A solution to a problem not ordained by the forces supposed to ordain solutions does not count as a solution. Sounds like the conclusion of a student of Soviet politics.
Here at RSE, we attempt to pay attention also to those valid perspectives on the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that unfortunately do not find their way into the journalistic mainstream. In the process, we seem to discover:
(a) inability of bureaucracies to cope with significant challenges and threats effectively, and
(b) the need to dramatise these threats in such a manner that iso-centric (based on one source) i.e. bureaucratic solutions appear absolutely compelling
can be combined in an efficient way, marketing-wise:
make a bureaucracy look good and indispensably needed by giving it the right to shape a challenge so that it mirrors the bizarre world of the red tape, including the right to rule out sensible and feasible solutions (whose incidence would prove the expendability, indeed the harmfulness of that bureaucracy.
I only wonder, how serious are the allegations that one gathers from this remarkable article available from the Financial Post:
Why does neither the U.S. government nor U.S. energy companies have on hand the cleanup technology available in Europe? Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn't good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million -- if water isn't at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico.
The author of the article concludes: