BP's oil spill - should Statism come to the rescue?

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 11:35am

BluePlanet wrote: »

You are pre-judging the cause.
The "blowback system" is only 1 line of defense.
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/safety_fluid_was_removed_befor.html

thanks for the link, seems like an ongoing investigation/lawsuit (interesting how the cement failed first no?

)
if the safety systems were deliberately compromised then they will "get it" in court of law

in meantime this hole still needs to be plugged, and it has to be BP that will do it

P. Breathnach · 26-05-2010 11:48am

Laminations wrote: »

How did this libertarian twaddle pass without scrutiny? ...

In part because I hadn't got around to it yet.

Libertarians and their ilk make some assumptions that do not sit well with ordinary human experience, one of them being that persons (individuals and corporations) have equal rights and equal ability to vindicate those rights.

As an individual, I am fairly well able to assert my rights. That is because I am fairly well educated, have a range of life experience, and could afford the cost of some litigation if I needed to. And because I have that ability, I have never had to resort to the courts.

If the well from which I draw my water were polluted by the actions of a local farmer, I would be able to solve that problem. If, however, my water source were polluted by a large factory whose owners were wealthy and ruthless, I am far less sure that I, acting on my own, could bring about a remedy.

To address the original question in this thread. It can be argued that the state is ultimately dealing with the oil spill by imposing on BP a requirement that they deal with the mess they have caused. I haven't researched the matter, but I think it is a fair conjecture that the amount an oil company will act so as to protect the environment is determined by the laws of the state where it is operating: if they can get away with causing an ecological disaster, they will do so.

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 12:02pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In part because I hadn't got around to it yet.

Libertarians and their ilk make some assumptions that do not sit well with ordinary human experience, one of them being that persons (individuals and corporations) have equal rights and equal ability to vindicate those rights.

As an individual, I am fairly well able to assert my rights. That is because I am fairly well educated, have a range of life experience, and could afford the cost of some litigation if I needed to. And because I have that ability, I have never had to resort to the courts.

If the well from which I draw my water were polluted by the actions of a local farmer, I would be able to solve that problem. If, however, my water source were polluted by a large factory whose owners were wealthy and ruthless, I am far less sure that I, acting on my own, could bring about a remedy.

To address the original question in this thread. It can be argued that the state is ultimately dealing with the oil spill by imposing on BP a requirement that they deal with the mess they have caused. I haven't researched the matter, but I think it is a fair conjecture that the amount an oil company will act so as to protect the environment is determined by the laws of the state where it is operating: if they can get away with causing an ecological disaster, they will do so.

could you solve the problem if instead of a company a state was engaging in polluting?

lets say Sellafield across the Irish sea

or China across the globe

your quick to point out the private companies, but ignoring the state of China which is now the worlds biggest polluter and its tightly controlled industry

Valmont · 26-05-2010 12:13pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

but I think it is a fair conjecture that the amount an oil company will act so as to protect the environment is determined by the laws of the state where it is operating: if they can get away with causing an ecological disaster, they will do so.

It's a shame you have such a cynical view. Why do you proclaim to know that BP value profit at the exclusion of everything else? They have pledged to clean this mess up and to reimburse those affected by it. You don't actually know that they are doing this because of regulations, no matter how much you wish it were the case.

Is it all possible that they know their reputation will be in tatters if they don't deal with this? You presume that if the government were non-existent in this case that BP could go on as they did before no problem but that is very myopic. If you found oil under your well, who would you hire to extract it for you? The company with the sterling safety record or the one who caused a major disaster and didn't bother cleaning it up? Face it, regardless of the government, it is in BP's interests to clean this mess up quickly and comprehensively, lest their future interests are damaged any more than they already are.

Permabear · 26-05-2010 12:15pm

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 26-05-2010 12:18pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

your quick to point out the private companies, but ignoring the state of China which is now the worlds biggest polluter and its tightly controlled industry

Did you forget that China has a massive population?
USA is still the top polluter per capita.

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 12:19pm

Valmont wrote: »

It's a shame you have such a cynical view. Why do you proclaim to know that BP value profit at the exclusion of everything else? They have pledged to clean this mess up and to reimburse those affected by it. You don't actually know that they are doing this because of regulations, no matter how much you wish it were the case.

Is it all possible that they know their reputation will be in tatters if they don't deal with this? You presume that if the government were non-existent in this case that BP could go on as they did before no problem but that is very myopic. If you found oil under your well, who would you hire to extract it for you? The company with the sterling safety record or the one who caused a major disaster and didn't bother cleaning it up? Face it, regardless of the government, it is in BP's interests to clean this mess up quickly and comprehensively, lest their future interests are damaged any more than they already are.

it is in BPs interest to clean this up quickly, the government stepping in now with no credible plan as per OPs suggestion will make the matter worse

BP are going well above what regulations/law require of them
they committed themselves in public to cleaning up this mess

if they followed the law to the letter (as posted earlier in thread) they would only have to clean-up up to 75 million, instead they put themselves on the hook for the whole 12 billion + of the clean-up, and have also already lost more than that in share value

BluePlanet · 26-05-2010 12:23pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

it is in BPs interest to clean this up quickly, the government stepping in now with no credible plan as per OPs suggestion will make the matter worse

BP are going well above what regulations/law require of them
they committed themselves in public to cleaning up this mess

if they followed the law to the letter (as posted earlier in thread) they would only have to clean-up up to 75 million, instead they put themselves on the hook for the whole 12 billion + of the clean-up, and have also already lost more than that in share value

Wrong, they have to pay for clean up in full.
The law only caps the subsequent liability damages to 75 million.

BluePlanet · 26-05-2010 12:25pm

One thing this thread has done, it's brought into the light those posters that are blanket supporters of BP and corporate oil, vs those against.

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 12:31pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

One thing this thread has done, it's brought into the light those posters that are blanket supporters of BP and corporate oil, vs those against.

Wrong it brought out people who want BP to be held responsible and clean-up own mess, without getting the inefficient state involved and making matters worse

the alternative to corporate oil is state controlled oil, states which often dont care about the environment and want to line own pockets and gain more power

Permabear · 26-05-2010 12:32pm

This post has been deleted.

SlabMurphy · 26-05-2010 12:35pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I hear the Russians offered to blow up a small nuke to seal the well as they have done on several occasions in the past

for a small fee of course...

Well if it works and the Ruskies stop the leak - the Libertarian's will be pronouncing the superiority of private enterprise......if it doesn't work the Libertarian's will be declaring it's the fault of the state as they didn't properly research if the Russian's had the ability to live up to thier promises

BluePlanet · 26-05-2010 12:36pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Is that a Libertarian arguing against particular industries from making political charity donations?

Macha · 26-05-2010 12:50pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

Did you forget that China has a massive population?
USA is still the top polluter per capita.

I'd just be careful of distinguishing between types of pollution.

In terms of per capita greenhouse gas emissions, the US, Kuwait, UAE, Australia, Canada and our good selves are far ahead of China.

P. Breathnach · 26-05-2010 1:00pm

Valmont wrote: »

It's a shame you have such a cynical view. Why do you proclaim to know that BP value profit at the exclusion of everything else? They have pledged to clean this mess up and to reimburse those affected by it. You don't actually know that they are doing this because of regulations, no matter how much you wish it were the case.

When I describe something as a conjecture, I am making it clear that I don't actually know. When I describe something as a fair conjecture, it means that I don't actually know, but think I have things about right. So I don't "proclaim to know".

You, on the other hand, suggest that you know what my wishes are.

Is it all possible that they know their reputation will be in tatters if they don't deal with this? You presume that if the government were non-existent in this case that BP could go on as they did before no problem but that is very myopic. If you found oil under your well, who would you hire to extract it for you? The company with the sterling safety record or the one who caused a major disaster and didn't bother cleaning it up? Face it, regardless of the government, it is in BP's interests to clean this mess up quickly and comprehensively, lest their future interests are damaged any more than they already are.

I know it's not BP, but the story of Shell and the Ogoni people in the Niger Delta illustrates my general point that the behaviour of oil companies can vary, depending on the legal framework in which they operate.

The primary purpose of most corporations is to benefit their investors. To that end, they are fulfilling their mission if they minimise their spending on the environment to what they can get away with. Governments, more than the marketplace, determine what they can get away with.

Laminations · 26-05-2010 1:03pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes because China and Russia are shining examples of the type of good responsible and accountable governance that detractors of the libertarian faith are advocating :rolleyes:

you again try to rig the debate so you are arguing with extreme statism despite that position not being occupied by your opponents.

Permabear · 26-05-2010 1:03pm

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 1:07pm

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Well if it works and the Ruskies stop the leak - the Libertarian's will be pronouncing the superiority of private enterprise......if it doesn't work the Libertarian's will be declaring it's the fault of the state as they didn't properly research if the Russian's had the ability to live up to thier promises

oh that was a joke

whats more interesting is that they used them on 5 oil leak occasions :eek:

not that the russians are the beacons of environmentalism, checkout their handywork here that's been burning for decades

Permabear · 26-05-2010 1:14pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 26-05-2010 1:17pm

This post has been deleted.

Macha · 26-05-2010 1:31pm

The Blacksmith Institute ranked the following as the top 10 polluted sites in the world in 2007:
-Sumgayit, Azerbaijan
-Linfen, China
-Tianying, China
-Sukinda, India
-Vapi, India
-La Oroya, Peru
-Dzerzhinsk, Russia
-Norilsk, Russia
-Chernobyl, Ukraine
-Kabwe, Zambia

What do these environmental disasters all have in common? A lack of sufficient environmental regulation. Yes, some were carried out by governments themselves but that in itself is just another form of a lack of sufficient environmental regulation.

I know of very few companies that have self-regulated to higher standards than those required by law.

BluePlanet · 26-05-2010 1:35pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

not that the russians are the beacons of environmentalism, checkout their handywork here that's been burning for decades

Strange, the video claim it's Darvaz, Turkmenistan, while your link claims it's Uzbekistan and Wikipedia puts Darvaz in Tajikistan and partly in Afghanistan.

Would the real Darvaz please Stand Up?

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 1:37pm

taconnol wrote: »

The Blacksmith Institute ranked the following as the top 10 polluted sites in the world in 2007:
-Sumgayit, Azerbaijan
-Linfen, China
-Tianying, China
-Sukinda, India
-Vapi, India
-La Oroya, Peru
-Dzerzhinsk, Russia
-Norilsk, Russia
-Chernobyl, Ukraine
-Kabwe, Zambia

What do these environmental disasters all have in common? A lack of sufficient environmental regulation. Yes, some were carried out by governments themselves but that in itself is just another form of a lack of sufficient environmental regulation.

I know of very few companies that have self-regulated to higher standards than those required by law.

You just dug yourself a "burning" hole

what they all have in common is the highly authoritarian state being responsible for them

take Chernobyl, unlike all of the privately run nuclear stations in the west, it didnt have a containment building, and of course it was mainly designed to produce plutonium for weapons not power, and i dont know any privately owned plant that would think its a great idea to perform stress tests with Safety's off, you know for the laugh :rolleyes:

As has been pointed out already in this thread, BP are taking responsibility for their mess and going above and beyond what the law requires of them

as per thread title, why should this problem be "socialized" onto the state and its people?

Macha · 26-05-2010 1:39pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

You just dug yourself a "burning" hole

what they all have in common is the highly authoritarian state being responsible for them (btw i've been to one of the places on that list )

I'm not proposing a highly authoritarian state so I don't feel the need to defend them. As I pointed out in my post, the common point between them is not how highly or non-highly authoritarian they are, but rather a lack of environmental regulation.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

As has been pointed out already in this thread, BP are taking responsibility for their mess and going above and beyond what the law requires of them

And that is as a result of negative PR, nothing else.

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 1:42pm

taconnol wrote: »

And that is as a result of negative PR, nothing else.

At least companies care about PR and shareholders opinions, many states don't

Macha · 26-05-2010 1:43pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

At least companies care about PR and shareholders opinions, many states don't

It's not exactly a solid argument that environmental regulation should be replaced with PR concerns

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 1:47pm

taconnol wrote: »

It's not exactly a solid argument that environmental regulation should be replaced with PR concerns

its a bit more than a PR concern for BP
that oil flowing into the sea is a missed opportunity
its in their interest to stop this for many reasons beside PR

as has been pointed out in the thread at least they have a plan and the know how, the US govt has neither

sure go ahead hand the problem over to the US government see how the environment gets on then :rolleyes:

Knarr · 26-05-2010 1:52pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

as per thread title, why should this problem be "socialized" onto the state and its people?

It already has been socialised. The US army and coastguard are involved.

Thats excluding the extarnalities people must face from the fumes from the burnoff and environmental damage.

Unfortunately the market cannot account for these 'socialised' problems. Thats why the state should enforce costs on the company.

Knarr · 26-05-2010 1:54pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

sure go ahead hand the problem over to the US government see how the environment gets on then :rolleyes:

It shouldnt have been left in private hands in the first place. The Us government should have had the facilities for disasters like this.

Yes, that means tax.

Macha · 26-05-2010 2:00pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

its a bit more than a PR concern for BP
that oil flowing into the sea is a missed opportunity
its in their interest to stop this for many reasons beside PR

To be honest, PR and losing a precious commodity are at the top of their list.

The head of BP revealed his total ignorance by calling it a "drop in the ocean". He really isn't bothered by the environmental impact any further than this in turn impacts on PR and company profits.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

as has been pointed out in the thread at least they have a plan and the know how, the US govt has neither

I'm not sure they know how to, nor I am so sure the US Govt can either. The technology for deep-sea oil drilling as advanced far enough to allow these sorts of projects to go ahead but the corresponding disaster mitigation & risk analysis hasn't. That was where the US govt failed - but that isn't an argument for the US govt removing themselves from the issue, it's an argument for the US govt to ensure proper risk analyses of similar projects in future.

BP's oil spill - should Statism come to the rescue?

Comments