The British Petroleum (BP) oil spill on April 20 reignited the decades-old controversy over offshore drilling — controversy that was brought home last month by President Obama’s proposal to open up offshore drilling in the Gulf Coast and off the shores of Alaska. It is rather ironic that within a month after offshore drilling was proposed by the White House as a solution to our dependence on foreign oil, one of the major fears of environmentalists, oil spills, should be realized. There are few novelists who could get away with such irony in a serious work of fiction.
The first major oil spill to spur action on the part of environmentalists was in 1969 off the coast of Santa Barbara. The oil spill released 200,000 gallons of oil in 11 days, ruining 35 miles of coastline. According to a report on the spill made public by University of California, Santa Barbara’s geology department, 3,686 birds were killed as a result of the spill. Even after being treated, they only had a 30 percent survival rate. Dolphins and seals also washed ashore dead.
The report states that because of this oil spill, Earth Day was created, and many consider this spill to be the “impetus to the environmental movement.” I mention this because the failures that caused the 1969 oil spill are similar those in the recent BP oil spill. And I think the similarities of the causes of the spills will illuminate the path to the future of oil drilling — evil as it is, I see oil drilling as a reality due to the lack of imagination and greediness of our society.
According to UCSB’s report, “Union Oil’s Platform A ruptured because of inadequate protective casing. The oil company had been given permission by the U.S. Geological Survey to cut corners and operate the platform with casings below federal and California standards. Investigators would later determine that more steel pipe sheathing inside the drilling hole would have prevented the rupture.”
The causes of the April 20 BP oil spill are emerging, but BP, like Union Oil Co. in 1969, cut corners in its safety measures, operating below the standards for oil drilling in countries like Brazil and Norway. BP chose not to install an acoustic remote-control device, which would shut down the rig in emergencies, primarily because of the cost of the device.
Yet the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority suggests it has been a necessary component to its safe drilling practices. According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Inger Anda, a spokeswoman for the safety authority, said that the safety device has “been seen as the most successful and effective option.”
The U.S. government does not require that oil companies purchase this emergency device because they believe more research should be done and it costs too much for oil companies. I find the arguments against such regulations to be offensive — and hard to believe — given that oil companies are among the most lucrative businesses in the world. It’s interesting that BP itself was a major opponent to the new regulation.
The Wall Street Journal reports that oil industry critics have suggested that the problem with U.S. oil companies is that their standards are simply too lax — much like Union Oil’s standards in 1969. A more serious concern is that the oil companies control, at least to some extent, the amount of regulation that the government enforces, a very serious allegation. Spokesman for Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla), Dan McLaughlin, told the WSJ, “What we see, going back two decades, is an oil industry that has had way too much sway with federal regulations.”
It seems as though the debate over large businesses and government regulation has permeated the discourse in American politics in this decade. From financial institutions, to the health care industry and now the oil industry, regulation has been the topic of debate.
When we look at the historical example in the Santa Barbara oil spill and see that today the same problems of a lack of self-regulation and relaxed standards still exist and result in massive oil spills that harm our wildlife and environment, I think it is only logical to propose that the government step in and impose severe regulations on oil companies to prevent environmental disasters.
The reality of our world is that companies act in their own self-interests. Why should they pay extra for a device that would prevent a disaster when they operate under the pretense that everything will work properly — as BP did before April 20? That was their own logic, and it is the kind of negligent, leeching attitude that government must correct by enforcing that all oil companies purchase acoustic remote-control devices in order to prevent disasters related to oil spills and protect the environment. The cost of not doing so is greater than all other costs.
Stephanie, do you believe in capitalism? Do you believe in a free market economy?
well when you put it that way
Aaron, it seems as though you are coming from a presumption that the socially acceptable and traditionally government-supported economic system of free market capitalism is the best economic system. I do not operate under that presumption–nor do I come from the perspective that socialism is the answer to our problems.
I simply can’t support free market capitalism as the best economic system, because history has shown that it creates wealth for the wealthiest and exploits the poorest. Why? Because businesses and human beings act in their own self-interests. One needs look no further than Enron and Goldman Sachs. That said, I will always support compromise before I support any one economic system. Our Constitution was based on compromise. The Bill of Rights is a key historical example of compromise at its finest. I agree with John Maynard Keynes when he said, “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”
The core principle driving my opinions concerning regulation is that regulation is necessary to protect the interests of the greater good of society. Corporations and businesses should not be able to exploit or harm workers, wildlife, the environment, or the consumer for their own self-interests and profit. The only conglomeration of people powerful enough and massive enough to enforce such regulations is the US government.
Do you believe that free market capitalism is the chief economic system and that all others have no value?
Stephanie,
Since I just spent way to long refuting your entire column, I’ll be brief in my criticism in your failed logic here.
Lets just compare two countries on the opposite extremes in our present day, Cuba and the US. We are separated by barely 100 miles and yet our poorest citizens live a life of luxury compared to Cuba’s middle-class and have the freedom to progress in our society to a much higher status.
Because we live in a free country, companies cannot “exploit” workers. When was the last time you heard of a friend being exploited by their company? It can’t happen because in free markets, labor will not exist for companies that do not pay a competitive wage/ acceptable standards to its employees.
Free market capitalism is the chief economic system and all other have far less value. Just take a look is your history book at Cuba, North Korea, China, Iran, East Germany, For gosh sake, just compare East Germany to West Germany and you will see the difference free enterprise makes.
Your examples are irrelevant, because I didn’t advocate for socialism in my statement above. I refuse to believe if I don’t choose capitalism, I support socialism. If you think that this government ran based on free market capitalism only at any time from 1930 to the present, you are sadly uneducated for being a Cal Poly student. That’s an ethereal idea that conservatives and libertarians have latched onto, without any historical fact of it working in a modern economy. Our country has balanced free market capitalism with government regulation and welfare programs for the past 80+ years, which is sufficient justification for the belief that free market capitalism alone just doesn’t do the trick. You need a balance. I take it a step further and say that when the economy is down, the government needs to spend more in order to jump start the economy; when the economy is up, it can afford to spend less. That’s Keynesianism. Not socialism. I also believe the government should step in and regulate when business fails to do so for itself to the detriment of society. That’s not socialism either. Socialism is a complete government annexation of property and control over business and prices.
Wow, I’m somewhat surprised you didn’t address anything I mentioned considering you’re usually pretty good at responding.
My examples were not between capitalism and socialism because, as your mention, America isn’t a purely capitalist country. My examples were meant to showcase the difference between centrally planned economies and economies based more on free market principles. When one examines the level of capitalism various countries allow, one will see a strong correlation between the quality of life and amount of capitalism in a society. Capitalism equates to freedom, hence the term “free market.”
America (although not entirely free) is on the opposite end of the spectrum from Cuba. I would argue we need to keep moving away from Cuba, not closer.
Why didn’t you address your incorrect usage of “exploit” and whether or not you knew an exploited worker?
Furthermore, I never once mentioned government expenditures as socialism. Your poor understanding of John Keynes is forgivable given your expertise in English, yet it is not constructive.
Government spending during periods of economic distress does have some merit, however, the all spending must be eventually paid for which means that our future utility will be diminished to pay for our present day expenditures. Is this economically feasible? Yes. But it relies on the assumption that government will save money when times are good to spend when times are bad and that government bureaucrats have the wisdom to spend enough to smooth out recessions while not creating inflationary pressure. Government has not met either of these assumptions.
Wal-Mart is a good example. Companies like Wal-Mart exploit their workers by not offering them a living wage. This is different than minimum wage. Companies like Wal-Mart also work people just below full time so that they do not have to pay for their health care and benefits. Wal-Mart does this; yet it still exists. Doesn’t this shoot a hole in your argument?
http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/wages.html
By the way, Wal-Mart is an American establishment that DOES, in fact, exploit the world’s poorest workforces. I think it’s actually a good example of John Maynard Keynes’ quote, “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”
So now Walmart is evil for offering people a lower wage than you deem appropriate? This is the same arrogance displayed by most politicians…that they know what is best for us.
You know how I know you’re wrong on this, Stephanie? If the employees at Walmart did not want to work there for the wages Walmart offered, they could quit or not work there in the first place. If Walmart consequentially couldn’t meet their labor demands they would raise their wages to attract more employees….thats how the market works.
You should check your definition of “exploit” because exploitation does not apply to willing parties. Last I checked, Walmart employees were free to leave their position or decline employment in the first place.
I’m surprised being an English major you wouldn’t know what “exploit” means.
Stephanie,
I firmly believe in free market capitalism.
I’m not sure what you mean by “traditionally government-supported economic system of free market capitalism” as that seems to be an oxymoron unless the government support you are referring to is the enforcement of contracts. I do think that’s a proper role of government in a free market economy, but that’s about the only role I see.
I’m glad we agree that socialism isn’t the answer to our problems.
I don’t think history shows that free market capitalism “creates wealth for the wealthiest and exploits the poorest”. You say “one needs look no further than Enron and Goldman Sachs” so let’s look at those. Both were not in a free market capitalistic economy. Both were heavily regulated by the government and yet both are indeed examples of bad companies. While it is tempting to say that without the government regulations they would have been even worse companies, I disagree with that idea and in fact believe the opposite. I think when the government gives the illusion of regulating something (like the SEC, who’s actually looking at porn a good deal of time it seems) people tend to trust that the companies are sound.
For example, are you worried about your bank deposits, or do you know that your account is FDIC insured for $100,000 and therefore not really care about how sound your bank is? Why bother shopping around for a solid bank when you have the FDIC backing your deposits?
All too often we think the regulators are out to protect us, when in fact they’re incompetent (at best). As a perfect example, the SEC was tipped off about Madoff’s scheme long before it came crashing down.
It’s one thing to agree with a quote from Keynes, but if you believe in Keynesianism, then I can see why you’d believe in a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Keynesianism is wrong though. As a piece of evidence against Keynesianism, before the housing crisis it was the people who follow the Austrian School of Economics that predicted it and saw it coming well in advance, while the Keynesians were blind to it and thought the fundamentals were “very strong” as Bernanke once put it. There’s a video on YouTube called “Bernanke was wrong” and it is representative of the Keynesian sentiment leading up to the housing crisis. They don’t understand how the economy works and they are the people who argue for government regulation and intervention into the economy.
In regards to people acting in their own self-interests consider this question: “do we want to help others because of the satisfaction we get out of it, or do we get the satisfaction because we want to help others?”
I don’t understand how corporations and businesses can “exploit” workers if business is voluntary. Economic transactions are a two way street, with usually money being exchanged for a good or service. I don’t see how there can be exploitation in voluntary contracts. Or is it that people need protection from themselves (as perhaps you believe to be the case for prostitution)?
As far as wildlife and the environment goes, I do think these are important subjects. I’ve noticed lately that sustainability seems to be an important subject for consumers, and businesses seem to be adjusting on their own. Grocery stores are selling reusable bags, car companies are offering more and more hybrids, etc. This is often driven by consumer demand.
I do not believe that all other economic systems besides free market capitalism have “no value”, although I think they only have value in so far as we can learn from them by comparing them to free market capitalism and for me it helps me understand why free market capitalism is the best economic system.
You seem to champion the idea of compromise and I agree that in many situations compromising is the best route to take, but there are certain things where you don’t want to be compromising. I think economic structure is one of those areas – and bear in mind that the possible outcomes from a free market economy are infinite. I don’t think believing solely in free market capitalism for an economic structure is narrow minded. I also don’t think compromising just for the sake of compromising is what we want to be shooting for.
I appreciate you being willing to discuss your broader economic ideas. I considered responding directly to parts of your article, but I figure it makes more sense to have this sort of higher level, philosophical discussion, before diving into the specifics of oil company regulations, etc.
Excerpt
“The liability for environmental damage should be 100% at least. Such a system would match a company’s policies to the actual risk of doing damage. Lower limits would inspire companies to be less concerned about damage to others than they should be, in the same way that a company with a bailout guarantee faces a moral hazard to be less efficient than it would be in a free market.”
Read more: Feel Sorry for BP? – Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. – Mises Institute http://mises.org/daily/4331#ixzz0n8Kvgiul
Stephanie,
Once again, without failure, you assert your own short-sighted logic into matters which you know nothing about, ie how the free-market works. I would like to point out the fallacies in your arguments in the order they occurred in your column.
#1 “evil as it is, I see oil drilling as a reality due to the lack of imagination and greediness of our society.” – Why is drilling for oil evil? The oil industry powers the vast majority of all vehicles; cars, airplanes, boats, etc, at an affordable price to consumers. If you believe oil is evil because it leads to an increase in CO2 emissions then are you evil for breathing? Are wind turbines evil because they kill hundreds of birds each year? Is oil evil because it is black? Doesn’t that make you racist?
I’m curious to know if you consider yourself part of society and would put your name under the column of “unimaginative and greedy?” If you are SO disappointed in everyone else for not coming up with a magic bullet that meets your energy standards, then why don’t you? Most liberals like to talk about “needing” a new energy supply yet are never willing to create it themselves.
#2 “given that oil companies are among the most lucrative businesses in the world…” They are not lucrative because they are gouging consumers, Stephanie. They are lucrative because the size and scope of their industry is enormous. What do you think the oil industry’s profit margin averages? Would you be shocked to know it is below average of the S&P 500 companies? Would you be shocked to know that the government makes more money off each gallon of gas sold than Exxon and BP combined? Isn’t it weird the oil companies invest billions in research and equipment, extract oil from depths of thousands of feet below the ocean and hundreds of miles out to see, ship the oil back to shore, refine the oil into gasoline, distribute the gasoline all across the world, and yet the government “profits” more than they do? In case you were wondering, oil companies profit 8-9 cents on each dollar of sale yet the government (State and Local) profit between 34 and 60 cents per gallon.
#3 “The reality of our world is that companies act in their own self-interests. ” This is the one point you got right, yet you and most liberals, fail to extrapolate this into why the markets work. BP wants to make a profit. BP (unlike the government) only makes money when they provide a good, in this case oil, that people are willing to pay for (they can’t force consumers to buy it, unlike the government). Since BP needs oil in order to fulfill their own self-interest they will do their best to ensure that the oil they extract makes it into our cars because if it doesn’t they wont make a profit and will then be out of business. All of the oil leaking into the gulf is money they are not making and they would much rather have that oil in a refinery than floating in the ocean. You see, because they can’t make money if the oil is floating around the ocean, they will do what is necessary to ensure it doesn’t happen.
In conclusion: Profit is not evil. Without profit, there would be no food on your plate, no clothes on your back, no fuel for your car that wouldn’t exists anyways, production would come to a halt. With profit, companies have an incentive to provide you with the best quality of products at the cheapest prices. Do you think Apple made the i-pod out of the goodness of their heart? No, they made it so they could sell it for a profit which happen to be at a higher rate than most oil companies…..oooh so evil. You are free to develop your own source of energy that is not evil and does not make a profit anytime you want; I’ll check back next week and see what you’ve come up with.
Government tends to be more lucrative than any business in the world especially considering they make money by taking ours; now thats a high profit margin. A few signatures on a few pieces of paper and all of the sudden they make 3 trillion dollars per year….I wish I could invest in that.
If everyone acted in their own self-interest we would all be better off. Think about it. Its in our own self-interest to be smart, healthy, productive, etc. Thats why you’re in school right? So you can become smarter, is that evil? Since it is in BP’s self-interest to provide us with oil and not pollute the ocean I trust them more than anyone else to do that. Especially when you consider that the rig that exploded cost nearly 500 million to build, they already had enough of a reason to make sure it was safe without additional regulations which will only add to the price at the pump.
I’d like to hear your definition of profit.
Jorge,
In simplistic terms, profit is the positive difference between revenue and expenses.
I used the term liberally when applying it to government since government makes money regardless if they provide us with a service.
We have the technology to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil; we just have to make the technology cheap enough in order to make it affordable for the average customer. I think oil drilling in the ocean is a reality; I propose the emergency devices so the ocean isn’t polluted! If you dismiss the affect drilling in the ocean has on wildlife and our environment, then I don’t know what to tell you. Many of your statements just dwindle into absurdity. I obviously don’t think oil is evil because it’s black, and there’s a difference between breathing out CO2 and carbon emissions. Since many of the rest of your comments are absurd, I don’t believe that I have the obligation to respond. My readers are intelligent enough to figure things out for themselves. The only conclusion I can come to is that we fundamentally disagree on politics, Richard.
“we just have to make the technology cheap enough” then by all means start doing it. Green technology at this point in time however, is not nearly as affordable as oil, coal, etc.
Protecting the environment is great and I’m all for it. You say we need regulations to keep the oil from flowing into the ocean and I just pointed out that oil companies don’t want that to happen in the first place because it isnt in their interest.
CO2 is CO2 regardless of where it comes from, Chem 101 shouldve taught you that.
I appreciate your willingness to respond to your readers but feel somewhat disrespected that you view my comments as “irrelevant” given how thoroughly and thoughtfully I addressed all of your points I disagreed with. If you dont want to take the time, thats perfectly understandable, but to write them all of as irrelevant shows how close-minded you are.
Richard- You are one sharp dude.
Post under your own name.
Richard,
Here are my responses to your numbered comments:
#1 Humans, including liberals, have come up with renewable energy technologies necessary to displace fossil fuels and are ready to be expanded throughout the world. We don’t “need” to come up with them anymore, we just need to grow this industries and implement the technologies faster. The fossil fuel and other related industries are trying to block this by things such as CA Prop 16. Oil itself is not evil. Drilling oil is not evil. Investing in oil drilling when we all know what its consequences are.. well.. I’ll let you decide.
#2 If you think that oil companies don’t make much, explain this: According to Forbes 500 the top profit-making companies in 2009 were: (1)Royal Dutch Shell, (2)Exxon Mobil, (4)BP, (5)Chevron, (6)Total, (7)ConocoPhillips, (8)Sinopec, and (9)Toyota Motor. The most profitable industry: Mining, Crude-Oil Production (Return on Revenues #1 and Return on Assets #2). The most “most bang for your buck” industry: Petroleum Refining. Relationship amongst all? Fossil Fuels.
#3 “You see, because they can’t make money if the oil is floating around the ocean, they will do what is necessary to ensure it doesn’t happen.” What are they trying to ensure? I don’t know what you mean by “it”. By acting in their own self-interest (trying to increase their profit) BP went around regulations, implemented a flawed design and kaboom. We all know what happened after.
I agree with you about profit not being evil. I think the conscious act of accumulation of profit or money becomes a problem when people get caught up in this accumulation and forget about how it was created (and I’m not talking about physical creation of bills or coins). When a disconnection exists regarding how a product was made, the conditions where the labor took place, the consequences of a product, etc, when these lines are smudged, this is when you have people acting as if they were not tied to anything else forgetting that they DO indeed depend upon others to survive, living and nonliving things.
Obviously BP forgot (or ignored) the rest of us and concentrated on their own consumers (to provide energy) and their investors (to provide profits) and the spill is what happened. It seems to me that BP was blinded by their own self-interest to accumulate profit/money and now it might cost them a lot more than anything that they could’ve anticipated.
Don’t forget to vote NO on Prop 16 on June 8th.
British Petroleum? What happened to Beyond Petroleum?!
I think Stephanie you are moving a bit off the point.
First, this should really be a discussion about your premise that more regulation is the answer to the prevention of future oil spills. You fail to address what are the potential economic and social impacts of such decision now and in the future?
Secondly, it is clear that you imply that the potential social and environmental costs of an oil spill are greater than any possible economic benefit gained in acquiring petroleum… but that is clearly short sighted. Maybe you think increased tourism is the answer to economic shortfalls? BTW, that particular solution hasn’t worked all that well for Greece.
Thirdly, you discuss American economic history post 1930, why is that? The 1920’s, contrary to the boom and bust rhetoric of revisionist historians, was a period of amazing achievement and prosperity. There is plenty of evidence that this all ended with restrictive legislation enacted in the mid to late 1920’s. This is another story.
Finally, you make disparaging remarks regarding others ‘education’ which is unfortunate… I would suggest you stick to the issues. You have the right to your opinions, but you are new to this planet, so I would suggest you temper these with observation and the solicitation of opinions not like your own.
Roger Freberg
Roger, imposing a governmental mandate–just as Norway and Brazil have–requiring oil companies to get this safety device is the “premise” of my article. If you read the last paragraph of my column you will understand the context for my final sentence: “The cost of not doing so is greater than all other costs.” I was clearly saying that the cost to the environment and wildlife by not requiring that these oil companies employ the safety device is more significant than the cost of the device to the oil companies.
I discuss American economic history post-1930 because that’s the era after the Great Depression, when Americans voted politicians like FDR into office, who imposed regulations on the private sector and implemented welfare programs, in an effort to preserve the capitalistic fabric of our country which failed in the 1920s. But, I venture to guess, we will get nowhere discussing this topic because you mention “revisionist historians”… If by “revisionist history” you actually mean “facts”, then we agree.
Finally, you’re right: I do have the right to my opinions. But as someone who is graduating this quarter, I take issue with the fact that you would imply that I am not qualified to give my opinion with some sense of authority. When am I qualified? When I agree with your opinions?
Roger, Aaron, Bill Bailey, you ignorant sluts for conservative capitalist ideology. You are the epitome of whats wrong with American Republicanism. You are the American Ferengi who lives for profit heartless to the consequences to human beings in your unholy quest for profit. Regulation is not put in place to inhibit corporations from making a profit, they are put in place to protect us from their unholy quest for profit. Kenneth Lay and Enron are perfect examples of unregulated greed. In pure free market capitalism logic the fact that Enron is no longer around is proof that free market capitalism works. But the flaw in that unholy logic is the innocent human beings suffer and are damaged by having lost everything because of the right wing conservative ideology of no regulation. Bernard Madoff’s ponzi scheme is another perfect example of an ideology that opposes regulation to the detriment of human beings. All the signs were there to stop Madoff but because of the policy of George W Bush and his abhorance of regulation of any kind thousands of people were ruined financially. Ronald Reagan started America on the path of no regulation for businesses and George W Bush finished America off, and indeed almost ruined the world economy because of it! That conservative right wing ideology forced on America by George W Bush almost sent the world into another great depression worst than the one in 1930. Only the cool heads of men like Barack Obama stayed that disaster from happening. Deregulaton does not work Roger, Aaron, Bill Bailey, you ignorant sluts for conservative capitalist ideology, it kills people and ruins the enviornment and it must be stopped.
Great column Stephanie! It and your comments to these silly capitalist geeks are right on! I wouldn’t give them another key stroke if I were you. Their brains are so damaged by drinking the right wing conservative kool-aid any further response would be throwing pearls before swine. CalPoly will not be the same without your columns!
Its funny how people attack the writer rather then attack the article. i find these people to be unitellectual. they have no idea what to say, so the say mean, slandorous things to try to dispute what is being said. simply put, more regulation is needed to assure that oil spills like this dont happen in the future. thats is period. thats what the article was talking about. but then you get people like good ol richard who tie black oil to being a rascist. LMAO!!! that shows the unimaginable intellect of those who think they are SMART, and can use big words. what i have to say to all of his post are “swish, nothing but net in the trash can.”
There is no sense in restating everything I have already said since it has not yet been refuted with anything more than name calling and being deemed “irrelevant.”
I simply believe in freedom. Our economy and our civil liberties have not been free for quite sometime and are being increasingly threatened by government officials both Rep and Dem.
I do not have the right to tell you how to live your life and you do not have the right to tell me how to live mine. This applies to both social and financial liberties.
You either believe in freedom or you do not.
And finally, for the record, I believe BP should pay for the cleanup. My argument was simply that creating a regulation to keep them from spilling is unnecessary because that incentive already exists in the form of profits, evil or not.
I am SICK of oil dominating our political and economic policies as it is ruining our government, environment, and well being. Isn’t this the perfect example of why we should NOT pursue offshore drilling and instead focus our efforts into renewable energies?! Think about it, we are at WAR for cheap oil, ruining countries all around the world so that we have cheap oil just so that we can drive downtown instead of riding our bikes. The only reason it is cheap is because companies like BP bypass any environmental regulation they can and then try to pay as little damages as possible. Our government is too afraid to do anything harsh to oil companies because they dominate political contributions. They are only listening to their self interest, while totally ignoring those of the citizens. I think this is Obama’s first test in siding with the corporations or the American public. If he fails to hold BP accountable for what they have done then I will be severely disappointed…
I agree, Sean. I hope that Congress passes the law requiring BP to pay for $10B worth of clean up, not just the $75 million that they’re currently required by law to pay. I also definitely agree that we should pursue renewable energy, especially with regard to reducing carbon emissions.
Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want any retro-active laws.
Richard: grab the reigns man, before you start to cry. Some of your points are valid; some are not. What is ridiculous is the way you obviously have such a jones for getting after Ms. England. MUST you deliberately cherry-pick only the fragments of her commentary that seem to anger you so intensely, rip her up (as a person as well as a columnist), even while your tone implies that YOU have somehow been disrespected? If that’s all you can do, fine; but I think by the time you’ve posted your sixty-seventh comment, everybody kinda gets the point, ya know? By the way, when there are so few jobs to be had, a Wal-Mart employee simply doesn’t have the vast scope of freedom and choice that you seem to imply. Given the choice between a crappy job and no job, who wouldn’t choose the crappy job?
eb,
I’d be curious to know which of my points you believe are invalid?
Taking what Stephanie says and deconstructing her argument and posing questions is not cherry picking. I do not disagree with everything Stephanie has written, so I pull out the parts I do disagree with and share why.
If you read the comments you will see that it is Stephanie which first insulted my education and then took offense when someone else called into question her education. I was surprised she didn’t know the correct usage of exploit” and called her out on it. I would hope you would do the same to me if I inaccurately use a word that is at the heart of my argument.
In regards to your question, I would probably choose the crappy job. If I have a choice then I am not being exploited.
This is what happens when profit is put before people and planet. I think regulations are needed not to inhibit economic growth, but to allow those who are selling/manufacturing/transporting/etc a product (or drilling oil) to make sure that they are being mindful of the risks that their action might have on the people and the environment. The more soulless decisions are taken to save a few bucks here and there, the more regulations the public will demand. It’d be best for companies to start looking into integrating the triple bottom line into their actions.
Good points, Jorge.
Energy has become one of the most significant concerns in the 21st century. The need for energy has continued to increase and it has become difficult to meet this demand. Coal is poised to be one of the most important sources of energy but it is facing the challenge of environmental impact. To ensure that coal becomes an important source of energy in the world, it is important to put in place a framework for sustainable coal mining. The government should play bigger roles in regulation of coal mining and ensure environmental impact assessment is carried out first. The government should shut down mines if they continuously ignore the law. Fines are not sufficient deterrents for coal mines to supply with safety standards and protect the people and the planet.
For more information visit http://www.triplebottomlineapproach.com and http://www.democracyandconflict.com.