Today on CNN Newsroom

The latest news and information from around the world. Also connect with CNN through social media. We want to hear from you.
June 28th, 2010
09:28 PM ET

Jean Michel Cousteau on Gulf oil spill

We know the oil spill in the Gulf is a major environmental disaster, but what's not known are its long-term effects.

CNN's Fredricka Whitfield talked with ocean explorer and environmentalist, Jean Michel Cousteau, for some insight.

Filed under: Anchors • Fredricka Whitfield • Josh Levs
soundoff (7 Responses)
  1. Smith in Oregon

    US Democratic Senator Robert Byrd 1917-2010 RIP had the courage to stand up and declare that West Virgina would and could not serve Big Coal any longer. Senator Robert Byrd was very mindful of the enormous environmental damage that was occurring to West Virgina and to the people of West Virgina directly by it's special favors to Big Oil corporations that had run rampant in the State of West Virgina for 100 years.

    When are the politicians in Louisiana going to have the courage to stand up and declare that Louisiana would and could not serve Big Oil any longer?

    June 28, 2010 at 11:31 pm |
  2. Greg, Ontario

    When will Americans develope common sense? Discussing the ravages of an oil spill before you have stopped it is a waste of time. We don't need anyone to tell us all life in the gulf will be effected and the loss of life will be tragic and in some ways irreversible. Common sense tells us that.

    June 29, 2010 at 12:13 pm |
  3. Mrs. Eileen G. Curras widow to Hernandez (WWII)

    Finally we have a person like Jean Michel Cousteau to talk about the Gulf oil spill's environmental impact. We have being gag with information from other oil spills and the silence and the lack of resources for the Gulf is a major environmental disaster. We have not talk about the long-term effects of the oil spill. We actually say that we are getting a handle on solving this problem but we will have to wait more time. We need to listen to people like Jean Michel Cousteau. Good luck the book.

    June 30, 2010 at 1:02 pm |
  4. Mrs. Eileen G. Curras widow to Hernandez (WWII)

    There is no common sense on this situation. What else can we do? Can we cash on this disaster?

    June 30, 2010 at 1:04 pm |
  5. Smith in Oregon

    Every Commercial Ethanol Plant produces more immediately usable fuel than any currently producing toxic, poisonous and carcinogenic crude Oil fossil fuel well produces gasoline in America.

    It takes at least 6 gallons of toxic, poisonous and carcinogenic crude Oil to produce a single gallon of gasoline, unlike a bio-renewable Ethanol plant, when that pocket of fossil fuel in the crude Oil deposit is gone, it's gone period and the carbon released must be artificially compensated unless you want to super saturate the worlds Oceans with carbon more than they are already.

    I don't see any of these Republican Big Oil corporations planting tree's to offset all the carbon fumes their product is spewing into America's atmosphere. Isn't it time to call Big Oil into account for the toxins, poisons and pollution their product produces?

    Ethanol is carbon-neutral, it doesn't produce more carbon than the feedstock captured. Pressuring America's automakers to have full Flex-Fuel capable autos and trucks should be already in place and taking place.

    E30 and E50 mixtures of Ethanol-Gasoline would almost immediately ween America from its dependence on ALL foreign crude Oil and those 'Oil Wars' that come with pouring 1 Billion dollars per day into the greedy hands of Middle East country's for their 'Oil'.

    Automakers can simply change the car and truck's fuel 'chip' to enable them to run on E30 and E50 mixtures at minimal costs (far less than 100 dollars).

    Federal Government should subsidize and give tax breaks to stations which add Ethanol-Gasoline mixing pumps which allow the consumer to adjust whatever Ethanol blend their vehicle can handle.

    June 30, 2010 at 4:40 pm |
  6. randy james

    When Governor Jindal tried to get permits to build protective sand berms, the government refused and took weeks conducting environmental impact studies, while oil inundated critical habitat and destroyed fisheries critical to the Gulf states economy. When BP asked permission to inject toxic dispersants into the oil leak, it was granted immediately, even though the EPA knew this action posed serious risks which had not been studied at all.

    It raises the question: did the Obama administration grant BP's request because they, like BP, were desperate to keep the size of this disaster out of the view of the public? If the consequences of this decision turn out to be the long-term destruction of critical fisheries and damage to the ecology of the Gulf of Mexico, should we not hold the Obama administration accountable for extreme negligence?

    July 1, 2010 at 9:43 am |
  7. Jose

    I have enormously problem, with this administration. Mr President, you are not ready, for to created of jobs for of millions Americans. You are not ready, for the clean up the disaster in the Gulf, and the security of people Americans in the border U.S./ Mexico. you are not ready for 85% students of chicago who are in the poverty, and they have needing of your help. Mistake or no, I don't think so. But you are ready for gain of vote Latino, at the time of next election.

    July 1, 2010 at 3:50 pm |