have ruled that key information—computer Internet Protocol (IP) addresses— used by film studios and others to target supposed thefts is insufficient proof to proceed with the lawsuits. And copyright experts say that even though companies are still winning lots of settlements, these firms are going after fewer plaintiffs at once than they were a few years ago. This suggests that their ability to pursue large piracy cases has been hampered.

“I think the trend is towards judges looking at piracy cases more carefully than they used to, requiring more upfront investigation,” says Mitch Stoltz, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). “There may always be some judges who will simply rubber-stamp these cases…but there are fewer of those judges than before.”

When companies bring copyright lawsuits, they often don’t know the identities of the alleged pirates. (This was true in the Dallas Buyers Club case.) Instead, they use IP addresses, unique numbers assigned to each device on an internet network, to track the computers that have been used for illegal downloading. Then they ask a judge to issue a subpoena to the internet service providers, so they can obtain the name of the person associated with that IP address. If the judge approves this request, plaintiffs can make additional demands, such as seeking a copy of the person’s hard drive. Armed with this information, the plaintiff then typically forces the defendants to settle. The average settlement ranges from $2,000 to $5,000, says Jeffrey Antonelli, a Chicago attorney who has represented numerous people accused of illegal BitTorrent use.

But this strategy isn’t perfect. “IP addresses are continuing to be less and less of an indicator of the identity of a particular person or computer on the net,” says R. Polk Wagner, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in intellectual property law. The name connected to an IP address usually identifies who is the paying the internet bill, not who is doing the downloading. Ten years ago, most people didn’t use wireless routers at home, but now, more than 60 percent of people do. And all the computers using a single wireless router have the same IP address. So if your tech-savvy neighbor is piggybacking off your wireless internet—and illegally downloading Mean Girls—you could take the heat. And Stoltz, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, points out that when people receive settlement letters, they are often scared into paying up—”even when they didn’t download illegally, or had valid defenses.”

Here’s an example of how imprecise IP addresses can be in pinpointing a specific computer: In 2012, law enforcement tried to catch a person making online threats to local police in Indiana by tracing the person’s IP address to a specific house. After a SWAT team broke down the door and tossed a couple of flashbangs into the entryway, they realized they’d gotten the wrong place. The home had an open wi-fi router. The threats were coming from down the street.

Recently, some judges have become more wary about granting subpoenas to companies who come to them with only IP addresses. Last month, a judge in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle dismissed a case brought by the studio that produced Elf-Man—a direct-to-video Christmas movie—against 152 anonymous defendants. According to the judge, “simply identifying the account holder associated with an IP address tells us very little about who actually downloaded Elf-Man.” In May 2013, a federal judge in California came down hard and issued a $81,320 fine against copyright holders that were “porno trolling” or going after people accused of downloading porn illegally. According to the judge, the plaintiff, Ingenuity 13 LLC, relied too heavily on IP addresses and did not do an adequate enough investigation to bring claims. And in May 2012, a federal district judge in New York reached a similar conclusion about IP addresses, as did a federal judge in Illinois the year before. Wagner notes, “Judges are increasingly realizing that IP addresses don’t have a high degree of reliability, and they’re not an accurate representation of who has control of the computer.”

Antonelli, the Chicago attorney, takes a different position. “Sure, we’ve seen a sprinkling of courts that have taken this position,” he says, “but in my opinion, it’s not enough, especially when you look at just how many lawsuits are being filed. I don’t see a trend yet.” He notes, however, that studios are no longer going after tens of thousands of plaintiffs at once, like they were doing from 2011 to late 2012. In 2011, for example, the producers for Hurt Locker sued almost 25,000 BitTorrent users—and almost all the claims were voluntarily dismissed by the studio, because it was taking too long to track down all of the defendants via their IP addresses. “That’s certainly changed. Typically we see no more than 100 defendants…I think that was a smart move on the plaintiffs. Courts were losing patience,” says Antonelli. Wanger adds, “It’s possible companies think that if they sue fewer people who are doing more significant activities, that’s a more defensible public relations approach.” (The Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America didn’t provide comment to Mother Jones as to whether studios are now going after fewer plaintiffs.)

For now, whether or not the Dallas Buyers Club producers will be able to successfully subpoena the alleged downloaders remains to be seen. (An attorney representing the producers did not return multiple requests for comment.) “It really depends on the judge assigned to the case,” says Stoltz. He says movies studios should be able to bring claims that are plausible, based on the facts they gather before suing.

The founder of the website Die Troll Die, who goes by the name John Doe, says that he started his website to fight alleged copyright trolls after being sued for copyright infringement—something he claims he didn’t do. He says he’s happy to see that the tide is turning against companies using IP addresses to bring lawsuits. He told Mother Jones via email, “I can say first-hand that being threatened with a lawsuit because someone else used your internet connection is a horrible experience.”

See more here:  

Why It’s Getting Harder to Sue Illegal Movie Downloaders

Posted in Anchor, FF, For Dummies, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Wiley | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why It’s Getting Harder to Sue Illegal Movie Downloaders

Should We Fight Climate Change By Taxing Meat?

by IssacTenreajbyw Posted on December 21, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story originally appeared in the Guardian, and has been reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Meat should be taxed to encourage people to eat less of it, so reducing the production of global warming gases from sheep, cattle and goats, according to a group of scientists.

Several high-profile figures, from the chief of the UN’s climate science panel to the economist Lord Stern, have previously advocated eating less meat to tackle global warming.

The scientists’ analysis, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, takes the contentious step of suggesting methane emissions be cut by pushing up the price of meat through a tax or emissions trading scheme.

“Influencing human behaviour is one of the most challenging aspects of any large-scale policy, and it is unlikely that a large-scale dietary change will happen voluntarily without incentives,” they say. “Implementing a tax or emission trading scheme on livestock’s greenhouse gas emissions could be an economically sound policy that would modify consumer prices and affect consumption patterns.”

There are now 3.6 billion ruminants on the planet–mostly sheep, cattle and goats and, in much smaller numbers, buffalo – 50% more than half a century ago. Methane from their digestive systems is the single biggest human-related source of the greenhouse gas, which is more short-lived but around 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide in warming the planet.

Emissions from livestock account for 14.5% of all human-caused greenhouse gases, according to the UN. It estimates that this could be cut by nearly a third through better farming practices.

Pete Smith, a professor of soils and global change at the University of Aberdeen, and one of the authors of the report, said: “Our study showed that one of the most effective ways to cut methane is to reduce global populations of ruminant livestock, especially cattle.”

He said methane from livestock could only be reduced by addressing demand for meat at the same time.

The scientists say not enough attention has been paid to tackling greenhouse gases other than CO2, especially in the ongoing UN climate talks, which last convened in Warsaw in November.

The only way the world could avoid dangerous tipping points as temperatures rise would be by cutting methane emissions as well as CO2 emissions from sources such as energy and transport, they argue. Reducing livestock numbers, they point out, would also avoid CO2 emissions released when forests are cleared for cattle farms.

William Ripple, a professor in the College of Forestry at Oregon State University, and another of the authors, said: “We clearly need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels to cut CO2 emissions. But that addresses only part of the problem. We also need to reduce non-CO2 greenhouse gases to lessen the likelihood of us crossing this climatic threshold.”

The farming industry said the tax proposal was too simplistic. Nick Allen, sector director for Eblex, the organisation for beef and lamb producers in England, said: “To suggest a tax is a better way to cut emissions seems a simplistic and blunt suggestion that will inevitably see a rise in consumer prices.

“It is a very complex area. Simply reducing numbers of livestock–as a move like this would inevitably do–does not improve efficiency of the rumen process, which takes naturally growing grass that we cannot eat and turns it into a protein to feed a growing human population.”

Allen said reducing emissions was an important goal for the industry. He added: “Grazing livestock have helped shape and manage the countryside for hundreds of years. They bring significant environmental benefits that can significantly mitigate the negative effect of emissions. It is unfortunate that in recent years they have become an easy scapegoat for emissions, despite the fact that the livestock population is generally falling.”

Source article – 

Should We Fight Climate Change By Taxing Meat?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Should We Fight Climate Change By Taxing Meat?

Maine city gives tar-sands oil the finger

by IssacTenreajbyw Posted on December 18, 2013

Maine city gives tar-sands oil the finger

By

Rainforest Action Network

Remember how voters in South Portland, Maine, narrowly rejected a ballot measure last month that would have prevented the city’s port from piping in tar-sands oil? Here’s the thing about that election result: It’s looking like it might not matter. The city council is now taking up the anti-tar-sands campaign anyway.

With a 6-1 vote Monday night, the council put in place a six-month moratorium on shipping tar-sands oil through its port. From the Portland Press Herald:

The moratorium buys time for city officials to develop a permanent ordinance that would prevent Portland Pipe Line Corp. from reversing the flow in its underground pipe that now pumps crude oil from South Portland to Montreal

“While it is a milestone, this is only a step,” said City Councilor Tom Blake, who has been vocally opposed to oil sands, often referred to by critics as tar sands.

After the vote, in which Councilor Michael Pock was the sole dissenter, cheers and a standing ovation erupted in the City Council chamber.

The council’s next step: Putting together a three-person panel to draft a law permanently banning tar-sands oil.

The oil industry next step: Threatening legal action.


Source
South Portland passes moratorium on tar sands oil, Portland Press Herald

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

View original – 

Maine city gives tar-sands oil the finger

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Maine city gives tar-sands oil the finger

Mississippi Senate Candidate Says He Didn’t Speak at Neo-Confederate Conference

by IssacTenreajbyw Posted on November 1, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In October, I reported that Mississippi GOP senate candidate Chris McDaniel had delivered speeches to the local chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, including during a conference the neo-Confederate group held in August. When I contacted McDaniel’s campaign for the story, a spokesman said: “Senator McDaniel has driven across Mississippi to speak to many groups over the past decade.” He did not dispute that McDaniel had attended the August gathering. A spokesman for the SCV chapter also told me that McDaniel had attended the August event as well as an earlier event, but now McDaniel is saying he wasn’t at the August gathering. He told the Clarion-Ledger that although he had been scheduled to speak at the event, but missed it because he was in Chicago for a conference for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). An SCV member backed him up:

“He wasn’t at this last one,” said SCV spokesman George Jaynes. “He missed a flight coming out of Chicago … A guy from Mother Jones news, which I had never heard of, called me the other night and was asking questions. Maybe I didn’t explain myself well. Maybe this guy misunderstood me. But (McDaniel) wasn’t there.”

The Southern Heritage Conference was Aug. 9-10. The ALEC conference in Chicago was Aug. 7-9. McDaniel said he recollects he stayed over at least a day after the ALEC event, and was still out of state when the Rosin Heels event was held.

McDaniel also alleges that Mother Jones “doctored” a photo to falsely depict him speaking to the event; the image was identified in the story as a photoshop.

Though McDaniel might have missed the conference because of airline issues, he did deliver the keynote address at an event the group held on June 22 in Jackson. Jaynes confirmed to the Clarion-Ledger that McDaniel had indeed spoken to the group in previous years (which Jaynes also told me). So whether or not McDaniel made it to the August conference, there is no question he’s been a friend to this particular group.

Read original article: 

Mississippi Senate Candidate Says He Didn’t Speak at Neo-Confederate Conference

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Mississippi Senate Candidate Says He Didn’t Speak at Neo-Confederate Conference