Comparisons to Katrina are grossly inappropriate

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Comparisons of the current spill to the Exxon-Valdez (including estimates of being much worse than) are rational... comparable events: oil spill, massive environmental and economic damage. Apples to apples.

Comparisons to Katrina are sick. The events are dissimilar. Why would anyone seek to compare an urban mass-casualty and refugee/humanitarian crisis event (with environmental and economic features) with a predominantly environmental/economic tragedy? Why doesn't a little bell go off in their heads, like the bell that would warn me away from casually comparing the effects of the stock market crash of 1929 with the effects of the holocaust? They are different things. Would someone come on CNN and say this oil disaster is ten times worse than 9/11? Of course not! But saying this is ten times worse than Katrina seems acceptable.

KATRINA:

1836 human lives

400,000 jobs

$110 billion in damage claims

600,000 pets

275,000 homes (ten times as many as any other natural disaster in US history)


http://www.hurricanekatrinarelief.com/faqs.html

[uppityperson]

1. Thanks for adding more to clarify. k&r. Both disasters, different focuses.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. I have no reason to think this won't be an epic environmental disaster

It might be the worst spill we have ever seen. Devastating. Incomparable.

But until we can all agree on how many lives equal a square mile of wetland, how many tuna equal a family pet, etc. it's weird to compare the events.

(And if anyone compared this to 9/11 there would be howling.)

[Oregone]

3. My take on the comparison is about the response to the disaster

Is it appropriate or negligent?

Bush's response to Katrina was entirely negligent, though he did not cause the actual Hurricane.

[uppityperson]

4. I can see comparing responses to disasters. That works.

But comparing disasters doesn't.

[ProSense]

5. Mother Nature isn't a private company making billions in profits and

constantly lobbying for deregulation.

BP is a private company. They are responsible for the safety of their operation.

Did they expect deregulation, billions in profits, tax breaks and no liability if they screw up?

They're being sued and, like Exxon, should be held accountable.

[MadMaddie]

7. Agreed! An earlier thread bemoaned that President Obama

and his administration didn't do enough after the explosion happened. Th

In agreement with your post BP is a privately owned company who OWNS all responsibility for their equipment and the safety of their employees. Further more they are responsible for contingency planning for emergencies and disasters. The early reports are they have done nothing to prepare for such an epic disaster.

If this rig is capable of blowing up and releasing millions of gallons of oil what kind of shape are the hundreds of others located in the Gulf.

[Iggo]

6. Yay! Disaster wars!

:popcorn:

[BrklynLiberal]

8. Their main commonality is that they will both have devastated the same

geographical area.

[intheflow]

9. Katrina was a HUGE environmental disaster.

Not only did cars soak underwater for a month in NOLA, anywhere that was flooded added household chemicals to the ground and groundwater. The Naval Sea Bee base in Gulfport was in the process of an agent orange cleanup which was flooded. Dupont had a paint manufacturing plant on the border between Louisiana and Mississippi take in 20 feet of water. The Stennis Space Center leeched jet fuel onto the beach. Then there were the FEMA trailers. That you didn't hear as much about that stuff is a tribute to BushCo political cronyism (via Haley Barbour in MS and Halliburton and Blackwater in NOLA). The effects were not as obviously apparent, or were easily overlooked amidst the widespread chaos, but having seen that environmental damage first hand I predict the people of the Coast will be dealing with the ill health effects from Katrina for decades, maybe generations, just as they will this oil spill. So I think the two disasters can be reasonably compared.