Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGame
Do you think the government is doing the right thing by allowing BP to try to block and clean up the spill?
|
It seems to me like you might be framing this question somewhat inappropriately. The government isn't really "allowing" BP to clean up the spill... even without government pressure, it is quite likely BP would be devoting the same amount and quality of resources to clean up the spill. It is in their best interest to do this. Now, when we begin to talk about BP paying for indirect damages from the spill (such as a fisherman's lost wages) this becomes a different story.
There is a little known law (akin to the
Price-Anderson Act for nuclear power plants), whose name I now forget that essentially caps the amount that oil companies are liable for indirect damages in the event of an oil spill from deep-sea drilling. It is a federal law (as is Price-Anderson), and has a similar intent: to encourage companies to drill for oil off-shore. Why does the government do this? Because no company wants to potentially incur infinite indirect liability in the event of a catastrophe (i.e. this oil spill) - and we need oil.
My point in bringing up this somewhat obscure law is that the federal government and BP are both somewhat culpable in this whole mess. Did BP cut corners? Probably. Was BP encouraged by the federal government to pursue such extreme measures to drill for oil with the backing of capped indirect liability? Certainly.