Legislation I would like to see as a response to the BP spill

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Mist425, May 19, 2010.

  1. The way I see it this oil spill happened because of a market failure; because of a lack of legal obligations to fund the cleanup efforts that must take place in the event of a spill, oil companies do not have enough of an economic incentive to focus on prevention.

    In the event of a future spill I would like to see our government step in and take command of the entirety of the cleanup process, deploying the military/national guard if need be, all the while taking careful stock of the costs incurred by said effort. The oil company would foot the entire bill.

    Additionally, some action should be taken to give reparations for Americans whose livelihoods are directly impacted by such spills. While I'm unsure how this amount should be calculated (perhaps give fisherman the equivalent of their earnings in the same month 1-year prior for the duration that they are out of work?), but again, the oil companies should have to cough up the dough.

    I understand that legislation of this type would increase costs for oil companies, and perhaps some of this cost would be passed on to consumers. However, I believe protecting our country's environment (and the economies that are supported by it) are worth this cost, and besides, with all the oil we import from countries not subject to US laws, I cannot imagine how the average American consumer could be hurt significantly by such legislation.

  2. I agree for the most part.

    They should be responsible for the ramifications of their actions.
  3. Didn't Exxon have to compensate the Alaskan fishing industry back when the Valdez rocked the boat?
  4. I don't disagree with you necessarily, but I'm weary of giving the government full authority over the cleanup process and then allowing them to bill the responsible company. I think that corrupt government officials would overcharge the responsible company, all the while doing a sub-par job of cleaning up the mess. The government is already buried way over their heads in conflicts and artificial wars. I don't think they can handle the full responsibility of every disaster like this one.

    Just to be clear, I'm not completely sure about any of what I'm saying here. I'm only speculating.
  5. I had a similar thought to this except I think they government should handle the clean up, incur all the costs, and then slap around BP and other companies involved by not allowing them to drill in new places, or perhaps retaking permits they had given them to drill other places. I think you're right, they're not enough incentive. Which is why in my opinion we should take control of the situation and show the other companies how badly it works out when you don't resolve a situation while trying to play the blame game.
  6. Here are my thoughts:

    1) What I bolded is what the law currently says is supposed to happen.

    But the incompetent team Obama was too busy playing golf with Goldman Sachs fatcat banker buddies to address the worst ecological disaster since cherynobl. The disaster we now face is because Obama didn't do his job.

    2) There have been over 30,000 wells drilled in the gulf in recent years, without any major spill incidents (you'll occasionally have leakage but that's normal and nature can take care of that rather easy). So, to say that safety isn't a priority really doesn't seem to match the facts.

    3) All persons who are directly financially impacted by this spill, such as fisherman etc, have full standing to sue BP for damages, as per the law already in place.

    4) What sort of more significant financial incentive would you like BP to have? I'm not being sarcastic, but let's consider this:
    a) They lost a 750m-1billion dollar rig
    b) They lost a well that cost them 100 million to drill
    c) The value of the oil spilling into the gulf is quite high, and is oil they otherwise would be selling
    d) They are spending massive amounts of money trying to fix the problem
    e) They are legally obligated to pay all clean up costs
    f) Depending on the costs of the above, and the cost of legal bills, and the cost of paying those who have been impacted by this... B.P faces the realistic possibility of being forced into bankruptcy over this.

    5) In conclusion, I think you present some good and important ideas, but having a fuller grasp on the current facts would help you form better ideas. If I may offer the following for thought:

    I. What is going on that BP is forced to drill for oil out at sea, 5000 feet under sea level,and then drill another 25,000 feet through sea-bed to reach the oil? Are our restrictions on drilling INCREASING the risk of disaster by forcing the oil companies to seek oil in difficult places.

    II. Why did the Obama administration fail so badly in their response? It took Team obama days to even realize something was going on despite constant news coverage. Janet N. didn't even know that the defense department has massive stockpiles of oil-spill fighting equipment and whole crews trained to take care of these things. Why was Obama playing golf with Goldman Sachs fatcat banker buddies while the worst ecological disaster since Cherynobl was taking place?

    III. Why did the #2 man in charge of this oil spill cleanup decide to go on a white-water rafting trip with his wife in the middle of the crisis?

    IV. Why did Barack Obama waive all sorts of important safety requirements for BP's drilling operations immediately after entering office?

    V. Why did Barack Obama receive more money from BP in one election cycle than any other Senator in the last 20 years?

    VI. Is there any single person OTHER than Barack Obama who is MORE responsible for this disaster? If so, who? If not, should Obama be forced to resign for allowing the worst ecological disaster since cherynobl to take place because he was too busy golfing with Goldman Sachs fat cat banker buddies?

Share This Page