EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • IMF the world’s viceroy

    The fund is a body with 184 members. It is run by seven of them – the US, Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Canada and Italy. These happen to be the seven countries that (with Russia) promised to save the world at the G8 meeting in 2005. The junta sustains its control by insisting that each dollar buys a vote. The bigger a country’s financial quota, the more say it has over the running of the IMF. This means that it is run by the countries that are least affected by its policies.

    A major decision requires 85% of the vote, which ensures that the US, with 17%, has a veto over the fund’s substantial business. The UK, Germany, France and Japan have 22% between them, and each has a permanent seat on the board. By a weird arrangement permitting rich nations to speak on behalf of the poor, Canada and Italy have effective control over a further 8%. The other European countries are also remarkably powerful: Belgium, for example, has a direct entitlement to 2.1% of the vote and indirect control over 5.1% – more than twice the allocation of India or Brazil. Europe, Japan, Canada and the US wield a total of 63%. The 80 poorest countries, by contrast, have 10% between them.

    These quotas no longer even reflect real financial contributions to the running of the IMF: it now obtains much of its capital from loan repayments by its vassal states. But the G7 nations still behave as if it belongs to them. They decide who runs it (the managing director is always a European and his deputy always an American) and how the money is spent. You begin to wonder why the developing countries bother to turn up.

    In principle, this power is supposed to be balanced by something called the "basic vote" – 250 shares (entitling them to $25m worth of votes) are allocated to every member. But while the value of the rich countries’ quotas has risen since the IMF was founded in 1944, the value of the basic votes has not. It has fallen from 11.3% of the total allocation to 2.1%. The leaked paper passed to me by an excellent organisation called the Bretton Woods Project (everything we know about the IMF has to be leaked) shows that the fund intends to democratise itself by "at least doubling" the basic vote. That sorts it all out, then – the 80 poorest countries will be able to claim, between them, another 0.9%. Even this pathetic concession was granted only after the African members took a political risk by publicly opposing the fund’s proposals. Doubtless the US government is currently reviewing their trading status.

    All this is compounded by an internal political process that looks as if it was contrived in North Korea, not Washington. There are no formal votes, just a "consensus process" controlled by the Dear Leaders of the G7. The decisions taken by each member state cannot be revealed to the public. Nor can the transcripts of the board’s meetings and the "working papers" on which it bases its internal reforms. Even reports by the IMF’s ombudsman – the "independent evaluation office" – are censored by the management, and their conclusions are changed to shift the blame for the fund’s failures to its client states. Needless to say, the IMF insists that the states it lends to must commit themselves to "good governance" and "transparency" if they are to receive its money.

    None of this would matter so much if it had stuck to its original mandate of stabilising the international monetary system. But after the collapse of the Bretton Woods agreement in 1971 the IMF more or less lost its mission to maintain exchange rates, and began to look for a new role. As a paper by the law professor Daniel Bradlow shows, when it amended its articles of asso-ciation in 1978 they were so loosely drafted as to grant the IMF permission to interfere in almost any aspect of a country’s governance. It lost its influence over the economic policies of the G7 and became instead the rich world’s viceroy, controlling the poorer nations at its behest. It began to micro-manage their economies without reference to the people or even their governments. Since then, no rich country has required its services, and few poor countries have been able to shake it off.

    This casts an interesting light on the decision – to be endorsed at the IMF’s meeting in Singapore next week – to enhance the quota for the four middle-income countries. After the fund "helped" the struggling economies of east and south-east Asia in 1997, by laying waste to them on behalf of US hedge funds and investment companies, the nations of that region decided that they would never allow themselves to fall prey to it again.

    They began indemnifying themselves against the fund’s tender loving care by building up their own reserves of capital. Now, just as China and South Korea have ensured that they will never again require the IMF’s services, they have been granted more power to decide how it operates. In other words, they are deemed fit to govern when – like the G7 – they can exercise power without reaping the consequences. The smaller your stake in the outcome, the greater your vote.

    None of this seems to cause any difficulties to the gatekeepers of mainstream opinion. On Saturday a leading article in the Washington Post observed that "to be legitimate, multilateral institutions must reflect the global distribution of power as it is now, not as it was when these institutions were set up more than half a century ago". What a fascinating definition that is, and how wrong we must have been to imagine that legitimacy requires democracy. Hurrah for corporatism – it didn’t die with Mussolini after all.

    I am among those who believe that the IMF is, and always will be, the wrong body – inherently flawed and constitutionally unjust. But if its leaders and supporters are to persuade us that it might, one day, have a legitimate role in running the world’s financial systems, they will have to do a hell of a lot better than this.

    · George Monbiot’s book Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning is published this month Monbiot.com

  • Climate change evidence in million year old bubbles

    However, existing levels of carbon dioxide and methane are far higher than anything seen during these earlier warm periods, said Eric Wolff of the BAS.

    "Ice cores reveal the Earth’s natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change," Dr Wolff said. "Over the past 200 years, human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range and we have no analogue for what will happen next.

    "We have a no-analogue situation. We don’t have anything in the past that we can measure directly," he added.

    The ice core was drilled from a thick area of ice on Antarctica known as Dome C. The core is nearly 3.2km long and reaches to a depth where air bubbles became trapped in ice that formed 800,000 years ago.

    "It’s from those air bubbles that we know for sure that carbon dioxide has increased by about 35 per cent in the past 200 years. Before that 200 years, which is when man’s been influencing the atmosphere, it was pretty steady to within 5 per cent," Dr Wolff said.

    The core shows that carbon dioxide was always between 180 parts per million (ppm) and 300 ppm during the 800,000 years. However, now it is 380 ppm. Methane was never higher than 750 parts per billion (ppb) in this timescale, but now it stands at 1,780 ppb.

    But the rate of change is even more dramatic, with increases in carbon dioxide never exceeding 30 ppm in 1,000 years — and yet now carbon dioxide has risen by 30 ppm in the last 17 years.

    "The rate of change is probably the most scary thing because it means that the Earth systems can’t cope with it," Dr Wolff told the British Association meeting at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.

    "On such a crowded planet, we have little capacity to adapt to changes that are much faster than anything in human experience."

    © 2006 Independent News and Media Limited

  • Long hot winter for Hobart

    Hobart’s driest winter ended on 31 August, the day the state broke the record for its warmest winter day, noted The Mercury (1 September 2006 p1). The capital city had just 50.8mm of rain over winter, less than a third of its average l60mm for the winter months.

    Island state warming up for spring: Hobart just missed out on the winter record double as its temperature rose to 23C on 31 August. But the old high of 24.5C was eclipsed by two other centres: Campania hit a balmy 25C and Scamander wasn’t far behind on 24.9C. Meteorologist Ian Barnes-Keoghan said the old winter temperature high was set in Hobart on August 26, 1977.

    Poor winter rains statewide: "Campania is a relatively new site, and because it doesn’t get the sea breezes it could break a few more records as time goes by, " Mr Barnes-Keoghan said. "It is a record warm end to a record dry winter." The dry isn’t restricted to Hobart, with the bureau recording low rainfall in many parts of the state.

    The Mercury, 1/9/2006, p.1

  • US denies Iranian deal

    After some checking I was able to confirm that Chomsky is correct. In 2003 Iran offered to negotiate directly with the US. In its proposal the Iranian government agreed to accept the most stringent new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) protocols on its nuclear program. The protocols would involve onsite inspection of all nuclear sites, something that our own government has never accepted. These tough verification measures would make cheating virtually impossible.

    Iran also changed its long standing rejectionist policy on Israel. It agreed to support the 2002 Arab peace initiative, which offered Israel an end to the conflict if the Israelis would abide by UN Security Council resolutions (242 and 338) on Palestine. This was an extraordinary development, yet, it was not even reported in the US.

    But Iran went still further. It also agreed to end its logistical support of Hezbollah in the event of a political settlement with Israel. Gareth Porter’s excellent backgrounder provides details about the 2003 initiative.

    http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww? section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11539   According to Chomsky, Iran’s head mullah Ayatollah Khamenei again reiterated these offers in June 2006.

    Chomsky also mentions a UN vote on a proposed UN Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), wherein all fissile materials worldwide would be placed under the control of the IAEA. Again, Chomsky is correct. The UN General Assembly vote occurred on April 11, 2004. On that day 147 nations, including Iran, voted in favor of UN resolution A/RES/48/75L. The resolution calls for the immediate drafting of such a treaty. Clearly, the whole world is demanding that the nuclear powers consent to be disarmed. The USA cast the sole ‘no’ vote. Israel and the UK abstained. For more details regarding this important UN resolution go to:

    http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/gadis3291.doc.htm  

    Today, Americans need to ask: Why did the Bush administration reject offers by Iran that held promise to resolve the crisis? And why has our government refused to join the community of nations on the crucial matter of nuclear disarmament?

    The UN vote — and, indeed, all of these facts — reveal the hypocritical nature of US policy, and of escalating attempts here to demonize Iran. Obviously, the IAEA protocols could become an interim step leading to a FMCT, which would not only prevent Iranian nuclear weapons proliferation, but also make possible the implementation of article VI of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT); which calls for full nuclear disarmament.

    The facts suggest that the endgame of the Bush administration is not peace; but maintaining the status quo. The bottom line appears to be US support of Israel’s continuing refusal to withdraw from occupied Palestine, i.e., the West Bank, and the Golan, which is Syrian land.   Clearly, this is unacceptable, as it only leads to deepening conflict. Perhaps this is why Chomsky, normally so restrained, ended the interview on an apocalyptic note. I have never seen Chomsky use such language.

    Will there be a regional meltdown, possibly involving nuclear weapons, because of two otherwise inconsequential patches of real estate? Everything now depends on us.

    Here is the Chomsky interview:

     

    http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14462.htm

  • A study of Israel’s oil strategy

    The north has been effectively severed from the south allowing the IDF to continue its ethnic cleansing operations as well as its search-and-destroy missions for Hezbollah fighters. They have meticulously destroyed all the main points of entry at the Syrian border and blockaded the coastline. Israel believes that their earlier occupation (which ended in year 2000) failed due to the unrestricted flow of supplies and weaponry from Syria and Iran. The Bush administration has assisted this effort by providing crucial intelligence from the NSA about the movement of material from the outside.

    By now, it should be apparent that Israel’s military campaign has nothing to do with Hezbollah’s capturing of the 2 Israeli soldiers on July 14. The present plan, which was drawn up more than a year ago (and which high-ranking members of the Bush administration were fully briefed) is designed to establish a new northern border for Israel at the Litani River and create an "Israel-friendly" regime in Beirut.

    The plan to annex the land south of the Litani River dates back to the founding of the Jewish state when Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion described the country’s future borders this way: "To the north the Litani River, the southern border will be pushed into the Sinai, and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan." (See Map of post WW1 Zionist plan for region

    http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story1045.html  )

    In 1978 the IDF launched Operation Litani with the intention of annexing the southern part of Lebanon and setting up a Christian client-regime in Beirut that would take orders from Tel Aviv. Israel said that it needed a "buffer zone" for its security, the same excuse that it uses today. The 1982 invasion devolved into an 18 year onslaught which ravaged the Lebanese economy and killed more than 20,000 civilians. In 2000, Israel was driven from Lebanon by the persistent attacks of the Lebanese resistance organization, Hezbollah.

    The media portrayal of the current conflict is blatantly absurd. It has nothing to due with "captured soldiers" or Israel’s "right to defend itself". This is a traditional war with clear territorial and political objectives. The border controversy is nonsense. Israel is trying to seize more land to realize its vision of "Greater Israel" while reducing an adjacent Arab country to a "permanent state of colonial dependency". This explains the vast and deliberate destruction to Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure. Israel’s dominance requires that its neighbors endure abject poverty and oppression. By destroying the infrastructure and life-support systems, Israel hopes to eliminate the rise of a potential rival as well as to diminish the ability of the Lebanese resistance to wage war against the Jewish state. Once Lebanon is decimated, it will be delivered to Zionists at the World Bank (Paul Wolfowitz) who will apply the shackle of reconstruction loans and structural readjustment, which will keep Lebanon as an indentured servant to the global banking establishment. This model of economic servitude has been used throughout the developing world with varying degrees of success. It anticipates Israel’s regional ascendancy while ensuring that Lebanon’s sovereignty will be compromised for decades to come.

    The United States has played a unique role in Israel’s war on Lebanon. In its 230 year history the US has never deliberately assisted in an attack on an ally. That record will end with Lebanon.

    Lebanon was demonstrably "pro-American" government on friendly terms with Washington. In fact, American NGOs and intelligence organizations helped to activate the "Cedar Revolution" which gave rise to the Fouad Siniora government and the eventual expulsion of Syrian troops. To a large extent, Washington and Tel Aviv had achieved what they wanted to by meddling in Lebanon’s political affairs. The country was singled out as a shining example of Bush’s "global democratic revolution", which was the stated goal of American intervention in the Middle East.

    Lebanon has since been rewarded for its cooperation by the total obliteration of its economy and infrastructure. The Bush administration has abandoned any pretense of being an "honest broker" and is now providing Israel with precision-guided missiles to prosecute a war against a (mainly) civilian population. They are also actively collaborating with the Olmert regime to foil all plans for an immediate ceasefire. The United States is a fully-engaged partner in the premeditated destruction of a democratic country. It is as much a part of the Israeli aggression as any IDF tank commander rumbling towards Beirut.

    The United Nations has been sidelined by the administration’s obstructionism at the Security Council. The efforts of the Bolton-Rice team are tantamount to a "declaration of war". So far, the Israeli offensive has uprooted nearly 1 million people in the south; making refugees of approximately 25% of the Lebanon’s total population. The UN has done nothing to respond to this calamity. Its ineffectiveness casts doubt on whether it will survive the present crisis. Security in the new century will ultimately depend on alliances between the individual countries. The UN model of one, monolithic international institution trying to "preserve the peace" has proved to be a wretched failure.

    The scene in the south of Lebanon is hauntingly similar to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948; the Nakba. Once again, Israel is seen driving Muslims from their homes in an attempt to expand its territory. The "deliberate" attack on Qana, which killed 57 civilians, as well as the bombing of clearly marked ambulances and "white flag-waving" mini-buses chock-full of fleeing villagers, shows that the Israeli high-command still understands the importance of using terror as a means of controlling behavior. Israel’s carefully calculated atrocities have had the desired effect; triggering the mass-exodus of hundreds of thousands of frightened civilians and leaving Hezbollah guerillas to fight it out with the IDF.

    The Bush administration is now attempting to pacify its critics by pushing a resolution that calls for a "full cessation of hostilities". The resolution does not demand that Israel stop attacking Hezbollah nor does it require the IDF to leave Lebanon. It is Munich all over again; a miserable "sell-out" by the Security Council that guarantees a steady increase in the violence as well as an intensification of the rage that is sweeping across the Muslim world. The UN has unwittingly endorsed Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon and created the foundation for another generation of terrorists. The resolution shows that the UN is nothing more than a "cat’s paw" for US/Israeli geopolitical ambitions and that the "post-colonial" European allies are willing to succumb to the neocon plan for a "New Middle East".

    The UN is not an "honest broker"; its bumbling attempts at peace have only provided the cover of international legitimacy to Israel’s rampage. Israel will now continue its crusade unobstructed; setting up outposts throughout the south, pushing the Shia off their land, attacking Hezbollah as they see fit, and installing an Israeli-client in Beirut.

    Israel will never return to its "internationally recognized" northern border unless it is beaten-back by the Lebanese national resistance, Hezbollah.

    What does Israel want?

    The only way that Israel can maintain its dominance in the region is by becoming a main-player in the oil-trade. Otherwise it will continue to be dependent on the United States to strengthen its military and defend its interests. Israel’s determination to "stand on its own 2 feet" is outlined in the neocon plan for "rebuilding Zionism" in the 21st century; "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". The document is the blueprint for redrawing the map of the Middle East and eliminating rivals to Israeli power. Most of the attention has been focused on the parts of the paper which presage the attacks on Iraq, Lebanon and Syria; including this ominous passage:

    "Securing the Northern Border: Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which America can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principle agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:

    paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syria is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.

    striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove to be insufficient, string at select targets in Syria proper." ("A Clean Break"; Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser)

    Clearly, this is the basic schema for US/Israeli aggression in the region. What has been overlooked, however, is Israel’s determination to "break away" from its traditional dependence on American support. As stated in the text:

    (Israel intends to) "forge a new basis for relations with the US­stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform. Israel can make a clean-break from the past and establish a new vision for the US-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity, and mutuality­not one narrowly focused on territorial disputes. (Israel) does not need US troops in any capacity to defend it…and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past….No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace it seeks. When Israel is on sound footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it".

    Israel’s "economic freedom" depends in large part on its ability to become a central petroleum-depot for the global oil trade. In Michel Chossudovsky’s recent article "Triple Alliance: US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon", the author provides a detailed account of the alliances and agreements which underscore the current war. As Chossudovsky says, "We are not dealing with a limited conflict between the Israeli Armed Forces and Hezbollah as conveyed by the Western media. The Lebanese War Theater is part of a broader US military agenda, which encompasses a region extending from the Eastern Mediterranean into the heartland of Central Asia. The war on Lebanon must be viewed as ‘a stage’ in this broader ‘military road map’". Chossudovsky shows how the recently completed Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline has strengthened the Israel-Turkey alliance and foreshadows an attempt to establish "military control over a coastal corridor extending from the Israeli-Lebanese border to the East Mediterranean border between Syria and Turkey."

    Lebanese sovereignty is one of the unfortunate casualties of this Israel-Turkey strategy. Most of the oil from the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline will be transported to western markets but, what is less well-known, is that a percentage of the oil will be diverted through a "proposed" Ceyhan-Ashkelon pipeline which will connect Israel directly to rich deposits in the Caspian. This will allow Israel to supply markets in the Far East from its port at Eilat on the Red Sea. It is an ambitious plan that ensures that Israel will be a critical part of the global energy distribution system. (See Michel Chossudovsky, ,The war on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, July 2006)

    Oil is also a major factor in the calls for "regime change" in Syria. An article in the UK Observer "Israel Seeks Pipeline for Iraqi Oil" notes that Washington and Tel Aviv are hammering out the details for a pipeline that will run through Syria and "create and endless and easily accessible source of cheap oil for the US guaranteed by reliable allies other than Saudi Arabia." The pipeline "would transform economic power in the region, bringing revenue to the new US-dominated Iraq, cutting out Syria, and solving Israel’s energy crisis at a stroke."

    The Israeli Mossad is already operating in northern Iraq where the pipeline will originate and have developed good relations with the Kurds. The only remaining obstacle is the current Syrian regime which has already entered the US/Israeli crosshairs. The Observer quotes a CIA official who said, "It has long been a dream of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel’s energy supply as well as that of the US. The Haifa pipeline was something that existed, was resurrected as a dream, and is now a viable project­albeit with a lot of building to do."

    Former US ambassador James Atkins added, "This is a new world order now. This is what things look like particularly if we wipe out Syria. It just goes to show that it is all about oil, for the United States and its ally."

    The Middle East is being reshaped according to the ideological aspirations of Zionists and the exigencies of a viciously-competitive energy market. Behind the bombed-out ruins of Qana and the endless sorties laying Lebanon to waste, are the tireless machinations of the energy giants, the corporate media, the banking establishment and Israel.

    Don’t expect a quick return to peace. This war is just beginning.

  • Well-timed repairs reap BP $1billion

    Years ago, I had the unhappy job of leading an investigation of British Petroleum’s management of the Alaska pipeline system. I was working for the Chugach villages, the Alaskan Natives who own the shoreline slimed by the 1989 Exxon Valdez tanker grounding.

    Even then, courageous government inspectors and pipeline workers were screaming about corrosion all through the pipeline. I say "courageous" because BP, which owns 46% of the pipe and is supposed to manage the system, had a habit of hunting down and destroying the careers of those who warn of pipeline problems.

    In one case, BP’s CEO of Alaskan operations hired a former CIA expert to break into the home of a whistleblower, Chuck Hamel, who had complained of conditions at the pipe’s tanker facility. BP tapped his phone calls with a US congressman and ran a surveillance and smear campaign against him. When caught, a US federal judge said BP’s acts were "reminiscent of Nazi Germany."

    This was not an isolated case. Captain James Woodle, once in charge of the pipe’s Valdez terminus, was blackmailed into resigning the post when he complained of disastrous conditions there. The weapon used on Woodle was a file of faked evidence of marital infidelity. Nice guys, eh?

    Now let’s talk timing.

    BP’s suddenly discovered corrosion necessitating an emergency shut-down of the line is the same corrosion Dan Lawn has been screaming about for 15 years. Lawn is a steel-eyed government inspector who has kept his job only because his union’s lawyers have kept BP from having his head.

    Indeed, it’s pretty darn hard for BP to claim it is surprised to find corrosion this week when Lawn issued a damning report on corrosion right after a leak and spill were discovered on March 2 of this year.

    Why shut the pipe now?

    The timing of a sudden inspection and fix of a decade-long problem has a suspicious smell. A precipitous shutdown in mid-summer, in the middle of Middle East war(s), is guaranteed to raise prices and reap monster profits for BP. The price of crude jumped $2.22 a barrel on the shutdown news to over $76. How lucky for BP which sells four million barrels of oil a day.

    Had BP completed its inspection and repairs a couple years back – say, after Dan Lawn’s tenth warning – the oil market would have hardly noticed.

    But $2 a barrel is just the beginning of BP’s shut-down bonus. The Alaskan oil was destined for the California market which now faces a supply crisis at the very height of the summer travel season.

    The big winner is ARCO petroleum, the largest retailer in the Golden State. ARCO is a 100%-owned subsidiary of British Petroleum. BP could have fixed the pipeline problem this past winter, after their latest corrosion-caused oil spill. But then ARCO would have lost the summertime supply-squeeze windfall.

    Enron Corporation was infamous for deliberately timing repairs to maximize profit. Would BP also manipulate the market in such a crude manner? Some US prosecutors think they did so in the US propane market.

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) just six weeks ago charged the company with approving an Enron-style scheme to crank up the price of propane sold in poor rural communities in the US. One former BP exec has pleaded guilty. Lord Browne, the imperious CEO of BP, has apologized for that scam, for the Alaska spill, for this week’s shutdown and for the deaths in 2005 of 15 workers at the company’s mortally sloppy refinery operation at Texas City, Texas.

    I don’t want readers to think BP isn’t civic-minded. The company’s US CEO, Bob Malone, was Co-Chairman of the Bush re-election campaign in Alaska. Mr. Bush, in turn, was so impressed with BP’s care of Alaska’s environment that he pushed again to open the state’s arctic wildlife refuge (ANWR) to drilling by the BP consortium.

    Indeed, you can go to Alaska today and see for yourself the evidence of BP’s care of the wilderness. You can smell it: the crude oil still on the beaches from the Exxon Valdez spill. Exxon took all the blame for the spill because they were dumb enough to have the company’s name on the ship.

    But it was BP’s pipeline managers who filed reports that oil spill containment equipment was sitting right at the site of the grounding near Bligh Island. However, the reports were bogus, the equipment wasn’t there and so the beaches were poisoned. At the time, our investigators uncovered four-volume’s worth of faked safety reports and concluded that BP was at least as culpable as Exxon for the 1,200 miles of oil-destroyed coastline.

    Nevertheless, m’Lord Browne preens himself with his corporation’s environmental record. We know BP cares about nature because they have lots of photos of solar panels in their annual reports – and they’ve painted every one of their gas stations green. The green paint-job is supposed to represent the oil giant’s love of Mother Nature. But the good Lord, Mr. Browne, knows it stands for the color of the Yankee dollar.

    BP claims the profitable timing of its Alaska pipe shutdown can be explained because they’ve only now run a "smart pig" through the pipes to locate the corrosion. The "pig" is an electronic drone that BP should have been using continuously, though they had not done so for 14 years. The fact that, in the middle of an oil crisis, they’ve run it through now, forcing the shutdown, reminds me, when I consider Lord Browne’s closeness to George Bush, that the company’s pig is indeed, very, very smart.