Posted on 05/05/2010 8:45:34 AM PDT by scan59
Feel Sorry for BP?
It was 21 years ago that the Exxon Valdez leaked oil and unleashed torrents of environmental hysteria. Rothbard got it right in his piece "Why Not Feel Sorry for Exxon?"
After the British Petroleum–hired oil rig exploded last week, the environmentalists went nuts yet again, using the occasion to flail a private corporation and wail about the plight of the "ecosystem," which somehow managed to survive and thrive after the Exxon debacle. The comparison is complicated by how much worse this event is for BP. Eleven people died. BP market shares have been pummeled. So long as the leak persists, the company loses 5,000–10,000 barrels a day.
BP will be responsible for cleanup costs far exceeding the federal limit of $75 million on liability for damages. The public relations nightmare will last for a decade or more. In the end, the costs could reach $100 billion, nearly wrecking the company and many other businesses.
It should be obvious that BP is by far the leading victim, but I've yet to see a single expression of sadness for the company and its losses. Indeed, the words of disgust for BP are beyond belief. The DailyKos sums it up: "BP: Go f*** yourselves." Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said that the government intended to keep "its boot on BP's neck."
How about reality? The incident is a tragedy for BP and all the subcontractors involved. It will probably wreck the company, a company that has long provided the fuel that runs our cars, runs our industries, and keeps alive the very body of modern life. The idea that BP should be hated and denounced is preposterous; there is every reason to express great sadness for what has happened. It is not as if BP profits by oil leaks, or that anyone reveled in the chance to dump its precious oil all over the ocean. BP gains nothing from this. Its own CEO has worked for years to try to prevent precisely this kind of accident from occurring, and done so not out of the desire to comply with regulations, but just because it is good business practice.
In contrast to those who are weeping, we might ask who is happy about the disaster:
1. the environmentalists, with their fear mongering and hatred of modern life, and
2. the government, which treats every capitalist producer as a bird to be plucked.
The environmentalists are thrilled because they get yet another chance to wail and moan about the plight of their beloved marshes and other allegedly sensitive land. The loss of fish and marine life is sad, but it is not as if it will not come back: after the Exxon Valdez disaster, the fishing was better than ever in just one year. The main advantage to the environmentalists is their propaganda victory in having yet another chance to rail against the evils of oil producers and ocean drilling. If they have their way, oil prices would be double or triple, there would never be another refinery built, and all development of the oceans would stop in the name of "protecting" things that do human beings not one bit of good.
The core economic issue concerning the environment is really about liability. In a world of private property, if you soil someone else's property, you bear the liability. But what about in a world in which government owns vast swaths, and the oceans are considered the commons of everyone? It becomes extremely difficult to assess damages to the environment at all.
"The liability for environmental damage should be 100% at least."
There is also a profound problem with federal government limits on liability. That is central planning gone mad. 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.
But such a liability rule presumes ownership, so that owners themselves are in a position to enter into fair bargaining, and there can be some objective test. There is no objective test when the oceans are collectively owned and where huge amounts of territory are government owned. And it is precisely the government and the Obama administration that gain from the incident. The regulators get yet another lease on life. They are already sending thousands of people to "save" the region. "Every American affected by this spill should know this: your government will do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to stop this crisis," Obama said.
Are we really supposed to believe that government is better able to deal with this disaster than private industry?
Meanwhile, the Obama administration must be thrilled to have an old-fashioned change of subject, so that we don't have to notice every single day that its economic stimulus has been an incredible flop, with unemployment higher today than a year ago and the depression still persisting. And why, by the way, when every natural disaster is hailed by the Keynesian media for at least having the stimulative effect of rebuilding, is nothing like this said about the oil spill? At least in this case, losses seem to be recognized as losses.
The abstraction called the "ecosystem" — which never seems to include mankind or civilization — has done far less for us than the oil industry, and the factories, planes, trains, and automobiles it fuels. The greatest tragedy here belongs to BP and its subsidiaries, and the private enterprises affected by the losses that no one intended. If the result is a shutdown of drilling and further regulation of private enterprise, we only end up letting the oil spill win.
oil that seeps naturally from the ocean floor puts 47 million gallons of crude into U.S. waters annually. Thus far, Deepwater Horizon has leaked about three million gallons. That sounds like a lot of oil, and it is. But the Exxon Valdez leaked 11 million gallons into Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay.—never let a crisis go to waste though, eh?
They could plonk down a cheque for 75 million and walk away. They chose instead to stick in there and plug the leak. Kudos to BP.
Let’s not forget that a drunk captain caused the Exxon Valdez.
Lew Rockwell is a libertarian idiot and corporate apologist who casually dismisses the fishing industry as a green/enviro concern rather than a vital economic sector in its own right (not to mention an important source of our food supply.)
It’s a good article, nevertheless. Accidents happen in the best of circumstances, to the most careful of workers. They are not planned. That is why they are called accidents.
BP is doing a great job of staying on top of this. The environmentalist wackos own this, imho, because they have forced oil companies to drill in deep waters. We have oil in Alaska, Santa Barbara, Colorado, Canada — there is much less risk, but NO, they are not allowed to drill there.
The libbies will use it, of course, to prove that the oil companies, what? Should be nationalized? Should be run by Obama and the Thugs? Should be destroyed? Your choice.
The good thing — it kills the climate bill.
Plenty of politically motivated hysteria from both sides looking for a weapon.
Seems that Haley Barbour is the only adult currently talking right now and nobody wants to listen.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2507093/posts
The environmentalist wackos own this, imho, because they have forced oil companies to drill in deep waters. We have oil in Alaska, Santa Barbara, Colorado, Canada — there is much less risk, but NO, they are not allowed to drill there.”””
SPOT ON, friend.
Not factual. The Captain was at fault but he didn't cause the spill. He was in his cabin while the 1st Mate was in charge of the bridge.
The Captain is like a pilot. He has RESPONSIBILITY for anything that happens on the vessel.
The 1st Mate has the same training and license requirements as the Captain but avoided the blame for the error.
I know there are a lot of people on FR that really despise Lew Rockwell, and I'm no fan myself. However, I DO highly respect the Mises Institute, and if his article makes sense to them, it's good enough for me to post.
Sorry, Freddd, but the leak was into Prince William Sound, not Prudhoe Bay, which is 800 miles to the north.
Bump for Later...
You make a mess, especially if it harms someone elses property you clean it up. That is part of capitalism too.
Now if they turn out to have been a victim of sabotage then, I will feel sorry for them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.