Environmental 9/11? Obama and the oil spill

Speaking in Alabama in mid-June Mr Obama said it was the worst environmental disaster in US history would have a massive impact on America’s psyche for years to come.

He said: “In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11, I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come.”

Obama, who had also described the disaster as “brutally unfair” said that if were Hayward’s boss, he would sack him.

It followed a series of gaffes from Mr Hayward, including his declaration “I want my life back”. Obama responded: “He wouldn’t be working for me after any of those statements.”

Obama’s repeated reference to BP as “British Petroleum”, its old name, had already raised the tempo in a growing mood of “anti-Britishness” in the US.

In an interview with NBC Today Obama also said: “This is not theatre… I don’t always have the time to perform for the cable shows.

“I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answer so I know whose ass to kick.”

The seriousness of the situation was highlighted again when Obama gave a televised address from the Oval Office. Such an address only takes place in times of national crisis.

Obama's new ‘change' message

More than ten minutes in - the President got to what he really wanted to talk about. What all this means for energy policy in the future, writes Sarah Smith.
How he can use this crisis to try and persuade both congress and the country that its time to really significantly change how America generates its power.

He talked about their "addiction to fossil fuels" and he clearly thinks that the sight of so much fossil fuel washing up on the beaches of the Gulf Coast might be the visual metaphor that finally rives America toward renewable energy. You got the feeling this was what he was really here to talk about.

As he warmed to his theme Obama sounded as much like "Candidate Obama" as I've heard him since he took office.

Suddenly he was back to the eloquent campaigner who could persuade America anything was possible if only they would follow his rhetoric. But then he failed to hit them with a precise plan. He didn't announce that he was going to ask the Senate to pass the "cap and trade" climate change legislation that has already got through the House of Representatives.

He did not insist that now is the time to start charging companies for their carbon emissions. In fact he admitted he did not really know what the answer was - but insisted the country should take action anyway:

"The one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is too big and too difficult to meet."
Sarah Smith is Washington Correspondent for Channel 4 News

Senator Roger Wicker, Republican representative for Mississippi, told Channel 4 News: “Well, there’s no question that the president sees this as an opportunity to advance his national energy tax policy – the cap and trade legislation.

This barely passed the House of Representatives last year. If it were voted on again in the House it would not pass.

“There is going to be a lot of litigation, and let me just say that the officials from BP, I think, were guilty of gross negligence. I am not someone, however, who wants to put BP out of business. I don’t want to harm the innocent pensioners and citizens of the United Kingdom and the United States who have bought shares of stock.

“So it’s important that we make BP own up to the damages, but there are some damages the president is talking about that really aren’t BP’s responsibility.

“It’s the president who imposed a drilling moratorium, and so it should be up to the government or someone to pay the laid-off oil rig workers because that’s not BP’s responsibility.”

“I’m calling on the president to restore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. We know it can be done safely, and get those oil workers back to work so nobody has to compensate them for lost wages.”

Meanwhile, in a strongly-worded open letter to the president, John Napier, chairman of insurance giant RSA (formerly Royal Sun Alliance), suggested attacks by the White House on BP could be seen as anti-British.

“There is a sense here that these attacks are being made because BP is British. If you compare the damage inflicted on the economies of the western world by … USA international banks, there has not been the same personalised response in or from countries beyond the US. Perhaps a case of double standards?,”

Channel 4 News economics correspondent Faisal Islam said Mr Napier probably reflected the view of other city leaders.

“It demonstrates the strength of feeling that the rhetoric being used by America has engendered by British corporate elite,” he said.

“They feel that the use of the word British, when BP abandoned the term British Petroleum ten years ago, is being done very purposefully to defect blame and this could have collateral damage.

“The worst that could happen is protectionist rhetoric, and going on about foreign oil companies is something John Napier is trying to avoid.”

BP links to Lockerbie

In July a group of Democrat senators began calling for a new investigation into reports that BP helped bring about the early release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.

Mr al Megrahi was the only person convicted in connection with the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland. A total of 270 died, 179 of whom were American.

The senators claim the energy giant lobbied UK ministers in 2007 to get them to speed up the signing of a prisoner transfer agreement, in order to rescue an oil deal with Libya.

BP said that it was “a matter of public record” that the firm had discussed its concerns with the UK government, but insists it never lobbied about Mr al-Megrahi personally.

The row engulfed David Cameron’s first official visit to the US as prime minister when his trip became dominated by questions over BP and Lockerbie.

The PM repeated his view that al-Megrahi’s early release on health grounds had been “wrong” and insisted there was no BP connection.

For the truth about deals with Libya David Cameron should look no further than Britain's US ambassador, writes Channel 4 News correspondent Julian Rush.

Right from the moment secret talks began between the British government and the Libyans, the name of one senior diplomat keeps cropping up.

In 2003 Britain and the US began secret talks to persuade Colonel Gaddafi to abandon his plans to acquire nuclear weapons. Condoleezza Rice, then US National Security Advisor, headed the American team, Sir Nigel Sheinwald was Britain's man.

Those talks ended with Tony Blair famously meeting Colonel Gaddafi in his desert tent in March 2004 - with Sir Nigel at his side. Sir Nigel had been the diplomat who'd chaired a series of meetings in London with the Libyans to seal the deal.

Sir Nigel went on to draft the Memorandum of Understanding that was eventually signed in Tripoli in May 2007, in the so-called "deal in the desert".

That MOU paved the way for the Prisoner Transfer Agreement at the centre of the allegations by US senators of BP lobbying. On the same day, Blair and Sir Nigel travelled to the Libyan city of Sirt to watch BP boss Tony Hayward sign a preliminary agreement for an oil and gas exploration deal worth some $900m.

Talk to Libyan ministers and diplomats and they'll speak of the "Nigel and Tony" double act.