The environment thread

[Chisoxfn]

Yeah, people in the UK who seem to be personally offended by this, as if it was US vs UK, can go f*** themselves. No one is upset at the UK as a country, hell a lot of people probably think its an American company. They are upset at BP, not B.

Well, I do think it is extreme for our country to tell a foreign country or begin speculation of what they can/can't do when it comes to dividends, etc. That really isn't our right, imo. However, outside of that I don't think Britain has any reason to get there panties in a bundle, outside of the fact that clearly them, just like many Americans (and New Jersey employees) have seen their retirement portfolio's take a significant hit due to the spill.

[StrangeSox]

Again, what came first, the chicken or the egg. In a capitalistic society, people are going to push the envelope to earn money and that is why oversight to an extent is necessary. Oversight in areas where the issues either impact national security, safety, etc, or when things are too big and will impact our very well being (see case of the banks....we were so close to going into Marshall Law 2 years ago and I don't think people quite realize just how close we were to complete and utter chaos).

 

You can't blame a lack of laws for a company behaving unethically. If there wasn't a law against murder, that wouldn't absolve the murderer from committing a moral and ethical violation. And, really, that's an indictment against our current form of win-at-all-costs captialism--it encourages the absolute worst behavior you can get away with.

 

Did BP fail, yes. Did the Gov fail, yes. Whats the freaking point here? I'm not saying BP didn't fail. I am saying they have responded pretty well and haven't been "cheap" in there response.

This fund withstanding, their response has been awful. They have absolutely no solution. No one does. And we shouldn't be drilling until we do.

 

Now maybe there is a terrible tone from the top down and the company flat out ignores laws/safety regulations/etc. I have no idea. I don't know what 95% necessarily means. Sure it sounds pretty terrible, but that might only be 10 issues, the hell if I know. The severity of those issues, I don't know.

It's eariler in the thread. Something like 750 OSHA violations versus one for Exxon and one for Shell.

 

Maybe you guys do, I don't know, but I'd assume most of that data isn't public knowledge.

 

It's available.

 

I do know that BP is handling claims pretty freaking well, is putting cash into the situation when it didn't necessarily have to and they seem to be responding well in many ways (not all...see how they kept the info so private at first).

 

They've been doing ok so far, but we're a long way from determining the true impact. We'll see what happens as the tens of billions climb.

 

And I'd like to think when you have a situation go wrong, you look at the many causes/effects. Sarbanes Oxley caused us to have massive controls in place to prevent massive financial frauds like Enron from happening again. I think most of it is stupid, but there are some good things about Sox (and some bad), but one of the key things is to actually have oversight on those controls.

 

Just cause you have controls, doesn't mean s*** if you aren't monitoring them and it would certainly appear that if BP was this safety disaster that you guys are claiming than the monitoring organization certainly f***ed the hell up too for not shutting them down.

 

Again, agreed, their was a complete lack of competent, independent oversight. MMS was full of problems and the industry pushed for and got lax regulations. That should be fixed, but that doesn't work with the conservative mantra of deregulation.

[Chisoxfn]

BP is not the only one doing this, they have a bunch of people from all the other companies working on it, and the government has enlisted a bunch of people from other countries to help out.

 

In 1979 it took 10 mos. to end the spill. This one is even deeper and worse. It appears relief wells are all that will stop it. Maybe we learned our lesson and the only law we'll pass after this won't be "Let's cap the pay the oil company would need to pay in case this ever happens again."

Yes, now we have other resources available. My issue is why did it take so long. Obama turned down assistance 3 days into the damn thing. We could have been doing what we are doing now by day 10, isntead it took till day 35 to 40 because we reached the capability to clean up the oils that we have now. We also allowed BP to act independently and keep information private and secure for way too long.

 

The reaction of our government was completely deplorable to this mess.

 

Yes, BP f***ed up, but I can't ignore the fact that our federal government perpetuated this entire disaster in a big way.

 

I also want to point out that the 1st relief well will probably fail. History shows that it typically takes a couple tries to get a relief well to work.

[StrangeSox]

Well, I do think it is extreme for our country to tell a foreign country or begin speculation of what they can/can't do when it comes to dividends, etc. That really isn't our right, imo. However, outside of that I don't think Britain has any reason to get there panties in a bundle, outside of the fact that clearly them, just like many Americans (and New Jersey employees) have seen their retirement portfolio's take a significant hit due to the spill.

 

Obama incorrectly called them "British Petroleum" several times, so they took that as a shot against Britain. That's where it started, and then the dividend talks came in.

[Jenksismyhero]

This isn't even wrong.

 

Getting BP to agree to a large fund voluntarily = Evil Socialist President usurping the court's role

 

Fining BP to get the right amount = A-okay!

 

The justice department failed in a case with drastically less impact to give fair and timely compensation.

 

 

 

For now. They could stop tomorrow or make unreasonable determinations as to what constitutes a valid claim. This offers independent oversight.

 

 

 

Britain's fake outrage is laughable. BP destroyed a good chunk of our coast and millions of people's way of life. They deserve all the scorn they get. And the company should lose money and investors should lose money over this.

 

What a shock that you're a liberal.

 

Gov't forces people to act (government saves!) versus Gov't making people pay for failing to act (boo! not enough!)

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah, people in the UK who seem to be personally offended by this, as if it was US vs UK, can go f*** themselves. No one is upset at the UK as a country, hell a lot of people probably think its an American company. They are upset at BP, not B.

 

For now, maybe, until they see the smaller checks coming in. And it's still a "home country." Call it the AJ Rule. He's a prick, but you love him because he's on your team and you defened him anyway. Same thing here. That's "their" company, and they don't like it when other countries bash them. I would suspect our country would respond in the same way.

[bmags]

Yeah, i expect if Exxon had destroyed the english countryside (which still isn't even comparable to the amount of tourist dollars and fishing that we'll lose) I'm sure so many Americans would be like "Hey! Lay off exxon!"

[Rex Kickass]

Technically, BP could have sat back, told the US gov to f*** off, and went to court. They didn't have to put down 20B of there own money in this mess. Sure they f***ed up and acted negligently and ignored warnings signs but just because something happened at one location in the entire world, doesn't necessarily mean BP is a crappy company and that upper management is full of dumbasses, etc. BP is a good, incredibly successful company that made a mistake.

And the US could have easily responded by invalidating every permit and contract that BP has with the US, which consists of a huge chunk of the oil they extract and sell. The US has BP over a barrel here, actually.

[StrangeSox]

What a shock that you're a liberal.

 

Gov't forces people to act (government saves!) versus Gov't making people pay for failing to act (boo! not enough!)

 

What a shock that you still haven't made a coherent argument.

 

Why is it ok to fine them $20B but its so wrong to have them set up a $20B account with oversight?

 

edit: functionally, what is the difference between the two? end result, what is the difference? why are you so upset about Obama getting BP to agree to this escrow account, and why is fining them so preferable? Why is BP setting up an escrow account to pay for the massive damages they caused a liberal position? What happened to conservatives always bleating on about accountability for actions?

Edited June 17, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

What a shock that you still haven't made a coherent argument.

 

Why is it ok to fine them $20B but its so wrong to have them set up a $20B account with oversight?

 

edit: functionally, what is the difference between the two? end result, what is the difference? why are you so upset about Obama getting BP to agree to this escrow account, and why is fining them so preferable? Why is BP setting up an escrow account to pay for the massive damages they caused a liberal position? What happened to conservatives always bleating on about accountability for actions?

 

There's a difference because government shouldn't be in the role of telling companies how to go about paying their liabilities (claims) BEFORE they do something to warrant the liability. We all now BP f***ed up and is responsible, but it's not the executive's role to tell them they HAVE to set up a special account just to pay out claims. They should be able to pay out the claims however they see fit. Where does Obama get the right to tell them "set 20 billion aside RIGHT NOW?"

 

The government should only get involved in that way when BP acts against the law. If they fail to fully compensate people (as determined by our JUDICIAL system) THEN you can fine them. It's government only responding when it HAS to, not because it CAN. You seem to assume that either way, BP is "fined" by the government for 20 billion.

 

And I get that all Obama is doing is asking for an escrow account, but I think there are better ways to go about this. Pass a legislation that requires they keep X amount of profit available for potential payments. Who knows. There's a million other things they can do than to, yet again, usurp any idea of individual commercial rights and just tell them what to do.

 

Maybe i'm not explaining it very well. But to me there's a clear difference in the government preemptively demanding this, and waiting until BP shows that it won't do it before levying a fine or some other penalty.

 

Edit: that first sentence doesn't sound right. I mean to say that the government shouldn't tell a business how to go about paying their claims. The company has its resources set up as they want it. They'll pay it when they need to pay it according to the law. Only after they show that they're not following the law should the government step in and demand a fine or other penalty.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[BigSqwert]

There's a difference because government shouldn't be in the role of telling companies how to go about paying their liabilities (claims) BEFORE they do something to warrant the liability. We all now BP f***ed up and is responsible, but it's not the executive's role to tell them they HAVE to set up a special account just to pay out claims. They should be able to pay out the claims however they see fit. Where does Obama get the right to tell them "set 20 billion aside RIGHT NOW?"

 

The government should only get involved in that way when BP acts against the law. If they fail to fully compensate people (as determined by our JUDICIAL system) THEN you can fine them. It's government only responding when it HAS to, not because it CAN. You seem to assume that either way, BP is "fined" by the government for 20 billion.

 

And I get that all Obama is doing is asking for an escrow account, but I think there are better ways to go about this. Pass a legislation that requires they keep X amount of profit available for potential payments. Who knows. There's a million other things they can do than to, yet again, usurp any idea of individual commercial rights and just tell them what to do.

 

Maybe i'm not explaining it very well. But to me there's a clear difference in the government preemptively demanding this, and waiting until BP shows that it won't do it before levying a fine or some other penalty.

 

What the hell are you even arguing about? You're upset about this escrow thing??! Why? Is your uncle the CEO?

 

[StrangeSox]

There's a difference because government shouldn't be in the role of telling companies how to go about paying their liabilities (claims) BEFORE they do something to warrant the liability. We all now BP f***ed up and is responsible, but it's not the executive's role to tell them they HAVE to set up a special account just to pay out claims. They should be able to pay out the claims however they see fit. Where does Obama get the right to tell them "set 20 billion aside RIGHT NOW?"

 

The government should only get involved in that way when BP acts against the law. If they fail to fully compensate people (as determined by our JUDICIAL system) THEN you can fine them. It's government only responding when it HAS to, not because it CAN. You seem to assume that either way, BP is "fined" by the government for 20 billion.

 

And I get that all Obama is doing is asking for an escrow account, but I think there are better ways to go about this. Pass a legislation that requires they keep X amount of profit available for potential payments. Who knows. There's a million other things they can do than to, yet again, usurp any idea of individual commercial rights and just tell them what to do.

 

Maybe i'm not explaining it very well. But to me there's a clear difference in the government preemptively demanding this, and waiting until BP shows that it won't do it before levying a fine or some other penalty.

 

Edit: that first sentence doesn't sound right. I mean to say that the government shouldn't tell a business how to go about paying their claims. The company has its resources set up as they want it. They'll pay it when they need to pay it according to the law. Only after they show that they're not following the law should the government step in and demand a fine or other penalty.

 

Every time things have been allowed to go that way, the victims get royally f***ed. Exxon-Valdez, Bhopal, etc. It never ends with just and timely compensation, especially if it gets dragged into courts. BP agreeing to an escrow account with independent administration seems like the perfect way to handle this. There is no reason to trust BP at this point to pay all legitimate claims fully and in a timely manner, and so the government has a vested interest in telling a private corporation how it needs to compensate its citizens. We shouldn't wait until they start screwing around to come back and punish them; that's how you end up with millions of gallons of oil in your fisheries and on your beaches. Preemption is a good thing.

 

What are the options besides "wait until BP starts dicking around and drag it through the courts for 20 years" or "have BP set up a fund"? This isn't a fine or a penalty. It's not a punishment. It's establishing a fund to ensure that the millions of victims are adequately compensated for the damage BP has caused. Waiting decades for court decisions doesn't work. Trying to get this Congress to pass any sort of retroactive legislation is going to meet road blocks from Burton, Bachmann and others.

 

[Chisoxfn]

And the US could have easily responded by invalidating every permit and contract that BP has with the US, which consists of a huge chunk of the oil they extract and sell. The US has BP over a barrel here, actually.

Indeed they could and I don't necessarily have a problem with that if that is how our courts decide to punish them.

[Jenksismyhero]

Every time things have been allowed to go that way, the victims get royally f***ed. Exxon-Valdez, Bhopal, etc. It never ends with just and timely compensation, especially if it gets dragged into courts. BP agreeing to an escrow account with independent administration seems like the perfect way to handle this. There is no reason to trust BP at this point to pay all legitimate claims fully and in a timely manner, and so the government has a vested interest in telling a private corporation how it needs to compensate its citizens. We shouldn't wait until they start screwing around to come back and punish them; that's how you end up with millions of gallons of oil in your fisheries and on your beaches. Preemption is a good thing.

 

What are the options besides "wait until BP starts dicking around and drag it through the courts for 20 years" or "have BP set up a fund"? This isn't a fine or a penalty. It's not a punishment. It's establishing a fund to ensure that the millions of victims are adequately compensated for the damage BP has caused. Waiting decades for court decisions doesn't work. Trying to get this Congress to pass any sort of retroactive legislation is going to meet road blocks from Burton, Bachmann and others.

 

Based on what? The fact that they have already set up a claim service and have paid hundreds of millions to people? Yep. Totally dicking everyone around.

[Jenksismyhero]

What the hell are you even arguing about? You're upset about this escrow thing??! Why? Is your uncle the CEO?

 

Because I think its yet another step the executive has taken to control more of government, and another step government has taken to control private industry. I'm fine with it when there is no other remedy, but here BP has done nothing wrong yet but they're already forced to come up with 20 billion to set aside. It's the principle of the thing. I'm not defending them, I'm not saying they don't owe anyone anything, I'm just saying it's crap that Obama can say "give me 20 billion and WE'LL be the ones to pay it out." (and decide who gets what and when)

Edited June 17, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Rex Kickass]

Indeed they could and I don't necessarily have a problem with that if that is how our courts decide to punish them.

Disbarment wouldn't be a court process.

[Rex Kickass]

Because I think its yet another step the executive has taken to control more of government, and another step government has taken to control private industry. I'm fine with it when there is no other remedy, but here BP has done nothing wrong yet but they're already forced to come up with 20 billion to set aside. It's the principle of the thing. I'm not defending them, I'm not saying they don't owe anyone anything, I'm just saying it's crap that Obama can say "give me 20 billion and WE'LL be the ones to pay it out." (and decide who gets what and when)

 

Actually, if anything - judging from Obama's comments about BP after the meeting, the federal government offered BP crucial cover for themselves as a corporation. The reason that this got agreed to so quickly is that it was PR for Obama and it was PR for BP. They basically said that they would pay these claims anyway, all they did was agree to put the money in escrow so that its there for people when BP gets taken over by another company by the end of the year and the BP name disappears.

[NorthSideSox72]

Disbarment wouldn't be a court process.

You mean debarment. Disbarment is a different legal term.

 

[Rex Kickass]

You mean debarment. Disbarment is a different legal term.

 

Yes that.

[lostfan]

ZOMG! People questioning Jesus II! Oh the humanity!

 

I know you think Obama is the greatest thing ever, but he doesn't (and shouldn't) be putting himself in that kind of a position. It's ridiculous. We have this thing called a court system that already plays a role in what he's proposing and has for quite some time.

FYI, this is one of those intentionally annoying over-the-top posts that's specifically written as an "I will not do this" example in the "You must read" thread. I saw that you were not pleased with the responses you got to this post. That's why. I'm not saying this post is suspension-worthy, but there is a right way to post and a wrong way to post.

[lostfan]

So, after demanding that Obama commandeer boats from private owners, Bachmann is back to whining about Big Government and "redistribution of wealth." Yes, that wealth is and should be redistributed to those harmed by BP's massive f***ups, you moron.

Well no s*** it's a redistribution of wealth... if I bust the windows out of your car and I am responsible for the costs to repair it, I'm "redistributing" my "wealth" back to you because I f***ed up your windshield and it's my fault.

 

I wonder who is responsible for reminding her to breathe?

[CrimsonWeltall]

I wonder who is responsible for reminding her to breathe?

 

The same people who run her organization that takes taxpayer subsidies?

 

[kapkomet]

Well, go ahead and defend it. You've flailed miserably so far.

 

 

I'll make this really simple for you, but you won't get it because you all are getting off on the control of the constutution here.

 

Since when does the executive have the power to legislate, arbitrate, and judge (aka, otherwise rape our constutition)? It's pretty simple, really.

 

The courts have jurisdiction over this and have for over 200 years. Now you all run around and scream about Exxon Valdez and how it took too long and BP needs to PAY PAY PAY NOW NOW NOW.

 

If you don't like that, AMEND the constitution, don't just piss all over it because it doesn't say what you want it to. THAT'S how you change it, you don't just rip it to shreds when it doesn't serve your purpose like you all have condoned our dope of a president to do.

 

What you have done is allowed an egotistical maniac take over something for political gain. Oh, but you all won't see it that way. He's the Mess---- iah. He's using this for his political gain just like I said he would way back in this conversation. He let it go on purpose (NEGLIGENCE) to gain the power to negotiate yet another redistribution of wealth opportunity.

 

It's like taking candy from a baby with you people. You know what this egomaniac will do with every single "crisis" ... let it fester and then swoop in and "SAVE" everyone. Yet, you are making this asshat to be a hero, yet again, while he stomps on every constitutional firewall for his political gain.

[kapkomet]

Well no s*** it's a redistribution of wealth... if I bust the windows out of your car and I am responsible for the costs to repair it, I'm "redistributing" my "wealth" back to you because I f***ed up your windshield and it's my fault.

 

I wonder who is responsible for reminding her to breathe?

 

The difference is, you and that other person have a legal channel to address this issue, not the government entity itself stepping in to take the money and put it where it sees fit. (And before you say it, the fund sure as hell will not be "independant" in any way, shape, or form).

[kapkomet]

Actually, if anything - judging from Obama's comments about BP after the meeting, the federal government offered BP crucial cover for themselves as a corporation. The reason that this got agreed to so quickly is that it was PR for Obama and it was PR for BP. They basically said that they would pay these claims anyway, all they did was agree to put the money in escrow so that its there for people when BP gets taken over by another company by the end of the year and the BP name disappears.

 

 

Wrong. Obama threatened to completely shut these guys down if they didn't agree. They had no choice, and it wasn't about a way out. It was about survival as a corporation.