EPIC FAIL, revisited

A year ago today the Deepwater Horizon exploded and gave us the worst man-made environmental disaster ever.  I'm re-publishing one of the posts I wrote about a month after the initial blast  - it includes a lot of links that give us some historical context.

"It is impossible to say and we will mount, as part of the aftermath, a very detailed environmental assessment. But everything we can see at the moment suggests that the overall environmental impact will be very, very modest."

(BP CEO Tony Hayward, May 18, 2010)

I was planning to write the obligatory "what the oil spill means for social media" blog post but that's really just ridiculous.  To be honest this is as close to a 20th-century media crisis scenario as we've seen in some time.  The public is heavily reliant on professional journalists to get the story, a very large company is doing its best to control the flow of information (and compounding the damage to its own reputation in the process), the federal government is flailing about, and Members of Congress are threatening to write very sternly-worded letters if things don't improve eventually.  Oh, and there's a CEO out there saying some profoundly stupid things.  Sure there are some nice tech tools in play here - obviously - but this is a straight-up, mainstream media-driven story.

But as always the real story is the actual debacle, not the PR debacle. And we're learning the scope of this EPIC FAIL one merciless drip at a time.

• Eleven people are missing and presumed dead.
• Estimates of the flow of oil were wildly understated at the outset, and the current "official" estimate prompts scientists to laugh in disbelief.  Now when asked the company and the government simply evade the question.
• The company has to dig a "relief" well to stop this flow, and that won't be ready until late summer.
• The "best minds in the world" haven't been able to staunch the flow in over a month.
• The first hugely technical and scientific idea to fix this was a big metal box.  It didn't work. (but remember - this idea didn't "fail," it just didn't succeed yet.  Or something.) 
• The second big idea was a smaller box.  It failed before it started.
• The third big idea was a tube. It really didn't work either.
• The fourth big idea is to dump mud and stuff in the hole.  Like a cork. Even if it "works" I think won't completely stop the flow of oil.
• Because remember, none of this stuff has ever been tried a mile below the ocean surface.
• And we're dumping "dispersants" (i.e., moderately toxic chemicals) into the oil flow to diffuse it.
• Even though there are more effective and less toxic chemicals available.  No there aren't.  Yes there are.  So stop.  No.  OK, slow it down.  No.  Seriously, slow it down or I'll think about saying stop again.
• But hey, it's not like this is a big deal or anything.  In fact, it's tiny.
• And BP will reimburse people whose claims BP considers "legitimate."
• And at least we know exactly who is at fault here - someone else. BP says it's Halliburton and Transocean's fault.  Halliburton says it's Transocean and BP's fault.  Transocean says it's BP and Halliburton's fault.

Meanwhile, in the government...

• The White House issues a moratorium on new outer continental shelf drilling permits.  But I don't think "moratorium" means what they think it means.
• Then we learn the government agency that regulates this industry is the one with the Bush-era folks who were having sex with the lobbyists, snorting crystal meth on toasters, getting plastered at lobbyist-sponsored parties and sleeping it off in lobbyist-paid hotel rooms because they were too drunk to drive.  
• Oh, and they were letting the companies fill in their own inspection reports in pencil which they would later trace over in pen.
• But not to worry, because the White House has assembled a(nother) blue ribbon panel of outside-the-box scientific thinkers.  Like the climate change denier / "proud homophobe" guy.  Oh, wait.
• And the guy who assembled the panel of experts - the Secretary of Energy - is apparently learning the details by reading about them in the papers. 
• But it's BP's responsibility.
• But we're putting boots on throats and will push people out.
• But we don't know what we would do differently if we were in charge, so we're not in charge.
• But we're in charge. 
• And we think BP should pay for everything. 
• Except we don't.

Meanwhile, the politicians and beltway clowns jockey for soundbites and political advantage.  The Republican governor of Louisiana who likes the idea of small government and refused that stimulus package money is nowdemanding more money from the feds and wants the Army Corps of Engineers all over the place STAT.  The Senate Assistant Majority Leader istrying to come up with two-word catch-phrases that begin with the letters B and P.  And the Chatty Kathy's of the very serious Washington punditry club were first falling over themselves to call this "Obama's Katrina," then when that didn't stick they were wondering aloud "where is the oil?" and now thatthe oil is all over marshlands and pelicans and stuff it's the liberals who are all pissed. 

And Gulf Coast fishermen are wondering if they'll ever work again.

How EPIC is this FAIL?

"It is impossible to say and we will mount, as part of the aftermath, a very detailed environmental assessment. But everything we can see at the moment suggests that the overall environmental impact will be very, very modest."

(BP CEO Tony Hayward, May 18, 2010)

I was planning to write the obligatory "what the oil spill means for social media" blog post but that's really just ridiculous.  To be honest this is as close to a 20th-century media crisis scenario as we've seen in some time.  The public is heavily reliant on professional journalists to get the story, a very large company is doing its best to control the flow of information (and compounding the damage to its own reputation in the process), the federal government is flailing about, and Members of Congress are threatening to write very sternly-worded letters if things don't improve eventually.  Oh, and there's a CEO out there saying some profoundly stupid things.  Sure there are some nice tech tools in play here - obviously - but this is a straight-up, mainstream media-driven story.

But as always the real story is the actual debacle, not the PR debacle. And we're learning the scope of this EPIC FAIL one merciless drip at a time.

• Eleven people are missing and presumed dead.
• Estimates of the flow of oil were wildly understated at the outset, and the current "official" estimate prompts scientists to laugh in disbelief.  Now when asked the company and the government simply evade the question.
• The company has to dig a "relief" well to stop this flow, and that won't be ready until late summer.
• The "best minds in the world" haven't been able to staunch the flow in over a month.
• The first hugely technical and scientific idea to fix this was a big metal box.  It didn't work. (but remember - this idea didn't "fail," it just didn't succeed yet.  Or something.) 
• The second big idea was a smaller box.  It failed before it started.
• The third big idea was a tube. It really didn't work either.
• The fourth big idea is to dump mud and stuff in the hole.  Like a cork. Even if it "works" I think won't completely stop the flow of oil.
• Because remember, none of this stuff has ever been tried a mile below the ocean surface.
• And we're dumping "dispersants" (i.e., moderately toxic chemicals) into the oil flow to diffuse it.
• Even though there are more effective and less toxic chemicals available.  No there aren't.  Yes there are.  So stop.  No.  OK, slow it down.  No.  Seriously, slow it down or I'll think about saying stop again.
• But hey, it's not like this is a big deal or anything.  In fact, it's tiny.
• And BP will reimburse people whose claims BP considers "legitimate."
• And at least we know exactly who is at fault here - someone else. BP says it's Halliburton and Transocean's fault.  Halliburton says it's Transocean and BP's fault.  Transocean says it's BP and Halliburton's fault.

Meanwhile, in the government...

• The White House issues a moratorium on new outer continental shelf drilling permits.  But I don't think "moratorium" means what they think it means.
• Then we learn the government agency that regulates this industry is the one with the Bush-era folks who were having sex with the lobbyists, snorting crystal meth on toasters, getting plastered at lobbyist-sponsored parties and sleeping it off in lobbyist-paid hotel rooms because they were too drunk to drive.  
• Oh, and they were letting the companies fill in their own inspection reports in pencil which they would later trace over in pen.
• But not to worry, because the White House has assembled a(nother) blue ribbon panel of outside-the-box scientific thinkers.  Like the climate change denier / "proud homophobe" guy.  Oh, wait.
• And the guy who assembled the panel of experts - the Secretary of Energy - is apparently learning the details by reading about them in the papers. 
• But it's BP's responsibility.
• But we're putting boots on throats and will push people out.
• But we don't know what we would do differently if we were in charge, so we're not in charge.
• But we're in charge. 
• And we think BP should pay for everything. 
• Except we don't.

Meanwhile, the politicians and beltway clowns jockey for soundbites and political advantage.  The Republican governor of Louisiana who likes the idea of small government and refused that stimulus package money is now demanding more money from the feds and wants the Army Corps of Engineers all over the place STAT.  The Senate Assistant Majority Leader is trying to come up with two-word catch-phrases that begin with the letters B and P.  And the Chatty Kathy's of the very serious Washington punditry club were first falling over themselves to call this "Obama's Katrina," then when that didn't stick they were wondering aloud "where is the oil?" and now that the oil is all over marshlands and pelicans and stuff it's the liberals who are all pissed.

And Gulf Coast fishermen are wondering if they'll ever work again.

The Day I Became an Environmentalist

This post is my contribution to sustainablog's Pedal-a-Watt Powered Blogathon this weekend. The long-running green blog (and new green shopping site) is publishing for 24 hours straight to raise funds for the Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage in Northeastern Missouri. Go join the fun: read post contributions from around the green blogosphere, leave a comment to be entered in a drawing for some great green prizes, and join in the Tweetchat at #susbppb.

I'm not what you'd call the granola-crunchy type. I don't drive a hybrid, I don't look for organic cotton, I'm not a vegetarian, and most of the time I even leave the water running while I brush my teeth. (I'm trying to stop that.) I am, however, an environmentalist - at least in the sense that I understand that smarter choices lead to healthier, more sustainable lives.

"Environmentalism" has been a big deal in my family for a long time. When I was in high school quite some time ago, my mom would take me to town meetings about the possible siting of a sewage treatment facility in my town, and she told me that trucks with chlorine gas could be driving through the town, and if something happened to one of those trucks it could be very, very bad. It was all very important, but it was also very abstract - these things weren't happening yet, and I never thought anyone would allow a system where an entire town gets wiped out because a truck turned over. The treatment plant got built, but the trucks with the chlorine gas never materialized, and frankly not many people are all that upset about the whole thing anymore.

The light really switched on for me in my first week as "assistant to the Chairman for special projects" in the Department of Pediatrics in what was then called Boston City Hospital. The Chairman was a great guy named Barry Zuckerman. In addition to being this amazing physician and researcher, he just "got it" - he understood that a child's health is affected by dozens of things most doctors can't address.

Barry may be best known for developing the model and co-founding the Reach Out and Read Program, a "nonprofit organization that promotes early literacy and school readiness in pediatric exam rooms nationwide by giving new books to children and advice to parents about the importance of reading aloud." But what did it for me was another project he started with a lawyer named Josh Greenberg called the Family Advocacy Program. It grew into the Medical-Legal Partnership. Josh and Barry told this great story.

Doctors were seeing young children from housing projects show up in their clinics with some pretty nasty asthma. We all know that environmental factors such as allergens and pollution can exacerbate the symptoms of asthma, so in addition to prescribing medicine the doctors would tell the parents about not smoking around the kids, limiting exposure to cats or dogs, and so on. Still, the kids would come back, far too often, with terrible symptoms of asthma. Eventually they discovered that housing projects were carpeted, and those carpets had gotten wet, dirty, and moldy, and the mold was triggering asthmatic attacks.

Of course, a doctor can't prescribe removal of a moldy carpet in a state-administered, federally-funded housing project. And that's where Josh came in. He would navigate the legal bureaucracy to get things done. It was typically a bunch of inside-baseball stuff - it's not like you need to stage a rally decrying the evils of "Big Carpet Corporations" - but it meant a lot to the children and families affected by it.

In truth, the carpet story was just one of many things they did, and I never got the impression that Barry or Josh saw themselves as environmental crusaders. They were child advocates. Barry recruited tons of people to work on dozens of innovative ideas that could improve the health of children - the Child Witness to Violence Project comes to mind. I was really just along for the ride for a few years.

But I never forgot that story about the carpet in the housing project. I understood, in concrete terms, the public health impact of changes to a specific environment. I saw it again in the winter when the hospital's Failure To Thrive Clinic reported children were malnourished and losing weight because low-income parents were using some of the meager food budget to pay for heat.

Why is this story relevant now? Simple. In December the US Environmental Protection Agency announced a determination that greenhouse gasses are a threat to public health, and the agency asserted its authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate the emission of those gasses. The EPA has started a fairly gradual process of data collection and is considering next steps. This action has led to an uproar among the largest emitters of GHG's and their supporters.

But it's really not that far-fetched to suggest there are significant (if unintended) public health consequences to the things we do, and it's not all that bad if people outside the traditional health care profession take meaningful steps to address them.

My friends over at sustainablog are going to be at the eco bed & breakfast The Milkweed Mercantile throwing a blogathon to raise money for Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage. One of the longest-running blogs on environmental issues, sustainablog also recently launched an eco friendly products comparison shopping site, selling everything from green cleaning supplies and organic clothing to energy efficient appliances and composting toilets.

The blogathon will raise funds to support residential learning opportunities at Dancing Rabbit in organic gardening, natural green building, and wind and solar renewable energy design and installation. Interested in checking out Dancing Rabbit for yourself, or taking advantage of some of their educational opportunities? Read more here. And consider making a pledge to support this sustainable community's efforts.

Question Time: Kicking It Up A Notch

This has also been done before in other countries, but I have to say President Obama deserves credit for this and I hope the White House does it more.



One of the biggest complaints people have about their government these days is that government is too cloistered; not transparent enough and simply not listening to people. This is a step in the right direction - a small step, but a positive one.

Question Time: It Wasn't a Lecture

From the victory lap liberal bloggers have been taking Friday and into the weekend, you'd think President Obama smite the House Republican caucus with a mighty staff, parted the Red Sea, and and set his people free or something.

I'm really pleased with how Friday's meeting between the President and the House GOP went, broadcast live on all the major cable news networks - but really not because of some perceived political outcome. I'm pleased because this represents a first of sorts in our political discourse - A televised discussion between opposing political parties, without the rigid conditions of pre-negotiated debate rules that essentially rule out the possibility of candid exchanges. The discussions have always taken place - I've been in the room for my share of them - but the presence of the cameras was a first.

Frankly, the presence of the cameras also had its drawbacks - there were a lot of pre-packaged talking points thrown into those questions and answers.

It's been compared to "Question Time" in the UK (it actually happens in many countries with parliamentary governments) and I've heard people ask "why don't we have that here?" The real reason we don't have Question Time is simple - we separate the legislature from the executive in this country, so there's no pre-scheduled time the head of the government is regularly available.

That said, it seems perfectly appropriate that people would want more of this. I'm fairly confident the White House would love to do it again, especially if Socratic format is maintained. This may sound goofy, but I'd like to see a series of "un-conferences" of legislators, fully televised. I'd only ask one condition of the participants - you're not allowed to use anything from the sessions in a political ad. That might encourage more candor and fewer canned questions and answers.

Crowdsourcing Diplomacy

Secretary Clinton gave a very important speech today about the role of new technologies in achieving diplomatic and humanitarian goals. Of course, this topic is nothing new to groups like Global Voices Online or Appropriate Infrastructure Development Group. But here's something that IS new:

...today I’m announcing that over the next year, we will work with partners in industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations to establish a standing effort that will harness the power of connection technologies and apply them to our diplomatic goals. By relying on mobile phones, mapping applications, and other new tools, we can empower citizens and leverage our traditional diplomacy. We can address deficiencies in the current market for innovation.

Let me give you one example. Let’s say I want to create a mobile phone application that would allow people to rate government ministries, including ours, on their responsiveness and efficiency and also to ferret out and report corruption. The hardware required to make this idea work is already in the hands of billions of potential users. And the software involved would be relatively inexpensive to develop and deploy.

If people took advantage of this tool, it would help us target our foreign assistance spending, improve lives, and encourage foreign investment in countries with responsible governments. However, right now, mobile application developers have no financial assistance to pursue that project on their own, and the State Department currently lacks a mechanism to make it happen. But this initiative should help resolve that problem and provide long-term dividends from modest investments in innovation. We’re going to work with experts to find the best structure for this venture, and we’ll need the talent and resources of technology companies and nonprofits in order to get the best results most quickly. So for those of you in the room who have this kind of talent, expertise, please consider yourselves invited to help us.

In the meantime, there are companies, individuals, and institutions working on ideas and applications that could already advance our diplomatic and development objectives. And the State Department will be launching an innovation competition to give this work an immediate boost. We’ll be asking Americans to send us their best ideas for applications and technologies that help break down language barriers, overcome illiteracy, connect people to the services and information they need. Microsoft, for example, has already developed a prototype for a digital doctor that could help provide medical care in isolated rural communities. We want to see more ideas like that. And we’ll work with the winners of the competition and provide grants to help build their ideas to scale.

Now THAT'S an open platform.

Of course, we're already seeing innovation from the ground up to meet a multitude of challenges, like mapping technology from Ushaidi's work in response to the earthquake in Haiti to the work of innovators like Lalitesh Katragadda. But it's amazing and inspiring to see this kind of open call from the most influential diplomat in the world.

I'm looking forward to learning the details of this contest. I'm wondering if they will make all the submissions public - it could become one of the largest (if not the largest) repositories of technology-based innovative solutions to the worlds problems ever built.

I don't think I'm exaggerating at all to suggest that this project could become Secretary Clinton's legacy. The potential here is absolutely enormous.

So Much For A "Post-Racial" Society

Today the Senate begins a week of confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. One could argue the discussion about Judge Sotomayor has broken down ideological or possibly even partisan lines, but there's one facet to the discussion that is perfectly clear - when it comes to this nomination and confirmation process, we are absolutely and completely obsessed with the issue of race.

Here is a representation of the discussion about Judge Sotomayor in blogs, per Blogpulse:

And here is the subset of those discussions that mention race:

So how many blog posts that mention Judge Sotomayor also mention that she's a "Latina" or "Hispanic?"

That would be all of them. Yes, ALL of them.

A very small fraction of the cases that go before the Supreme Court have anything to do with race at all. A very small fraction of the 380+ opinions that Judge Sotomayor has written have anything to do with race at all. In fact, the only reason I had heard of her at all was her ruling that ended the baseball strike back in 1995. (I'm a bit of a baseball nut.)

Yet virtually every discussion about Judge Sotomayor has mentioned race. Granted, some of those posts have simply said she'd be the first Latina on the Supreme Court, but the overwhelming majority of those posts also have more references to race. And of course, Senate Republicans have unquestionably focused on race leading up to the hearings - from former Speaker Gingrich's now-infamous tweet to the invitation of a white Connecticut firefighter to testify against her because she wrote an opinion against his side in a labor case - a decision that the Supreme Court overturned by a 5-4 vote.

I haven't done any analysis of the mainstream coverage of Judge Sotomayor, but I suspect the composition is similar.

I think the online discussion shows that we're far more obsessed about race issues than Judge Sotomayor ever has been. And I see no evidence whatsoever of the "post-racial society" that's been bubbled about by some in the punditocracy.

Honduras, Journalism, Government and Social Media

While most of the English-speaking blogosphere continues its obsession with dead pop stars, there have been a number of very important developments in foreign policy - even aside from the historic preliminary agreement between the US and Russia to cut their nuclear weapon stockpiles by a third. I'm finally seeing very strong integration between mainstream journalists, social media mavens, political entities and technology.

If you know where to look, you can find a wealth of information about Honduras, a Central American nation with about 7.5 million people. Shortly after President Manuel Zelaya tried to hold a non-binding referendum that would potentially change the country's constitution to let him remain in office beyond 2010, military leaders placed Zelaya under arrest on June 28 and shipped him off to Costa Rica, and swore in a new president from Zelaya's political party. Zelaya has tried to return, but his plane was prevented from landing in Honduras.

There has been some debate over whether this is a coup d'etat or not, and the best breakdown of it I've found is at, not surprisingly, Global Voices Online. They've assembled videos from people on the ground on both sides of the issue.

The Organization of American States has suspended Honduras' membership and demanded the President be restored to office. Further, Secretary Clinton made a point of attending the State Department's daily briefing personally to raise the issue. The journalists in attendance asked some very insightful and important questions. Here's the video of the briefing:


Now if we could only let the dead rest and move on with our lives...

The YouTube Congress