Last night, I read Bob Herbert's article "An Unnatural Disaster" about the oil spill in the Gulf. It struck me immediately that this is an opportunity to discuss the balance between freedom and opportunity in our society: The freedom of for example BP to take risks, versus the opportunities of practically everyone else in the regional ecosystem.
This morning, I was offered Charles Krauthammer's article "A disaster with many fathers" as an alternative opinion the matter. I read it with great interest.
Both articles suffer from the same weakness: They've been written to please the demographic that already subscribes to each columnist's way of thinking. It's as if both of them know that there's thin ice out there in the middle of the lake, and none of them wants to go anywhere near it.
Bob Herbert's take on the issue, is to have more Government Control. I'm not sure that's the only answer. Government employees aren't always competent, and they can sometimes be bribed. My favourite book on the subject is Nevil Shute's autobiographical "Slide Rule", that details why the "capitalist" airship R100 flew as it should, while the government-built R101 went up in flames and killed 48 people.
Charles Krauthammer's views puzzle me more. He seems to be insinuating that the Deepwater Horizon accident was caused by drilling in unusually deep water, and that we'd all be safer if the oil companies were allowed to drill in more locations in shallow water. That is pure nonsense.
The Deepwater Horizon has precious little to do with the amount of water between the rig and the wellhead on the ocean floor, and everything to do with BP's willingness to take risks. At that critical moment in time, just before the well blew out, BP was comfortable with keeping only two cement plugs and a potentially compromised blowout preventer between themselves and disaster.
* They continued the drilling,in spite of the fact that the rubber seal in the blowout preventer was compromised (chunks of rubber were coming up),
* They continued with the drilling in spite of the fact that one of the actuators (there were two) for the preventer wasn't working properly, and
* They started replacing the heavy drilling mud with lighter salt water before placing the third and final cement plug that was supposed to seal the well.
* They continued with the drilling in spite of the fact that one of the actuators (there were two) for the preventer wasn't working properly, and
* They started replacing the heavy drilling mud with lighter salt water before placing the third and final cement plug that was supposed to seal the well.
(Source: "60 minutes" interview with surviving crew member and experts on offshore drilling safety).
This was a bit like making love with only two condoms and the ragged remains of a third, when they knew that the baby, if they sired one, was going to be another Adolf Hitler.
I've heard Bob Herbert described is a leftist. That's weird, seen from the European perspective. A real leftist would have argued that the government should not only be the one to decide how many condoms to use: It should also own the whole drilling operation. That's where I've always felt that leftists are delusional.
Krauthammer, on the other hand, is just as delusional if he thinks that oil companies will start behaving responsibly just as soon as they're allowed to drill in shallower water: That's almost like arguing that teenage boys will be less likely to lose their heads when girls have shorter skirts. Some boys will take reasonable precautions. Others won't, and that's how it is.
The question that ought to be discussed at the "Tea Party" is how to keep the latter out of the boardrooms, (or for instance how easy their access to handguns should be, to go off on a related tangent).
My view is that we need systems of governance that keep business (and not only people) in check, because businesses are led by people, and because some of them (like banks and oil companies) are capable of causing truly horrendous damage. However, even small businesses can cause damage that is serious for smaller communities, and since some businesses are led by idiots and other by crooks, there's no exempt them from oversight just because they're small.
What worries me about the "Tea Party" movement is that I only see them arguing one side of the equation: Towards fewer rules and less regulation. That's why I see them as anarchists and fundamentalists, more than right-wing extremists. What I'm wondering is: How far do they actually want to go? Do they think that the current oil spill in the Gulf is the result of an acceptable risk? Do they concede that society needs any safeguards at all against undue risk-taking or outright criminal behaviour on the part of businessmen and corporations? Where, in all the fogbank, do they want to draw the limits?
I agree with them that a simplified society with fewer rules is attractive. As a lawyer I have often despaired over the naive belief that some politicians have, that all problems can be solved if we only get enough rules. On the other hand, I haven't seen a single empirical study indicating that the societies that have the lowest number of rules, or the least amount of government oversight are the ones that function best.
I'm curious about all my friends' views on this.
:-J
Jørgen, do you have advanced technical knowledge or evidence to support your sweeping generalization that it's "pure nonsense" to assert that drilling in shallow water is safer? The technical challenges of working in water that deep, under that much pressure, are staggering. Some of the first attempts to cap the well were stymied by those problems, for example when BP's grommet cap became clogged with frozen crystals. There is little doubt that had that well been on land, or even a few hundred feet below the surface, the well could have been capped in just a few hours, once the proper equipment was in position. The difference between that and a mile below the surface is enormous. I don't see any justification for saying that it's "pure nonsense" to think that it's more dangerous to have a wellhead operating where the temperature is about 5 C and the pressure is over a metric ton per square centimeter, where liquids like methane, ethane, propane, etc. are as thick as molasses or freezing slush.
SvarSlettI also continue to have problems with your use of the word "freedom." Talking about freedom as something a corporation like BP has or does not have, tells me that your definition of the word is very different from that of mine and a great many other people. Corporations don't have freedoms, they have abilities, restrictions, and obligations. Individual persons have freedoms which they can attempt to apply or defend by forming corporations, but that's a different matter. A discussion is impossible when the participants cannot agree on the definition of a crucial word in the discussion, so perhaps we should not be talking about "freedom" in this context.
Finally, I'm sorry I'm not discussing everything in your article here; you make other points that I agree with. But it's difficult to discuss everything at once.