Changes

=== British Petroleum ===

=== British Petroleum ===

During the first 100 days of the [[Obama administration]], the Minerals Management Service ([[MMS]]) of the [[Department of the Interior]] granted a “categorical exclusion” from a detailed environmental impact statement required under [[law]]<ref>[http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.]</ref> to BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling operation, according to the ''[[Washington Post]].''<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html U.S. exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study,] Juliet Eilperin, ''Washington Post,'' 5 May 2010.</ref> BP's exploration plan received in the Administration's MMS field office on 23 March 2009 states "no mitigation measures other than those required by regulation and BP policy will be employed to avoid, diminish or eliminate potential impacts on environmental resources." It declared any spill would have only "sub-lethal" effects on fish and marine [[mammal]]s but it was "unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities."<ref>http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/initial_exploration_plan050410.pdf</ref>

During the first 100 days of the [[Obama administration]], the Minerals Management Service ([[MMS]]) of the [[Department of the Interior]] granted a “categorical exclusion” from a detailed environmental impact statement required under [[law]]<ref>[http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.]</ref> to BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling operation, according to the ''[[Washington Post]].''<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html U.S. exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study,] Juliet Eilperin, ''Washington Post,'' 5 May 2010.</ref> BP's exploration plan received in the Administration's MMS field office on 23 March 2009 states "no mitigation measures other than those required by regulation and BP policy will be employed to avoid, diminish or eliminate potential impacts on environmental resources." It declared any spill would have only "sub-lethal" effects on fish and marine [[mammal]]s but it was "unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities."<ref>http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/initial_exploration_plan050410.pdf</ref>

As Senator, and while running for president, [[Barack Obama]] received a total of $77,051 from BP<ref>http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/BP?view=detail&siteid=nwhwk</ref> and has taken more money from BP's [[Political Action Committee]] and individuals connected with BP over the past 20 years than any other candidate, according to [[FEC]] disclosure records.<ref>[http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0505/obama-biggest-recipient-bp-political-action-money-20-years Obama is biggest recipient of BP’s political action cash in the last 20 years,] John Byrne, 5 May 2010. Retrieved from rawstory.com 9 May 2010.</ref> Likewise, the independent watchdog Center for Responsive Politics noted, "the “top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 cycle was President Barack Obama himself.”<ref>Jake Tapper, Political Punch, [[ABC News]], 5 May 2010. [http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/white-house-idea-that-bp-given-special-exemption-because-of-campaign-cash-to-obama-silly-and-ridiculous.html?cid=6a00d8341c4df253ef0134807669a3970c]</ref><ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/04/on-thursday-oil-giant-bp.html</ref>  

As Senator, and while running for president, [[Barack Obama]] received a total of $77,051 from BP<ref>http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/BP?view=detail&siteid=nwhwk</ref> and has taken more money from BP's [[Political Action Committee]] and individuals connected with BP over the past 20 years than any other candidate, according to [[FEC]] disclosure records.<ref>[http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0505/obama-biggest-recipient-bp-political-action-money-20-years Obama is biggest recipient of BP’s political action cash in the last 20 years,] John Byrne, 5 May 2010. Retrieved from rawstory.com 9 May 2010.</ref> Likewise, the independent watchdog Center for Responsive Politics noted, "the “top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 cycle was President Barack Obama himself.”<ref>Jake Tapper, Political Punch, [[ABC News]], 5 May 2010. [http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/white-house-idea-that-bp-given-special-exemption-because-of-campaign-cash-to-obama-silly-and-ridiculous.html?cid=6a00d8341c4df253ef0134807669a3970c]</ref><ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/04/on-thursday-oil-giant-bp.html</ref>  

=== Assistance of foreign governments ===

=== Assistance of foreign governments ===

Nearly two-months after the disaster took place, the Obama administration decides to utilize the assistance offered by 17 countries, the U.N and the European Union.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/13/AR2010061304232.html After delays, [[U.S.]] begins to tap foreign aid for gulf oil spill, WaPo, June 14, 2010]</ref> International aid offers already accepted include two skimmers and 2.6 miles (4.2 kilometers) of boom from [[Mexico]], three sets of sweeping arm systems from the Netherlands and 1.86 miles (3.0 kilometers) of boom from Canada, the State Department said. The State Department noted that it has assisted BP in directly sourcing equipment and technical experts from around the world, including from Algeria, Australia, Bahrain, [[Brazil]], [[Canada]], China, Denmark, Latvia, Norway, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the [[United Kingdom]].<ref>[http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20100615-275709/US-taps-into-foreign-assistance-for-Gulf-oil-spill US taps into foreign assistance for Gulf oil spill, Agence France-Presse, June 15, 2010]</ref>

Nearly two-months after the disaster took place, the Obama administration decides to utilize the assistance offered by 17 countries, the U.N and the European Union.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/13/AR2010061304232.html After delays, [[U.S.]] begins to tap foreign aid for gulf oil spill, WaPo, June 14, 2010]</ref> International aid offers already accepted include two skimmers and 2.6 miles (4.2 kilometers) of boom from [[Mexico]], three sets of sweeping arm systems from the Netherlands and 1.86 miles (3.0 kilometers) of boom from Canada, the State Department said. The State Department noted that it has assisted BP in directly sourcing equipment and technical experts from around the world, including from Algeria, Australia, Bahrain, [[Brazil]], [[Canada]], China, Denmark, Latvia, Norway, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the [[United Kingdom]].<ref>[http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20100615-275709/US-taps-into-foreign-assistance-for-Gulf-oil-spill US taps into foreign assistance for Gulf oil spill, Agence France-Presse, June 15, 2010]</ref>

===Public relations offensive===

===Public relations offensive===

===Misrepresentation of evidence===

===Misrepresentation of evidence===

:'''Drilling moratorium based on junk science'''

:'''Drilling moratorium based on junk science'''

The ''Washington Post'' reported in November 2010 the oil spill that damaged the Gulf of Mexico's reefs and wetlands also threatens to stain the [[Obama administration]]'s reputation for relying on [[science]] to guide policy. The [[Department of Interior]]'s concluded that the White House edited a drilling safety report in a way that made it [[false]]ly appear that scientists and experts backed the administration's six-month moratorium on new deep-water drilling. The editing changes by the [[White House]] resulted "in the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer reviewed." But it hadn't been. Outside scientists were asked only to review new safety measures for offshore drilling.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/10/AR2010111007479.html Critics say White House misconstrued spill data,] Dina Cappiello, ''Washington Post'', November 11, 2010.</ref>

The ''Washington Post'' reported in November 2010 the oil spill that damaged the Gulf of Mexico's reefs and wetlands also threatens to stain the [[Obama administration]]'s reputation for relying on [[science]] to guide policy. The [[Department of Interior]]'s concluded that the White House edited a drilling safety report in a way that made it [[false]]ly appear that scientists and experts backed the administration's six-month moratorium on new deep-water drilling. The editing changes by the [[White House]] resulted "in the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer reviewed." But it hadn't been. Outside scientists were asked only to review new safety measures for offshore drilling.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/10/AR2010111007479.html Critics say White House misconstrued spill data,] Dina Cappiello, ''Washington Post'', November 11, 2010.</ref>

In October 2010 the Presidential Oil Spill Commission said that the White House [[Office of Management and Budget]] delayed publication of a scientific report that forecast how much oil could reach the gulf's shores. The report said that [[President Obama]]'s energy adviser and [[Socialist International]] operative [[Carol Browner]],<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/</ref> mischaracterized on national TV a government analysis about where the oil went, saying it showed most of the oil was "gone." It also said Browner and the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Jane Lubchenco, contributed to the public's perception that the report was more exact than it was.

In October 2010 the Presidential Oil Spill Commission said that the White House [[Office of Management and Budget]] delayed publication of a scientific report that forecast how much oil could reach the gulf's shores. The report said that [[President Obama]]'s energy adviser and [[Socialist International]] operative [[Carol Browner]],<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/</ref> mischaracterized on national TV a government analysis about where the oil went, saying it showed most of the oil was "gone." It also said Browner and the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Jane Lubchenco, contributed to the public's perception that the report was more exact than it was.

Academics, environmentalists and federal investigators have accused the administration since the April 2010 spill of downplaying scientific findings, misrepresenting data and misconstruing the opinions of experts it solicited.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/04/AR2010080407082.html Scientists question government team's report of shrinking gulf oil spill,] David A. Fahrenthold, ''Washington Post,'' August 5, 2010.</ref>

Academics, environmentalists and federal investigators have accused the administration since the April 2010 spill of downplaying scientific findings, misrepresenting data and misconstruing the opinions of experts it solicited.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/04/AR2010080407082.html Scientists question government team's report of shrinking gulf oil spill,] David A. Fahrenthold, ''Washington Post,'' August 5, 2010.</ref>

==Economic impacts==

==Economic impacts==