This post is part of the Wonk Room’s exclusive investigation of the private contractors working under BP’s control to respond to the foreign oil giant’s Gulf Coast disaster. The results of the investigation are being tracked at BP’s Contractor Army.

“I am confident that we’re going to be able to leave the Gulf Coast in better shape than it was before,” President Barack Obama declared after visiting the oil-soaked region in June. The long-term restoration of the coast will require radical changes in waterway management, land use, and reversal of the global warming that threatens to inundate the subsiding shores — challenges independent of the toxic black tide of BP’s oil. However, cleaning up the toxic sludge is the first task on the path to restoration.

The task of deciding where the Gulf Coast shoreline needs to be cleaned of the Deepwater Horizon oil falls to BP contractors and government employees known by the jargon of Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Team (SCAT) personnel. Working as rapidly as possible, teams survey contaminated beaches and marshes before cleanup crews are deployed, recommend the cleanup methods, and determine whether the cleanup has been as successful as possible. The work of the SCAT teams is a first step in the long-term natural resource damage assessments overseen by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which determine the liabilities of BP for damage caused to the United States. This conflict of interest should be resolved by taking BP out of the loop — SCAT contractors should work directly for the government, using BP funds.

Incident Command organizational chart. Click to expand.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shoreline assessment manual, last updated in August 2000, the shoreline assessment teams are usually led by a Team Coordinator from NOAA Scientific Support, from the Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R), Emergency Response Division. Field teams divide the shoreline with a grid, use overflights and direct examination to judge the degree of contamination, and establish the cleanup guidelines used by the hazardous waste cleanup contractors, from mechanically plowing oiled sand off beaches to dabbing oil off of marsh reeds with sorbent booms.

Under the guidelines of the Incident Command System, SCAT personnel are part of the Planning Branch, whose guidelines direct the cleanup workers in the Operations Branch. (The other branches of the Incident Command System are Logistics and Finance.)

In an exclusive email interview, Greg E. Challenger, Principal Marine Scientist of Polaris Applied Sciences, told the Wonk Room how his company is “working to help coordinate the effort of assessing shorelines and recommending cleanup out of Houma, Mobile and Miami.” Polaris, a private company of scientific experts based in Washington state, has worked for governments and the oil industry on dozens of oil spills, coral reef groundings, research projects, and disaster exercises since its founding in 1998. Mr. Challenger explained how SCAT are the “eyes and ears” of the coastal spill response:

SCAT systematically segments the shoreline by habitat type and oiling zones and characterizes the oiling conditions for Operations. After the recommendations and instructions go to Operations, SCAT will re-survey when it has been cleaned and make further recommendations or sign a shoreline off as complete. This sign off can only occur after oil is off the water and overall is process meant to prioritize sensitive or heavily areas for cleanup in a systematic way. Essentially the “eyes and ears” of operations on the shoreline.

Read more

Bill McKibben “” some-time guest blogger and the author most recently of the must-read book Eaarth — has a challenging review of my book Straight Up in the Washington Monthly.

He literally challenges me to talk more about political movements on this blog, such has the one he cofounded, 350.org.  I accept.

Indeed, I issue a challenge of my own to 350.org to change its focus and get more political! I’d love to hear your thoughts — and I’m quite sure that McKibben would, too.

So I’ll mostly dispense with the parts in which he explains why you should buy the book if you’re interested in climate or the Web — “this book””a collection of some of his thousands of blog posts””is a good way to think not only about climate but about the uses of the Web” — and cut to his challenge:

Read more

Our favorite climate de-crocker, Peter Sinclair has another video on “Climate Change and National Security”:

Read more

I hope to see some Bay Area Climate Progress readers next Monday at the Commonwealth Club at 6 pm, reception to follow (tix here).

Here are the details of the timely event, “After BP, Climate Progress?”

Read more

Run Cars on Green Electricity, Not Natural Gas

With the dramatic increase in oil prices earlier this year translating into higher prices at the gas pump in the United States, concerns over U.S. dependence on foreign oil are once again part of the national discussion on energy security. Combined with the growing understanding that carbon emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels are driving global climate change, the debate is now focused on how to restructure the U.S. transport system to solve these two problems. While the idea of running U.S. vehicles on natural gas has lately received a great deal of attention, powering our cars with green electricity is a more sensible option on all fronts “” national security, efficiency, climate stabilization and economics.

Read more

A former contractor has come forward to denounce foreign oil giant BP and the “cutthroat individuals” running the oil disaster response.  Wonk Room has the story in this cross-post.

Read more

Workers clean up the Gulf shore in this AP photo. The BP disaster underscores why we need to better manage the short- and long-term responses required to address the public health threats such disasters pose, as discussed in a new report by Ellen-Marie Whelan , CAP’s Associate Director for Health Policy, and Lesly Russell, a Senior Fellow. This is cross-post.

Read more

Ron Johnson, a wealthy business executive and leading Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin this year, is beginning to receive scrutiny for his extremist views.  Last month he was asked whether or not he agreed that “man-caused global warming is a proven fact.”   His reply:

I totally disagree…I’m always surprised that people think this is the sweet spot in global history in terms of this is where we should be climate-wise. We live in Wisconsin – I’m glad there’s global warming or we’d be standing on top of a 200 ft. thick glacier. So I think it’s absolutely not proven, and for us to be contemplating fixing something that is not proven is absurd.

Yes, that’s what’s absurd.  For a debunking of the truly absurd standard right wing talking point about the “sweet spot,” see:

Read more

Two of the leading organizations pushing disinformation on climate science and clean energy are the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (see “Luddite Chamber seeks “the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century” on global warming) and Fox News (see Fox News blurts out its agenda: “First, stop cap-and-trade, which could send these groups trillions,” and then put “the whole corrupt ‘green jobs’ concept outside the bounds of the political mainstream”).

Now it turns out they have a real bromance going on, as TP explains in this cross-post.

Read more

In June, the AP reported that Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) owns hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of BP stock, according to financial disclosures. Shortly after the spill, Sensenbrenner focused his criticism on President Obama, attacking him for “publicly chastising and threatening BP” when BP “likely wants this resolved more than anyone.”

At a town hall in Saukville, Wisconsin on Tuesday, Sensenbrenner told ThinkProgress that he would not recuse himself from BP-related votes, despite his financial ties to the company.

Read more