The Periscope Post

Miami Herald Lift liability cap for oil spills

Following the Deepwater Horizon oil-spill four months ago and the recent platform-fire at a rig off the Louisiana shore, a collection of proposals to reform and regulate the oil industry will soon face the US Senate. The most important of those proposals, according to the Miami Herald, is one that would lift the liability cap for companies responsible for any damaging spills. “This is a no-brainer,” the paper said. The liability is currently capped at $75 million (although BP paid a lot more). The paper warned, “Oil industry lobbyists are pushing hard against lifting the cap, and lawmakers are listening with open wallets.” The fear is that increasing the liability cap would force oil producers to go overseas. But the Herald agrued that the oil industry in the Gulf is too lucrative to abandon. “If the industry’s goal is to seek a region where impunity matters more than accountability — good riddance. Let them run roughshod over environmental protection elsewhere.”

USA Today How to fix the economy? Sometimes, less is more

The economic recovery in the US has faltered and 6.6 million Americans have been out of work for more than 6 months. In response, USA Today issued a cry for action that took an unusual form: “Don’t just stand there — do nothing.” The paper argued that instead of another short-term stimulus like tax cuts, lending programmes or “cash for clunkers”, the economy needed “patience.” Policy-makers must “swear off quick fixes that produce nothing but a temporary high.” USA Today described fiscal stimulus as “a medicine that has been overprescribed.” And instead the paper suggested policy that “slow[ed] the growth in benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare (which) would not only forestall economic Armageddon down the road, it also might actually be the best thing for the economy now. It would restore confidence among investors that the nation is not heading for a major credit crisis or a period of hyperinflation that wipes out the value of their holdings.”

The New York Times Mistrust and the mosque

The argument over the Ground Zero Mosque was given fresh fuel by a New York Times-commissioned poll of New York City residents. “The poll found considerable distrust of Muslim-Americans and robust disapproval of the mosque proposal.” The Times was surprised by its fellow-New Yorkers. But the idea that New York City is “in all its dizzying globalness, a utopia of harmonistic harmony,” is a myth, the paper sighed. It is a tolerant place, but it is not an understanding place. The paper took a shot at govenor-candidates as well as citizens. Republicans Carl Paladino and Rick Lazio “have disgraced their state,” said the paper, “with histrionics about the mosque being a terrorist triumph.” The Times maintained that allowing the mosque to be built on the Lower-East side “would be a gesture to Muslim-Americans who, of course, live here, pray here and died here, along with so many of their fellow Americans”.

Washington Post EPA’s new gas-mileage labels are good but not perfect

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a labeling system that would help car-buyers compare the fuel-economy, efficiency, and greenhouse gas production of new vehicles. The Washington Post saw the stickers as a “much-needed improvement” on the current labeling. But the Post did express some reservations about the grading of vehicles — from A to D — based on their fuel economy and efficency. “This seems to cross an important line between informing the public — an appropriate role for government — and salesmanship — a dubious mission.” Electric-powered cars can reach an A-plus rating, but even the most fuel-efficient gas-powered car could never earn more than a B. The Post said it would be better if all consumers were allowed to “rank cars according to their own criteria”. If the government really wants people to buy fuel-efficient cars, said the Post, it would do better to increase fuel taxes than change some stickers.