BP's punishment

  • News
  • Thread starter mynameinc
  • Start date
  • #76
9
0
an update:

Rainy Lake Oil gets their oil from Murphy Oil, and they supply all of the gas stations in my city.

Interesting, at the least.

The National Guard has much more important things to do than to mop up oil. When people cry for BP to pay for the clean up, and then ask for the National Guard to be sent in, is astounding to me. You pay the NG's wages, and quite frankly, the NG is not the right tool for the job (cutting cast iron pipe with a porta-ban when you have a chain break right next to you.) A volunteer/partially paid force of diehard helpers is what is needed. If they want to see the beach cleaned up, they can head down there themselves.

Agreed. Why can't BP pay the workers to clean it up? It's their monster.
 
  • #77
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
The National Guard has much more important things to do than to mop up oil. When people cry for BP to pay for the clean up, and then ask for the National Guard to be sent in, is astounding to me. You pay the NG's wages, and quite frankly, the NG is not the right tool for the job (cutting cast iron pipe with a porta-ban when you have a chain break right next to you.) A volunteer/partially paid force of diehard helpers is what is needed. If they want to see the beach cleaned up, they can head down there themselves.

Interesting, at the least.



Agreed. Why can't BP pay the workers to clean it up? It's their monster.

Per the Pentagon, BP is paying for the Guardsmen:
http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIX/2010apr00303.html
Pentagon statement said:
"In response to the BP oil spill, the Secretary of Defense is authorizing under Title 32 the mobilization of the Louisiana National Guard to help in the ongoing efforts to assist local communities in the cleanup and removal of oil and to protect critical habitats from contamination. As the responsible party in this incident, the government will hold BP accountable for the costs of the deployment."
 
  • #78
KalamMekhar
Well there we go, I personally don't think the NG should be doing this, but whatever floats Obama's boat.
 
  • #79
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,204
14
Well there we go, I personally don't think the NG should be doing this, but whatever floats Obama's boat.

Right now, the substance floating Obama's boat is oily water. Let's see if we can fix that before winter... odds aren't looking good.
 
  • #80
Lets assume that the weather goes the way it is predicted, and the fed and BP suddenly cooperate in a truly implausibe manner; wouldn't this still be a disaster? I can't see a way to fix this, especially given the dispersants, in anything short of decades. I don't think the assets to fix this, the booms, absorbants, and skimmers exist to handle this, and with so much of the oil suspended beneath the surface, and more to be churned by hurricanes...

...Well, you get the idea. In the end, a lot of what happens from here on out, not all of it, but most... was written the moment this well failed catastrophically. That may be why the blame game is so appealing, as it distracts from the reality that there IS no solution for this anytime soon. That, once again, goes back to BP, TransOcean, and our government, especially rules from 2007, and the MMS as a whole.
 
  • #81
67
0
Thom Hartmann on corporate personhood, what difference a word makes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #82
9
0
Thom Hartmann on corporate personhood, what difference a word makes.

Corporations get the rights of a person, but don't always get the responsibilities.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #83
503
0
Why do you regard the State as some sort of Parent, KalamMekhar?

This is a good point, but ironically it is not only the state that individuals' regard as a parent, but also any form of institutionalized authority, which they view as responsible for practically everything that goes on outside of their own sphere of direct control as individuals.

If you would look back to when gas reached $4 a gallon, you would see that consciousness of the free market forces of supply and demand, and the way they regulate pricing, had reached a high among the public. People were talking about ways to flood the market with oil to push supply-side competition so that speculation on a lower oil price would ensue and drive down the price at the pump.

The public had become very savvy, but they were also pushing for loosening (offshore) drilling restrictions and increasing the number of wells to flood the market with cheap gas. Ironically, this spill is even more of a "flood" than was intended. The fact is that when you push for more gas at a cheaper price, is it really any surprise that this would result in more risk-taking that could result in a spill or other disaster?

Now people want to blame BP for responding to public demand or they want to blame the government for not sufficiently regulating BP's response to that demand, but what about blaming the demand itself? What about the fact that after who knows how many years of escalating gas prices, people did not sufficiently adjust their everyday driving habits to sustainable levels?

The reason they didn't is because too many view themselves as powerlessly responding to external authorities. They think they have to work too far from home or live too far from work to walk or bike. They maintain a workplace culture of traditionalism that prevents them from fully implementing the possibility to work from home and telecommute instead of coming into the office every day.

If it was the case that the consumers and businesses that demand oil had done everything possible to reduce consumption and demand, I would say that this spill was more due to corporate management practices. However, what I really think is that the corporate managers work for the investors and the consumers who pay them, and when they are under pressure to produce more, the probability of taking risks and making mistakes goes up.

Now, people want to sell their stock in BP and boycott BP gas out of disapproval, yet the law holds BP accountable for the cleanup, so all people are really doing by boycotting is taking money out of the cleanup fund. Maybe this is not such a bad thing, since the cost should really be spread among everyone who consumes oil and gas. But the irony remains that people are white washing their consciences of responsibility as consumers by driving past the BP station for the next gas pump.

Until cultural reforms and technological innovations create sufficient diversity of alternatives for current oil-dependency culture, I think periodic spills and other disasters like this one involving oil drilling are going to be an inevitable facet of global economics.

People get tired of hearing about individual responsibility and continuing to go greener in their cultural habits, but how else are the consumption practices that require such high levels of energy as to necessitate fossil-fuel use supposed to change? Renewable sources cannot keep up with current per-capital demand levels. Conservation has to meet energy-source reform halfway. Consumers can't have their cake and eat it too.

Government could help by creating policies that facilitate better integration of workplace and residential zoning so people could live close to work. Management could help by becoming more flexible in allowing for telecommuting and scheduling that helps stay-at-home parents to work part time close to home without having to work so much to afford a second car, insurance, and gas/maintenance costs. Business entrepreneurs and city-planners could help by creating more local/neighborhood activities for kids and families to reduce the pressure to drive around the city or region in search of activities for kids and families.

Ultimately, it is possible to live well without much combustion transit but it requires pro-active approaches to achieving it. Without those, people just keep reacting to the lack of local amenities by getting in their car once again and driving off to the next thing, skipping the BP pump and filling their tank at the next potential polluter.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
This is a good point, but ironically it is not only the state that individuals' regard as a parent, but also any form of institutionalized authority, which they view as responsible for practically everything that goes on outside of their own sphere of direct control as individuals.

If you would look back to when gas reached $4 a gallon, you would see that consciousness of the free market forces of supply and demand, and the way they regulate pricing, had reached a high among the public. People were talking about ways to flood the market with oil to push supply-side competition so that speculation on a lower oil price would ensue and drive down the price at the pump.

The public had become very savvy, but they were also pushing for loosening (offshore) drilling restrictions and increasing the number of wells to flood the market with cheap gas. Ironically, this spill is even more of a "flood" than was intended. The fact is that when you push for more gas at a cheaper price, is it really any surprise that this would result in more risk-taking that could result in a spill or other disaster?

Now people want to blame BP for responding to public demand or they want to blame the government for not sufficiently regulating BP's response to that demand, but what about blaming the demand itself? What about the fact that after who knows how many years of escalating gas prices, people did not sufficiently adjust their everyday driving habits to sustainable levels?

The reason they didn't is because too many view themselves as powerlessly responding to external authorities. They think they have to work too far from home or live too far from work to walk or bike. They maintain a workplace culture of traditionalism that prevents them from fully implementing the possibility to work from home and telecommute instead of coming into the office every day.

If it was the case that the consumers and businesses that demand oil had done everything possible to reduce consumption and demand, I would say that this spill was more due to corporate management practices. However, what I really think is that the corporate managers work for the investors and the consumers who pay them, and when they are under pressure to produce more, the probability of taking risks and making mistakes goes up.

Now, people want to sell their stock in BP and boycott BP gas out of disapproval, yet the law holds BP accountable for the cleanup, so all people are really doing by boycotting is taking money out of the cleanup fund. Maybe this is not such a bad thing, since the cost should really be spread among everyone who consumes oil and gas. But the irony remains that people are white washing their consciences of responsibility as consumers by driving past the BP station for the next gas pump.

Until cultural reforms and technological innovations create sufficient diversity of alternatives for current oil-dependency culture, I think periodic spills and other disasters like this one involving oil drilling are going to be an inevitable facet of global economics.

People get tired of hearing about individual responsibility and continuing to go greener in their cultural habits, but how else are the consumption practices that require such high levels of energy as to necessitate fossil-fuel use supposed to change? Renewable sources cannot keep up with current per-capital demand levels. Conservation has to meet energy-source reform halfway. Consumers can't have their cake and eat it too.

Government could help by creating policies that facilitate better integration of workplace and residential zoning so people could live close to work. Management could help by becoming more flexible in allowing for telecommuting and scheduling that helps stay-at-home parents to work part time close to home without having to work so much to afford a second car, insurance, and gas/maintenance costs. Business entrepreneurs and city-planners could help by creating more local/neighborhood activities for kids and families to reduce the pressure to drive around the city or region in search of activities for kids and families.

Ultimately, it is possible to live well without much combustion transit but it requires pro-active approaches to achieving it. Without those, people just keep reacting to the lack of local amenities by getting in their car once again and driving off to the next thing, skipping the BP pump and filling their tank at the next potential polluter.

All sad, but hard to refute. It's almost the kind of learned helplessness you see in victims of long term abuse, who could escape, but believe to their core that they cannot.
 

Related Threads on BP's punishment

  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
3K
M
  • Last Post
3
Replies
51
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
T
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
Z
  • Last Post
3
Replies
59
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
7K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
27K
Top