TomCADem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-29-10 12:10 PM
Original message |
The Question The Media Won't Touch - Should The Federal Govt Have The Assets To Stop A Leak? |
|
President Obama floated this proposal during his press conference. Right now, all of the assets for fighting oil leaks resides in the private sector, and oil companies are responsible for contracting for and using such assets to combat such disasters. The federal government does not have such assets operating under a federal agency. President Obama floated the idea of requiring oil companies to pay a fee to an agency with the assets and expertise to respond to such incidents.
Of course, no one is covering this proposal or really suggesting that the federal government should have the assets and expertise to combat oil spills. The criticism is raised that the federal government should be doing more, but there is no movement to enable to the federal government to do more to regulate the oil companies. Heck, the Republicans have been successfully blocking any effort to raise liability cap for oil spills, and the media is refusing to cover this.
Coincidence? The result of millions in PR by oil companies?
Does the media have an agenda to protect private industry from regulation, thus by focusing on the actions of the federal government, which has limited assets to combat the leak, we are ironically taking responsibility off of BP, which is supposed to have the assets and responsibility to combat the leak. Worse, we ensure that the oil companies continue to be in charge of future disasters, because there is no effort to give the federal government the assets to directly take over and combat such spills.
|
CoffeeCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-29-10 12:19 PM
Response to Original message |
1. The damn oil companies damn well should! |
|
This is what makes me so angry. The oil companies insist on deep-water drilling. Ok, fine. Do deep-water drilling, but have safety and emergency plans IN PLACE in the event of a catastrophe.
But no. These BP greedmongers wined and dined our politicians and contributed to their campaigns---so they wouldn't have to spend money on safety or the equipment/technology necessary to fix a big leak like we're seeing now.
They purchased, from our government, the freedom to operate recklessly and unsafely---so they could increase profit.
It's BP's responsibility to own that equipment/technology, but it is our federal government's job to ensure that companies like BP are regulated and following basic safety measures--so our entire planet isn't wrecked.
Our government failed. BP failed. But this dance between the politicians and the corporations has been happening for years--and has really ramped up in the past decade. Expect more disasters, life-threatening catastrophes and other crises that will kill people--because big pharma, the health-insurance industry, Wall Street, big agriculture, the banks and big oil purchased the freedom to do whatever the hell they want--regardless of the consequences.
The big banks imploded the housing market and the economy under this Fascist paradigm. We shouldn't be all that surprised that big oil is now imploding the planet.
What's the next implosion? Anyone want to guess?
|
John Q. Citizen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-29-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. Corporations are required by law to maximize profit at the expense of all other considerations. |
|
It is a fantasy to believe a corporation will "Do deep-water drilling, but have safety and emergency plans IN PLACE in the event of a catastrophe."
Their (BP) job is to minimize liability in case of a catastrophe; Their job is to NOT come to the rescue of non-stockholders.
We need a government that can break BP, if and when necessary. We need a government that is bigger and stronger and more capable than BP. That can supplant BP if and when necessary. There is no other reason to have a government. Since it is the government's job to protect our people and our environment. That just ain't BP's job, and trying to give it to them won't make it so unless we are in a position to dissolve BP and move forward without them should it become necessary.
When and if BP fucks up, they should already know that the government is quite capable of acting with or without them.
|
EFerrari
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-29-10 12:24 PM
Response to Original message |
2. It's too bad the first thought is for us to plan for future disasters |
|
instead of putting the effing ban back in place and for real.
|
obxhead
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-29-10 03:14 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Let the oil companies own the assets. |
|
We should have hard and firm regulations and policies to first, prevent these disasters in the first place, and second, when a spill happens the Government instantly seizes all of the assets available.
Although I think the best policy would be one that gets us away from oil once and for all, regardless of the cost in dollars.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 10:44 PM
Response to Original message |