BP promises to pay all "legitimate claims."

142 posts / 0 new
BP promises to pay all "legitimate claims."

BP vows to pay all costs of oil spill cleanup

This will be worth watching long term.

For a primer on how responsible Big Oil was after the Exxon Valdez, watch this morning's first segment of Democracy Now!

The segment features Riki Ott, a marine toxicologist and a former salmon fisherm'am in Alaska, who experienced the Exxon Valdez spill first hand -- the extended twenty year version -- and offers an in-depth study of the devastating results of that catastrophe at all levels. She has a book: Not One Drop: Betrayal and Courage in the Wake of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.

Ironically, (from a customer review at the above link for her book)

as the Exxon Valdez set sail with a full load of crude on the evening of March 23, 1989, Riki Ott was addressing a group of Valdez residents on what would happen should a major spill ever occur. As a matter of fact, Riki put it this way to her audience "Gentlemen, it's not if, it's when."

Same can be said of drilling for oil under water.

The book tells much about the last twenty years, and Riki is headed for the Gulf to help people with what she's learned. One of the things she's learned is the following, where, like now, BP promises to pay and is already starting the same types of "outreach" patterns as Exxon's:

In the immediate aftermath, Exxon promised the people of Cordova that they would be made whole. They lied. No one in Cordova could possibly have been prepared for the epic battle for justice that would occur over the next 20 years. Riki Ott was on the scene every step of the way and reports on the tactics employed by the oil companies, state and federal government, the courts and of course the victims. It quickly becomes apparent whose side most of our esteemed government officials are on. Riki Ott also spends a considerable amount of time driving home the point that the oil spill science funded by the oil companies is largely junk science and is not to be trusted. Perhaps one of the most salient points made in "Not One Drop" is that evidence amassed by trauma experts clearly indicates that disasters caused by so-called "acts of God" such as earthquakes, floods and tornadoes affect people much differently in the long run than such man-made disasters as dam failures, oil spills and nuclear accidents. My reading over the years would tend to confirm this. As Riki points out "natural disasters brought people together in crisis, while man-made disasters tore communities apart." Now nearly two decades later the people of Cordova struggle mightily to put their lives and their community back together again.

Beware the out stretched hands of those "responsible" corporations...

Supreme Court Cuts Damages in Exxon Valdez Spill

Yes, after a lower court awarded punitive damages of $2.5 billion, our conservative, corporate-friendly Supreme Court awarded the people a reduction to $500 million. This finally occurs nearly twenty years after the incident. Let's see, if the pattern holds, the people of the Gulf States can look forward to about a 7% compensation of their losses some time around 2029, as Riki points out:

As we know in Exxon Valdez, that our case got knocked way back down and people recovered about seven to ten percent of what they actually lost.

She also notes that many networks of related businesses, and others, got nothing at all.

For starters, they’re will only going to protect directly damaged parties. So fisherman, I’m sorry, but in our community, as I’m sure down in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast, the fisherman buy groceries, good restaurants, put children in school, by clothes. If the fishermen don’t have money, where- it damages all the shoreside industry as well. So, there’s collateral damage to businesses that won’t necessarily be compensated under the law.

And who compensated the environment? -- which still hasn't completely recovered.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Too bad they didn't promise to pay all illegitimate cost

Alpharius's picture
Alpharius
Joined:
Apr. 20, 2010 10:28 am

A question arises when a catastrophe occurs: what are "legitimate" costs for repairing damages.

I see the right wing scream machine is already starting on this false distractive comparison between the Katrina Hurricane catastrophe and this oil geyser catastrophe:

Limbaugh Dubs Oil Spill: "Obama's Katrina" -- which is interesting because it shows some willingness to admit there was a Bush Katrina, finally.

But comparisons between Katrina and the BP oil geyser are inevitably false. Even comparing claims of legitimacy are going to be inevitably false if not done with some care to the details. One is a nature-caused disaster -- "Act of God" would be a common legal term I find often -- and the other human caused, I suppose that could be "Act of Man" for linguistic comparison. Fixing blame and correlating legitimate costs are looked at from entirely different perspectives.

"The government" is an instrument in a societally agreed upon response to help each other in the event of "Act of God" catastrophes. "The government" acts as a regulatory agency that we agree upon as an instrument to protect us from "Acts of Man." The question: "what is legitimate?" follows a different course in each case.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote .ren:

The question: "what is legitimate?" follows a different course in each case.


It does,
Are Punitive damages part of this "Legitimate Cost"

Seems it not just Limbuagh
BP Is Criticized Over Oil Spill, but U.S. Missed Chances to Act
Johnson: Administration's response to oil spill inadequate

From the looks of it the Left wing whine machine is in full court press.

Alpharius's picture
Alpharius
Joined:
Apr. 20, 2010 10:28 am
Quote Alpharius:
Quote .ren:

The question: "what is legitimate?" follows a different course in each case.

It does, Are Punitive damages part of this "Legitimate Cost" Seems it not just Limbuagh BP Is Criticized Over Oil Spill, but U.S. Missed Chances to Act Johnson: Administration's response to oil spill inadequate From the looks of it the Left wing whine machine is in full court press.

Your concluding observation doesn't follow from your post. I don't even know what you mean by "full court press." But your post doesn't make much sense to me to begin with, especially using a cherry picked quote from my longer explanation as your point of response.

I made a distinction between legal courses of actions resulting from an "Act of God" and an "Act of Man." What are you doing with it? Why does it matter to conclude "the left wing whine machine is in full court press"? A remark that doesn't even make sense to me no matter how I read your linked articles and your words following from my quote. Full court press against what that's related to this legal distinction I made for your quoted a conclusion you picked from it?

I'm not trying to debate about "legitimate" costs. The legal system decides appropriate, "legitimate" costs in an "Act of Man" disaster. The legal system decides the answer to your non sequitur question:

Quote Alpharius:Are Punitive damages part of this "Legitimate Cost" (?)

Apparently it was a legitimate cost in the Exxon Valdez caused disaster. A lower court heard it, and the Supreme Court heard the appeal, and subsequently reduced the punitive damages from $2.5 billion to $500 million. It did not say they were illegitimate costs.

Another area of legitimacy for this "Act of Man" has been created by something known as the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. It appears that Operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies, or the government.

Economic losses to the Gulf Coast are likely to exceed that. In response, several Democratic senators introduced legislation Monday to raise the liability limit to $10 billion, though it was not clear that it could be made to apply retroactively.

Another relevant legality:

Kenneth Baer, spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget, also noted that if BP were found to have acted negligently in the spill or to have violated federal laws, the damages cap under the Oil Pollution Act would be lifted.

BP is responsible for the cost of containing and cleaning-up the spill, which in this case may be quite a lot. I guess an ongoing geyser of oil under the ocean will fall in the category of spill. We'll see, I suppose.

These are more relevantly the concerns of legitimacy for damages caused by an "Act of Man" -- i.e., determining the liability of the damage costs caused by the actor:

"We're glad that the costs for the oil clean up will be covered, but that's little consolation to the small businesses, fisheries and local governments that will be left to clean up the economic mess that somebody else caused," said Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., a sponsor of the legislation raising the cap, which the administration said it supported.

So we don't really know the extent of "legitimate" costs for this catastrophe yet. As I said in my very first sentence, this bears watching long term.

And there's the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. That relates to the legitimizing of our own, tax payer governmental response to "Acts of Man" catastrophes of this nature. That's going to be tested for the first time.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Alphie,

Once again you manage to find an idiot to support your argument, which is pretty pathetic. Johnson is a right-wing professor of computer information systems. He's not an oilman as is obvious by this statement:

"A serious and immediate effort to contain and skim the slick would have prevented what we are seeing today."

This shows clearly that he should keep his yap shut unless he is discussing computer information systems. The BOP failed to shut off flow completely and the industry has nothing else to "contain" the flow. As for skimming, the seas were too big and so skimming was very difficult and according to industry people I've heard the best they can do is to recover about 10% of these spills.

But he does have an agenda as can be seen here:

"If you study the timeline of events, you will find that our government definitely dragged its heels in responding to this catastrophe. Within hours of the explosion, President Obama should have held a press conference to assure America that everything is being done to absolutely contain any spill, but he was apparently too busy taking over the financial industry and planning his new energy tax and new national sales tax."

Obama should have held a press conference to assure the American people? Wow, what a suggestion. Then Obama is chided for "taking over" the financial industry and planning a new energy tax. Enough said. Johnson is a right-wing moron.

And what does this fool suggest as the ultimate solution? Well, this:

"Obama's only energy strategy is to tax it, then spend more on socialist entitlement programs. In his January State of the Union speech, he promised to build new nuclear power plants, but there has been no action. Instead, he is committed to economically infeasible wind, solar, and battery power (supplied by dirty coal). We should continue off-shore drilling with strict safety standards. These off-shore fields supply 30 percent of our domestic oil. And we should drill into the huge oil reserves in remote regions of Alaska. Domestic oil production reduces our need for foreign oil. Our energy policy should be the responsible development of more domestic oil, natural gas, and nuclear while our talented scientists continue to develop feasible alternatives -- and no more taxes!"

This freak sees the only valid solution as wasting our finite oil resources! Oh, and he's very worried about taxing :( Sigh.

I have news for you right-wing know-nothings, had the U.S. mandated ever increasing energy efficiencies for everything we do and use, we wouldn't need the amount of energy we currently use. But alas, the American people elected Reagan because he told us that as Americans we didn't have to "sacrifice", as waste is our birthright.

It appears that the right-wing whine machine is in full whine mode. What we are experiencing is due to Americans' selfishness.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Where are the cries for tort reform when the megacorps go into full legal delay and deny? Already the statements are couched in lawyer talking points. There is no way BP can pay for all the costs of this bad decision and cost first/safety last corporate culture. Sure, the GOP misgovernment gave them a pass. Americans drank the JambaJuice because it tasted good and familiar, but it had high fructose corn imperialism and Cold War coke that rotted our brains.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

JambaJuice = oil

A society addicted to this centralizing energy source which becomes the whole basis of an ecomomy, puts itself at extreme risk when a small number of very large corporations provide it in order to keep the engines of the economy cranking.

The details of who gets rich and who is responsible are related, and can be very crucial to segments of society in a catastrophe. But the core issue remains the whole of society's addiction to the JambaJuice. If society's members are talked into avoiding the crux of the management issues by relying on Corporate intrusions into the regulating process, even after a serious wake up call like the Exxon Valdez, then that's an issue to be addressed in the midst of yet another of these catastrophes. That issue might be called "socialism" versus "the free market" in some political jargonistic rants. But government needs a more descriptive understanding than knee jerk labels if we are to solve these kinds of problems. No matter what, it's a social problem that needs solving.

But those rants may only serve to induce further intoxication and hypnotic denial in the face of the most basic of issues of how daily life must be lived by each person within a fairly narrowly conscribed system defined by energy.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

How does anyone any where know the exact cause of this disaster? Maybe it was sabatoge. But that is not the point here. It is to give legitamacy to the anti-oil spigots. Like "I told you so."

What's the difference in a right-wing moron and a left-wing moron?

bufffalo1's picture
bufffalo1
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:49 am
How does anyone any where know the exact cause of this disaster? Maybe it was sabatoge. But that is not the point here. It is to give legitamacy to the anti-oil spigots. Like "I told you so."

Well, for one, the people who were on location should have a good idea. Listen to Mark’s Exclusive Interview with a Survivor from the Oil Rig Explosion, as was posted in another thread. And we did tell you so.

What's the difference in a right-wing moron and a left-wing moron?

The right-wing morons have been in control of the country since Reagan and their crappy, ignorant ideology has become our operational paradigm.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Proably left wing morons get that government isn't the problem...its capture by corporate interests is the problem.

Right wing morons would like government to get out of the way entirely...so corporations can do as they please without the expense of maintaining their hold on government. It won't happen. They'd lose their subsidies and the ability to transfer losses to the people.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote bufffalo1:

How does anyone any where know the exact cause of this disaster? Maybe it was sabatoge.

That will be determined to the extent it can in the future.

Quote Buffalo1: But that is not the point here. It is to give legitamacy to the anti-oil spigots. Like "I told you so."

So are you suggesting, no, more than just suggesting, actually stating by your grammar, the point of understanding legitimacy "here," on this thread, a thread initiated by me, is to give "legitimacy" to the "anti-oil spigots"? How could I possibly do that? Even if I knew what an "anti-oil spigot" was? Which I don't make claim to.

Quote Buffalo1:What's the difference in a right-wing moron and a left-wing moron?

I don't understand your question. It seems, ahem, well, the word begins with an "m," in light of anything I've written on this thread. Maybe you could be more specific?

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Senator says law increasing BP's liability for Gulf Coast oil spill can apply retroactively

WASHINGTON - A Democratic senator says legislation to raise the liability limit for the Gulf Coast oil spill can apply retroactively.

Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey is co-sponsoring a measure to raise to $10 billion the liability BP PLC has to pay for damages such as lost wages and economic suffering in the Gulf Coast spill. The current liability limit is $75 million, an amount Menendez called a "drop in the bucket."

Menendez said Tuesday he was confident that the measure could apply retroactively. He cited the Superfund law that forced companies to pay for previously polluted hazardous waste sites.

President Barack Obama has said repeatedly that taxpayers will not be on the hook for the massive oil spill, which threatens the Gulf Coast.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Here's an early attempt at addressing the broader economic costs of this catastrophe from the government angle, as preface questions, what's the President's legitimacy of doing this through our government? As a result of determining that, what might be the government's limitations? To what extent can the government get BP to pay any share of this kind of action?:

Obama: Government committed to supporting Gulf Coast economies affected by oil spill

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote jeffbiss:

Alphie,

Once again you manage to find an idiot to support your argument, which is pretty pathetic. Johnson is a right-wing professor of computer information systems.


Boo Hoo... let's attack the Johnson... He's a dick, He parts his Hair wrong, His job sucks, He's too White, He sounds like he's from the South, He's a republican, He make's too much money, He drives a foreign car, He too short, He's too tall.....

"This statement didn't come until nine days later when Obama pledged an "all-out effort" to clean up what could be one of the costliest manmade disasters in U.S. history. And he added that "BP will pay." Now that's reassuring."

Point Taken... Deal with it.
Feel free to disseminate the other 2 dozen or so articles that say similar things by what you like and dislike about the physically and politically.

Fire booms neglected in oil cleanup?
1994 plan called for them, but scramble is on to find some

Alpharius's picture
Alpharius
Joined:
Apr. 20, 2010 10:28 am
Boo Hoo... let's attack the Johnson... He's a dick, He parts his Hair wrong, His job sucks, He's too White, He sounds like he's from the South, He's a republican, He make's too much money, He drives a foreign car, He too short, He's too tall.....

Fine with me. He's a dick and a right-winger. I really don't care about the other stuff.

"This statement didn't come until nine days later when Obama pledged an "all-out effort" to clean up what could be one of the costliest manmade disasters in U.S. history. And he added that "BP will pay." Now that's reassuring."

Point Taken... Deal with it.
Feel free to disseminate the other 2 dozen or so articles that say similar things by what you like and dislike about the physically and politically.


Johnson's a dick and he makes claims that aren't true, such as anybody could've minimized the leak (hint: they could've only by installing the appropriate safety gear prior to the explosion). Keep up the great work of linking to any right-wing nutcase pleading your case.

Fire booms neglected in oil cleanup? 1994 plan called for them, but scramble is on to find some

I'm not sure what the point is here, but the issue was that a burn didn't work due to heavy waves.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jeffbiss:Johnson's a dick and he makes claims that aren't true,

Obama didn't take 9 days??? News to me

I'm not sure what the point is here, but the issue was that a burn didn't work due to heavy waves.

Either you have a reading problem or your news source are equally Dicks

"The problem: The federal government did not have a single fire boom on hand. "

I know I am shocked...

Alpharius's picture
Alpharius
Joined:
Apr. 20, 2010 10:28 am
Obama didn't take 9 days??? News to me

You're concerned about Obama, I'm not. The U.S. government wasn't in any position to do anything about the leak as was BP, which should have been. However Cheney made sure that oil companies weren't encumbered by safety regulations, such as those requiring fail-safe devices at the well head.

Either you have a reading problem or your news source are equally Dicks. "The problem: The federal government did not have a single fire boom on hand. " I know I am shocked...

Again, a nonissue. The weather wouldn't have allowed them to be effective to any degree. The only solution was to have the proper safety devices in place before drilling. But Cheney made sure that that wasn't a cost that oil companies had to bear. I'm not shocked.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Rising the Cheney Flag..
I love your Response... No Fire booms, Governments response doesn't matter anyway. Nonissue.

The only solution was to have the proper safety devices in place before drilling. But Cheney made sure that that wasn't a cost that oil companies had to bear. I'm not shocked.

I am sure that is because Some Left Wing whining Machine told you and you bought it hook line and sinker.

The efficacy of the devices is unclear. Major offshore oil-well blowouts are rare, and it remained unclear Wednesday evening whether acoustic switches have ever been put to the test in a real-world accident. When wells do surge out of control, the primary shut-off systems almost always work. Remote control systems such as the acoustic switch, which have been tested in simulations, are intended as a last resort

I'm sure even if it had the acoustic switch, it would still be Cheney's spirit down there holding the Valve open. Why wait to find out what really happened when you have perfectly good wild ass theories to explore.

Anyway, as we see governments slow response, lets see the Evil Oil companies response.
Oil companies rally to help in Gulf cleanup

Alpharius's picture
Alpharius
Joined:
Apr. 20, 2010 10:28 am
Rising the Cheney Flag..

Hey, it's the only truly relevant flag to raise.

Regarding Cheney and the Bush administration's culpability in BP's failure to control the leak, Forget Offshore Drilling Until We Get Some Answers by William Galston indicates that the lax safety standards are part of that administrations modus operandi regarding regulating proper safety devices and systems:

"By 2003, government regulators decided that the matter needed more study after commissioning a report that offered another, more honest reason: “acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly.”"

Also, he notes that under the Bush administration the Minerals Management Service was corrupt as a matter of culture. Now I'll blame Obama if he doesn't a) fix that problem and (b) mandate ever increasing efficiency standards for everything we use and do to reduce our need for energy.

Regarding safety devices, keep up defending Cheney's exemption. there's nothing like using the specious argument that "the efficacy of the devices is unclear.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

We recently tried to change insurance companies and were denied because we have an oil tank in ground to use for heating oil. Also, in order to buy/sell the house the hoops to go through the testing process and other requirements dealing with an oil tank (that has no history of leakage) is amazing, and very expensive. We have talked about de-commissioning it, but it is a huge project and very expensive. Isn't it funny that on this small of a scale, it is such a HUGE issue, but dealing with millions of gallons in the ocean or considering drilling in Alaska seems like no big deal, and if something happens, the attention and funds fade away as time goes on. Again, the corporations have all the power, money, and time to wear the people down, while someone like me, can't switch insurance companies because I'm trying to heat my home and can't afford to switch heating sources at this time. Amazing. We lose again-health, money, and status within our nation.

solsen's picture
solsen
Joined:
May. 4, 2010 3:43 pm
Isn't it funny that on this small of a scale, it is such a HUGE issue, but dealing with millions of gallons in the ocean or considering drilling in Alaska seems like no big deal, and if something happens, the attention and funds fade away as time goes on.

The fact is that many people simply don't care so long as they don't have to deal with it or that the consequences are borne by those they don't care about. From what I see it's all about their contempt for what environmentalism implies, an obligation to the greater good. As alphie implies, the price of a severe leak is no problem because leaks naturally occur. So, big deal! What happens to those they don't value or in places they don't live in just doesn't matter. The harms caused by fossil fuel extraction and use are a price worth paying so that they can waste energy living their life as they see fit. It's wrapped up in the empty platitudes of "freedom" and "liberty".

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Oh my, where is the government when you need them.

Except when you don't, because you keep yelling how they are too BIG. Make up your minds. Do you want them involved in private industry or not? Why can't conservatives pick a view and stick with it, no wonder its so difficult to take them seriously.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Part of the comparison of Katrina and Deep Sea ought to include this administration's equivalent of FEMA rep, and national weather bureau. Now who briefed Obama that there will be an oil well head/rig explosion/ and subsequent leaking. Manmade disasters sometimes have forewarning, Greenspan knew of the bubble housing, Bush knew of the incidents that led to 9/11, if Obama had been briefed by BP that they intended on blowing the rig, and killing employees, then his response should rightfully be questioned.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

If anyone here has any contact with Sawdust, (or if he still reads the posts here). Please let him know I am thinking about him and hoping the spill does minimal damage to Florida. Although I suppose he is more fortunate than most people as he has other houses to escape to. I wonder if he still supports, Drill baby Drill off the Gulf coast.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

U.S. exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study outlines the fact that the U.S. government made the determination, through the MMS, that BP's lease at Deepwater Horizon should have a "categorical exclusion" from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on April 6, 2009. What this shows is, as I've posted above, is that the Bush administration allowed the corruption of our laws to better serve business interests at our, and our wildlife's, expense. It seems obvious now that Obama should have reversed or at least reviewed all of Bush's policy decisions, at least those that relieved businesses of their obligations. I assume that the new administration will claim that it had its hands full with fighting Republican intransigence on other fronts such as health care reform.

It's not an excuse but a reasonable assumption that drilling approval policy could wait evaluation considering that the oil industry has had a pretty good record to date. But as in deciding about investments, past performance doesn't guarantee future results. It's time to regulate properly.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The Cheney flag, is mentioned in that left wing rag WSJ's blog. Cement pouring has been indicated in some of the last 38 well head explosions, only 18, so it's less than half. Halliburton does the cement pouring, and is responsible for the cement quality, and procedure, though they did ask BP to procede. The cement pouring plug procedure has been the cause in more of the well head explosions than any other cause, far surpassing equipment failure, or any other causes. Halliburton doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Cheney. BP, I am sure will seek responsibility and cost sharing with a few other players.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Duh Comment of the year
Mr Hayward reiterated a promise that BP “will honour all legitimate claims for business interruption”. Asked for examples of illegitimate claims, he said: “I could give you lots of examples. This is America — come on. We’re going to have lots of illegitimate claims. We all know that.”

Too my original point. Only Government pays illegitimate claims

Alpharius's picture
Alpharius
Joined:
Apr. 20, 2010 10:28 am
Quote Alpharius:Duh Comment of the year Mr Hayward reiterated a promise that BP “will honour all legitimate claims for business interruption”. Asked for examples of illegitimate claims, he said: “I could give you lots of examples. This is America — come on. We’re going to have lots of illegitimate claims. We all know that.” Too my original point. Only Government pays illegitimate claims

You made no such point about "only government pays illegitimate claims":

Quote Alpharius:Too bad they didn't promise to pay all illegitimate cost

I outlined the types of legitimate claims related to "Acts of God" and "Acts of Man" and pointed out that the legitimacy follows different courses.

The following was your only other response to the issue:

Quote Alpharius:
Quote .ren:

The question: "what is legitimate?" follows a different course in each case.

It does, Are Punitive damages part of this "Legitimate Cost" Seems it not just Limbuagh BP Is Criticized Over Oil Spill, but U.S. Missed Chances to Act Johnson: Administration's response to oil spill inadequate From the looks of it the Left wing whine machine is in full court press.

You've contributed little or nothing else to the points I've made. Instead you've gone off on a tangent about placing blame, an issue which you seem to have some interest in by linking to two articles that point to poorly explained charges of missing some sort of "chance." Missing a chance at this stage of this situation is just hyperbole, or plain old poor reporting. Most people reporting know far less than those involved in struggling to contain this problem, and the experts with actual knowledge and skills trying to contain it obviously don't know enough to contain it.

That's specifically why I want to avoid the pointless effort of the placing of blame on this thread. So waving blame around is a strawman or red herring, take your pick, which you've successfully introduced on a thread I intended for discussion of the law applicable to legitimacy of paying costs. And what the extent of that legitimacy entails.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Too my original point. Only Government pays illegitimate claims

Such as subsidies and bailouts to business interests. Oh, the medical, cleanup, and other costs not paid for by business interests that caused problems in the first place. In other words, We the People cover the costs to create profits for private interests.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jeffbiss:
Too my original point. Only Government pays illegitimate claims

Such as subsidies and bailouts to business interests. Oh, the medical, cleanup, and other costs not paid for by business interests that caused problems in the first place. In other words, We the People cover the costs to create profits for private interests.

That is hypothetically what I was trying to flesh out with this thread.

It's really worth the trouble to look at what happened in the one case study we have that may be comparable. That would be looking at all we have of the devastating network of cause and affects that resulted from the Exxon Valdez disaster. We have twenty years worth to look at. We have examples of how communities are still trying to patch themselves back together. We have an environment that hasn't completely recovered. Much of those affects as "costs" have been carefully organized out of the law that is considered under the BP notion of paying all "legitimate" costs.

As a society it's worth our while to consider that. How does that come about? To what extent are we as a society paying for the "rights" of these private, for profit tyrannies to make their profits? It's not a simple question. And it is one that leads through mental blocks that put crossed fingers up as people scream "socialism" while we try to find ways to protect ourselves from making these people who own and work for these organizations rich at our expense.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote meljomur:

If anyone here has any contact with Sawdust, (or if he still reads the posts here). Please let him know I am thinking about him and hoping the spill does minimal damage to Florida. Although I suppose he is more fortunate than most people as he has other houses to escape to. I wonder if he still supports, Drill baby Drill off the Gulf coast.

I spoke to Sawdust and he appreciates your concern for Florida. He also thinks about you......regularly.....and sends his love.

He is currently out gathering up the oil and reselling it to BP at a tidy profit.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am
Quote jeffbiss:

Too my original point. Only Government pays illegitimate claims

Such as subsidies and bailouts to business interests. Oh, the medical, cleanup, and other costs not paid for by business interests that caused problems in the first place. In other words, We the People cover the costs to create profits for private interests.


I'll Give you Bailouts but not Subsidies.

From the look of it. BP is covering medical, Cleanup and other costs. So if they pay all Legitimate Cost, you have zero complaints.
I dont consider Punitive Damages of the Exxon Spill a Legitimate cost

Alpharius's picture
Alpharius
Joined:
Apr. 20, 2010 10:28 am
I'll Give you Bailouts but not Subsidies. From the look of it. BP is covering medical, Cleanup and other costs. So if they pay all Legitimate Cost, you have zero complaints.

Well the Oil Pollution Act was written such that it limits the liability of BP to $75 million. So, if actual legitimate costs are more then we, as in you, I, and all other American tax payers get to subsidize BP and cover their costs. The Obama administration is working to correct that limit thing, as a company should be held accountable for the total cost, not just up to a limit.

I dont consider Punitive Damages of the Exxon Spill a Legitimate cost

I do. We disagree.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jeffbiss:
I'll Give you Bailouts but not Subsidies. From the look of it. BP is covering medical, Cleanup and other costs. So if they pay all Legitimate Cost, you have zero complaints.

Well the Oil Pollution Act was written such that it limits the liability of BP to $75 million. So, if actual legitimate costs are more then we, as in you, I, and all other American tax payers get to subsidize BP and cover their costs. The Obama administration is working to correct that limit thing, as a company should be held accountable for the total cost, not just up to a limit.

I dont consider Punitive Damages of the Exxon Spill a Legitimate cost

I do. We disagree.

Actually there is legislation afoot to expand those limits, and the last thing I read indicates they want it to be retroactive.

All I want to say at the moment, jeff, about your disagreement with this latest sock of someone whose writing is completely familiar, and therefore obvious to me, is to note that we need to keep in mind that right wing authoritarians are not on ordinary people's side in this world. In this long struggle out of the oppressions of Dark Age authoritarianisms -- and there have been many -- we have battled the rich and powerful for equality, and we've made many attempts to limit their various strategies for lording it over our ordinary day to day lives through ownership structures. In the process we can see that they love to limit their "liability" with the law. The law isn't always a good mediator between power mongers and individual freedom.

For law to be most effective when some effort is made to go from total dominant systems of authoritarianism to something that at least resembles some B.S. version of protecting individual freedom, that law needs to be able to work in favor of those who favor an accumulation of objectify-able wealth over the far more tenuous but also important expressions of human relationship that make societies a living processes we value in different ways than we can with property values.

In our nation, the emphasis on property rights works for the wealthy in that way of giving property leverage over other values. This whole issue of "legitimate costs" is related to objectification of property, valuing property and assessing loss that can only be objectified. In that regard, consider that the fragile network of community relationships can not be turned into objectified property. That, therefore, works in favor of this whole process to help the wealthy maintain their positions at the top of their pyramids of power based on wealth and property.

Here is our highest court's interpretation of the sanctity of property rights, and the verification of the ultimate rationale for the power to take, and the power to destroy others, by simply the act of taking. In 1923, Chief Justice John Marshall said this about our laws and property rights, in a case called: Johnson and Graham Lessee v. William M'Intosh:

"...discovery gave title... which title might be consummated by possession. However, extravagant the pretension of converting the discovery of an inhabited country into conquest may appear; if the principle has been asserted in the first instance, and afterwards sustained; if a country has been acquired and held under it, it becomes the law of the land, and cannot be questioned."

He goes on to be more explicit:

"However this... may be opposed to natural rights, and to the usages of civilized nations, yet if it be indispensable to that system under which the country has been settled, and be adapted to the actual conditions of the two people, it may, perhaps, be supported by reason, and certainly cannot be rejected by Courts of justice.".... "Conquest gives a title which the Courts of the conqueror cannot deny, whatever the private and speculative opinion of individuals may be."

What this decision did, basically was to codify injustice into law, and put property ownership and possession over "natural rights" and "usages" by so-called "civilized nations" -- whatever that might mean to a Supreme Court Justice.

We have a history of property codification in our "rule of law." Legitimacy of damage relates to that history.

What are "punitive damages" about in this legal system? Think about it. Read Wikipedia for starters: Punitive damages.

Punitive damages are often awarded where compensatory damages are deemed an inadequate remedy.

Compensatory damages are coded through property. Again this specter of fragile relationships that are hard to objectify as property arises.

How do you code the devastation to a community? No one tried to code the devastation to the native inhabitants in our law when John Marshall justified their loss of property to conquest. No compensation of destroying culture can be brought to court as such, and our losses other than property go into the dustbins of the infinite universe as if they never occurred. Yet we may be losing the most important things about our lives, the things we love and cherish as living, loving, relating human beings. None of that counts in a property based legal system. The outright slaughtering of the buffalo on the plains that decimated the basis for the cultures that subsisted from them, helped to remove them from a land they were "wasting" by European property ownership standards... how could the court systems deal with that?

The destruction of eco systems of the Prince William Sound through a catastrophic oil spill and the subsequent effect of their loss on the communities, is a loss of something ambiguous and difficult to put in objectifiable terms by those communities. They know they've lost something but it's not codifiable as property loss. Therefore not a legitimate loss for the law's compensatory damages coverage. The ocean and its ecosystems are a "commons" so to speak, like the Great Plains' buffalo were part of the commons of the native inhabitants.

Therefore we can see that reducing everything to property ownership is a powerful legal tool for the wealthy who own the property.

It's not hard to see why someone wouldn't want to consider "punitive" damages in their version of the law. It's not hard to see who those people would be in society.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

ex post facto law

Alpharius's picture
Alpharius
Joined:
Apr. 20, 2010 10:28 am

Here's hoping that they can pull it off and force BP to pay for the entire cleanup and for all other losses as a result of the leak. Sounds good to me.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Alpharius:ex post facto law

Another example of your general concern for what the rich and powerful do to people. It's always run to "rule of law" and values of democracy when they are called upon to give back something in a fair way. Which is why, as I've just explained, the law in the U.S. has been carefully tilted to favor property rights.

If the nation's law is primarily fiddled with by corporate influence, and the legal limits of oil spill liability was set through that influence, then it wouldn't be much of a violation of "democracy" (a feeble concept to begin with) to set those limits right by stepping outside that corporate influence at a later time.

The Nation as a whole has a challenge of doing for its whole membership what is right for all. If there can be extraordinary circumstances for stopping a vote count for a corporate oil chrony and his mob, there is equally the potential for extraordinary circumstances to change the limits to liable damage for one of the worst disasters caused by any corporation to all of society.

I wonder if the Oil companies have paid P.R. correspondents working Thom's board?

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote .ren:What are "punitive damages" about in this legal system? Think about it. Read Wikipedia for starters: Punitive damages.

Punitive damages are often awarded where compensatory damages are deemed an inadequate remedy.

also from Wiki.

Punitive damages or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will in fact receive all or some portion of the punitive damage award.

Because they usually compensate the plaintiff in excess of the plaintiff's provable injuries, punitive damages are awarded only in special cases, usually under tort law, where the defendant's conduct was egregiously insidious.
For example, punitive damages awarded to one party in a US case would be difficult to get recognition for in a European court, where punitive damages are most likely to be considered to violate ordre public

That will be interesting. BP being a UK firm

Alpharius's picture
Alpharius
Joined:
Apr. 20, 2010 10:28 am
Quote Alpharius:
Quote .ren:What are "punitive damages" about in this legal system? Think about it. Read Wikipedia for starters: Punitive damages.

Punitive damages are often awarded where compensatory damages are deemed an inadequate remedy.
also from Wiki.
Punitive damages or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will in fact receive all or some portion of the punitive damage award.
Because they usually compensate the plaintiff in excess of the plaintiff's provable injuries, punitive damages are awarded only in special cases, usually under tort law, where the defendant's conduct was egregiously insidious.
For example, punitive damages awarded to one party in a US case would be difficult to get recognition for in a European court, where punitive damages are most likely to be considered to violate ordre public
That will be interesting. BP being a UK firm

I said think about what I quoted, and I provided some context about property rights and the law for my suggestion. So far you show no sign of engaging. I did not ask anyone to quote the law. I'm not debating the law with you or anyone else. I'm not interested in confining this discussion to your endless attempt to quote the letter of the law. I'm raising a larger issue about what's not fair to society as a whole, as related to the letter of the law.

The issue I'm concerned about, the questions I'm raising, have to do with the relationship between what has been deemed "legitimate claims" and the extent of damages to society and the environment (the commons) that have been carefully left out of the narrow range of those claims.

These are real life social problems. People interested in real life social problems are the people I'm interested in discussing this with, because what I hope is to talk about how we as people can escape the confines of oppression that these "legitimate claims" tend to create.

What's more relevant to questions I'm raising than this kind of observation:

Quote Alpharius:That will be interesting. BP being a UK firm

would be something like: How can the citizens of the U.S. protect themselves from non U.S based, transnational corporations that come to plunder our lands and make a profit from the damages they leave behind that we have to deal with.

This may not be that far from the sorts of problems faced for decades by people who have had to deal with U.S.-based transnational corporations, supported by the World Bank and WTO agreements coming into their rain forests, building dams, destroying their ways of life and ecosystems, and so forth and so on. Some of those very people may be in Arizona now dealing with the insanity of a terrified populace recognizing that our supreme way of life on this planet is under threat. If we can recognize that we share similar problems with other peoples in the world who have had their lives disrupted where no legitimate concerns recognized by any court can bring about redress of wrongs, then something of human value, beyond the rights of private property, might be raised amongst us all in the world.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Alphie's only concern is for all things right-wing, including having the people subsidize corporations including the damage they cause the people. I say more power to the government under Democrats if they can corrupt the power of government to serve the people as the Republicans did to serve business interests, as they did in limiting liabilities for oil companies. Ihope they pull it off, without any limits to liability as it should be.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jeffbiss:

Alphie's only concern is for all things right-wing, including having the people subsidize corporations including the damage they cause the people. I say more power to the government under Democrats if they can corrupt the power of government to serve the people as the Republicans did to serve business interests, as they did in limiting liabilities for oil companies. Ihope they pull it off, without any limits to liability as it should be.


What a partisen hack. For only a Hack would deny the reality that Obama nor the Democrat congress can pass Ex post facto laws directed solely at BP.

If you don't like the Oil Pollution Act, Blame the Democrats, their bill. Would you like the Bush Signing Statement, Very cum Bi Ra bi-partisen love.

Only a partisen hack would love a corrupted democrat government.

Alpharius's picture
Alpharius
Joined:
Apr. 20, 2010 10:28 am
Quote .ren:The issue I'm concerned about, the questions I'm raising, have to do with the relationship between what has been deemed "legitimate claims" and the extent of damages to society and the environment (the commons) that have been carefully left out of the narrow range of those claims.

These are real life social problems. People interested in real life social problems are the people I'm interested in discussing this with, because what I hope is to talk about how we as people can escape the confines of oppression that these "legitimate claims" tend to create

Define "Legitimate Claim"

Can I sue BP because I am reservation as a gulf coast resort and the Sand may get Oily?

Can a restaurant sue BP because their local Fish supplier has limited stock and has raised the price of Fish

Alpharius's picture
Alpharius
Joined:
Apr. 20, 2010 10:28 am
Define "Legitimate Claim" Can I sue BP because I am reservation as a gulf coast resort and the Sand may get Oily? Can a restaurant sue BP because their local Fish supplier has limited stock and has raised the price of Fish

A legitimate claim is easy to define. There's a normal for the region and if someone is negatively affected by the spill and suffers a loss then the claim is legitimate. Also, if it costs state, local, and the federal governments a certain amount to clean up the mess that is the result of the leak then that is a legitimate claim.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Alpharius:
Quote .ren:The issue I'm concerned about, the questions I'm raising, have to do with the relationship between what has been deemed "legitimate claims" and the extent of damages to society and the environment (the commons) that have been carefully left out of the narrow range of those claims.

These are real life social problems. People interested in real life social problems are the people I'm interested in discussing this with, because what I hope is to talk about how we as people can escape the confines of oppression that these "legitimate claims" tend to create

Define "Legitimate Claim"

Look, I already have sufficiently defined "legitimate claims." Why do you insist on chasing your tail? How would redefining legitimate claims help you understand the problem I'm addressing at this point?

Quote Alpharius: Can I sue BP because I am reservation as a gulf coast resort and the Sand may get Oily? Can a restaurant sue BP because their local Fish supplier has limited stock and has raised the price of Fish

That request for legal advice from me has nothing to do with what I'm expressly interested in discussing. Take your hypothetical and go find out whether you can sue BP for yourself. I'm not interested in debating the fine points of the law over "legitimate claims," those will be settled some day in various courts of law, that's the point I was making with BP's promise to settle all "legitimate claims." So far you've completely ignored the 99 percent of my first post related to the twenty year after effects of the Exxon Valdez spill on the communities and the environment. Exxon settled "legitimate" claims. So will BP, I presume.

What I foresee, given similar patterns from past posters who do this sort of thing, is you attempting to spam this thread with reams and reams of quoted law completely irrelevant to my concerns. If that's your interest, start another thread stating up front that's your interest. As of now, I view this as a derailment tactic on your part. At this point you are merely going around in circles over legal minutia, in lieu of your first post about "illegitimate" claims, which apparently you want to define so we can have a debate of some kind. "We" -- as in you and I -- are not going to debate the issue because I don't care about defining it. It's enough to say it's what won't be covered in a court of law.

What I have carefully expressed that I care about is people giving some thought to that which won't be covered in "legitimate claims," and then considering what that means to all of us. This is a kind of discussion that people in democracies might have, just hypothetically, since we don't seem to have any real life examples at the moment. I think you've indicated quite clearly that you are not interested in what I've expressed as my concerns for a discussion.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote .ren:Look, I already have sufficiently defined "legitimate claims." Why do you insist on chasing your tail? How would redefining legitimate claims help you understand the problem I'm addressing at this point

Certainly it is my tail to chase and I will do it as I please.

So recapping to "legitimate claims"

Quote .ren:"The legal system decides appropriate, "legitimate" costs in an "Act of Man" disaster. The legal system decides the answer to your non sequitur question:.

You have no opinion of what constitutes legitimate, that is up to the Courts to decide. The court decided $2.5 billion in the Exxon Case "act of man" (originally $5 billion) is illegitimate and $500 was legitimate and that possibly in this case, the Courts will rule that legitimate cost are capped at $75 billion. BP has pledge not to pay any Illegitimate claims.
BP and to the lesser degree the court gets to decide between frivolous and serious claims.

You go back to posting whatever you want. Without clarity of what constitutes legitimate and illegitimate cost than BP is doing just as they said they intend to do and there should be no complaint to how they are handling this oil spill, which is far better than Governments response. If government feels it needs to involve itself, then will see Katrina Type fraud.

Alpharius's picture
Alpharius
Joined:
Apr. 20, 2010 10:28 am
Quote Alpharius:
Quote .ren:Look, I already have sufficiently defined "legitimate claims." Why do you insist on chasing your tail? How would redefining legitimate claims help you understand the problem I'm addressing at this point
Certainly it is my tail to chase and I will do it as I please. So recapping to "legitimate claims"
Quote .ren:"The legal system decides appropriate, "legitimate" costs in an "Act of Man" disaster. The legal system decides the answer to your non sequitur question:.
You have no opinion of what constitutes legitimate, that is up to the Courts to decide.

Once again: Debating legal claims is not my concern on this thread. The courts will decide what legal claims are legitimate in this case. You don't need to repeat me over and over on this issue. If by doing so you are trying to force a debate to clarify the meaning of "legitimate claims" I will stress once again, that is not related to my concerns. It's rude of you to continue this tactic while ignoring the rest of my main concerns I've been more than clear about.

Quote Alpharius:The court decided $2.5 billion in the Exxon Case "act of man" (originally $5 billion) is illegitimate and $500 was legitimate and that possibly in this case, the Courts will rule that legitimate cost are capped at $75 billion. BP has pledge not to pay any Illegitimate claims. BP and to the lesser degree the court gets to decide between frivolous and serious claims.

I have acknowledged what the court did. I'm past that. You aren't, start a thread about it and go round and round if you want.

Quote Alpharius:You go back to posting whatever you want.

I have been consistently posting what I intended to talk about. I have nothing to go back to. This is your derailment.

Quote Alpharius:Without clarity of what constitutes legitimate and illegitimate cost than BP is doing just as they said they intend to do and there should be no complaint to how they are handling this oil spill, which is far better than Governments response. If government feels it needs to involve itself, then will see Katrina Type fraud.

I don't need clarity about that. I'm addressing the less formal social and human costs of "Acts of Man," the impacts outside the "legitimate claims." I'm addressing a notion of justice not addressed by the court system. A justice that people expect but discover they don't get. From a quote in my first post:

In the immediate aftermath, Exxon promised the people of Cordova that they would be made whole. They lied. No one in Cordova could possibly have been prepared for the epic battle for justice that would occur over the next 20 years.

That's what 99 percent of my posts are about. The legitimate claims issues will be taken care of by the legal system. I've made that point several times now. I referenced a book that chronicles what those are: Not One Drop: Betrayal and Courage in the Wake of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.

I'm concerned with especially this problem that emerged from her twenty year study that resulted in that book:

Perhaps one of the most salient points made in "Not One Drop" is that evidence amassed by trauma experts clearly indicates that disasters caused by so-called "acts of God" such as earthquakes, floods and tornadoes affect people much differently in the long run than such man-made disasters as dam failures, oil spills and nuclear accidents. My reading over the years would tend to confirm this. As Riki points out "natural disasters brought people together in crisis, while man-made disasters tore communities apart." Now nearly two decades later the people of Cordova struggle mightily to put their lives and their community back together again.

I'm simply clarifying for you, once again, not debating your non sequitur. Let's hope you get it this time.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
You have no opinion of what constitutes legitimate, that is up to the Courts to decide. The court decided $2.5 billion in the Exxon Case "act of man" (originally $5 billion) is illegitimate and $500 was legitimate and that possibly in this case, the Courts will rule that legitimate cost are capped at $75 billion. BP has pledge not to pay any Illegitimate claims.

And the court was wrong. Had teh U.S. government pressed the issue Exxon should have been forced to pay for the entire cleanup, which is still not done, and if it balked, destroyed as a corporation and those in charge prosecuted for the environmental damage that they were directly reasponsible for. However, our government, being a right-wing agent for corporations, acted in Exxon's best interest, which should make a wonderful conservative like you very happy. Enjoy your fascism!

BP and to the lesser degree the court gets to decide between frivolous and serious claims.

With pressure from Obama, if he's genuine can coerce them to act more reasponsibly. If they don't then Obama can press for their death or prosecute their leadership as criminals.

You go back to posting whatever you want. Without clarity of what constitutes legitimate and illegitimate cost than BP is doing just as they said they intend to do and there should be no complaint to how they are handling this oil spill, which is far better than Governments response. If government feels it needs to involve itself, then will see Katrina Type fraud.

Oh the canard of personal responsibility from a conservative. Here you have the specious argument that Obama's administration failed to respond when it was part of the application that the drilling company have a plan to respond to a leak/spill and is responsible for taking that action. Then he ignores the chain of events from the explosion to the point that the extent of the leak was made known. Oh. how soathing disingenousness is. But such is the sociopathy of a corporatist who is stupid enough to even believe that power held by a for-profit private corporation is somehow to be considered better than power purported to be held by the people that has been usurped by those same corporations.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

jeff, I don't know if you can see what I'm trying to get at with this thread.

I started this thread after assessing the book that Riki Ott wrote: Not One Drop: Betrayal and Courage in the Wake of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill., and after listening to her interview on Democracy Now!

My vision for the thread is to work with this one-of-a-kind study of the only event in the U.S. political and legal system that can compare, and to look forward to attempt to anticipate the inevitable disruptions that will be caused by this catastrophe, which is being wholly misrepresented in the news as a "spill."

What Riki Ott provides is a rare case study of the after effects of a catastrophic oil spill on both the environment and the people in and around the Prince William Sound. It's a twenty year case study by a uniquely appropriate human being who understands the aquatic environment, thus who can observe with a great depth of science-based knowledge what actually does take place in that environment, and who also lived in the communities and lived with the community destruction and the correlated human efforts to try to cope. This is living-human-coping, not prescription by fundamentalist laws that define legitimate from illegitimate.

So my vision for the thread was based on a twenty year history and an informed study, which I am using to look forward and to see what we, the people of the United States, can expect to see taking place. And in the seeing, we may be able to mediate some of the human trauma that goes with this level of disruption.

I used the notion of "legitimate costs" as the contrast point because Riki points to the larger community and environmental costs that the legal system of our government does not force the big guys to pay when their business interests cause disasters. Inevitably, because of that "legitimate" cost constriction, we as a democratic community (or in reality, acting in our minds as if we were) need to recognize that as a people we are also are able to create and use our government to help ourselves recover if we want to recognize that we can go beyond the carefully bounded restrictions to deal with what Alpharius calls here the "illegitimate costs" of what is lost outside the legalities defined but still related to these calamities.

By focusing on "legalities" we get a kind of logical reductionism that makes us as a species blind to other things we do in the world, and I'm simply calling attention to that. I'm not making any statements of should or shouldn't. I'd like those to come from a democratic action that an informed and visionary community decides. We may not be anywhere close to that. but that's what I am imagining here.

Notice the careful framing and the constant pounding of those two binary concepts. Notice how that works to restrict to discussion. In my experience, that's not an accident. It's as if they only want to consider a loss if it's been defined under the law. Any other type of loss therefore ceases to exist, it's the loss of "babies" and "whiners" who can't cut it, get the picture?

Destroying cultures which are, in essence, other ways of living, is irrelevant and not open to discussion in certain binary frames of reference. Why? Doesn't anyone wonder that? Why does that topic of discussion threaten anyone? Why would they want to prevent an exploratory discussion about how a catastrophe affects human culture in many ways not covered by our legal system? Destroying cultures and ways of life within our own society thus also falls within that same arena of non discussion.

I think only a tiny minority of us bother to consider that this Gulf catastrophe is only one of many less spectacular environmentally destructive human-related acts going on every day, all of which are beginning to accumulate to create what may very well be an imbalance of nature.

We learn from observation and studying ecology that nature abhors an imbalance. Everything about ecology is about achieving an ecological balance in a given system to the extent life forces can. We can see this at one level even if we can't completely detail everything that goes into an ecological system of life. The factors are always complex and generally unique to a given system. The arctic will be vastly different in characteristics, and thus species that evolve to create balance will vary phenotypically and genotypically, than the tropics and its evolved species.

Humans used to adapt to those varying characteristics with unique technologies and cultures related to those technologies. The Inuit lived in the harsh Arctic environment, the Kung lived well in the Kalahari desert -- two very extreme and difficult environments. Now we use non renewable sources of energy to create a technological adaption that's pretty much the same everywhere.

That industrial adaptation strategy will not go on forever. It's collapsing now despite all tactics of repression and denial. This oil geyser is the result of the factors related to Peak Oil. There's no law in the universe that says humans have to extract every drop of oil for human use, that's an entirely human originated concept. And in the process of going after the harder to extract reservoirs, we endanger the balanced ecosystems on the planet. That's also a cost.

So I want to start talking about vision. About looking at how our current system deals with the loss of our larger, community oriented strategies for dealing with this disruptive force in our very own system. By looking at what our way of life has created, and what it's willing to deal with, what it's not, may be instructive in helping everyone to develop new visions. That's my intent here with this thread, not to debate legitimate versus illegitimate costs, which we are allowed to think about, which we are not.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Any consideration for a product 'ELASTOL' to help clean oil-spills? There was mention of 'ELASTOL' 20 years ago following the Alaska spill.

http://www.panhandleparade.com/index.php/mbb/article/local_man_says_hes_got_an_oil_spill_solution/mbb7723058/

http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/ncp/products/elastol.htm

Semantic Monitor's picture
Semantic Monitor
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Semantic Monitor:

Any consideration for a product 'ELASTOL' to help clean oil-spills? There was mention of 'ELASTOL' 20 years ago following the Alaska spill.

http://www.panhandleparade.com/index.php/mbb/article/local_man_says_hes_got_an_oil_spill_solution/mbb7723058/

http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/ncp/products/elastol.htm

Personally I don't see how this information has much to do with my intentions when I introduced this aspect of this catastrophe. It's probably good information for a discussion somewhere, but I'm looking at the "costs" that will probably not be paid by BP in society's definition of "legitimate costs" and how we, as a society, will deal with those "costs."

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Currently Chatting

Community Archive

Why the Web of Life is Dying...

Could you survive with just half of your organs? Think about it. What if you had just half your brain, one kidney, half of your heart, one lung, half a liver and only half of your skin? It would be pretty hard to survive right? Sure, you could survive losing just one kidney or half of your liver, but at some point, losing pieces from all of your organs would be too much and you would die.