That's essentially what cap-and-trade attempts to do. I'm somewhat skeptical of this approach because 1) it's expensive to measure, 2) many of the measurements only work for factory smokestacks and other "obvious" sources of pollution, and 3) even if you could accurately measure the amount of pollution, it's difficult to attach a specific monetary value to it.
I'm certainly open to the idea, but I have my doubts as to how well it would work from a practical standpoint.
I think in this case, we are talking about what to do after the fact. I cannot imagine that anyone would prefer that this oil be spilled over it not. So with the cat out of the bag, it than becomes time to discuss remediation instead of prevention.
However, prevention is always better.
But it is the same problem. How do you price it? No one owns that water, so it's kind of hard to determine how valuable it was.
Right now, I think you could just try to determine what damages you are getting from pollution and try to set prices based on that.
It's the only way I could see things working right now.
Look at me, I'm not an anti-enviornmentalist conservative. There is value in keeping up the environment. My only point is that it's not up to government to decide how much we value it. We need some kind of transition to allow that to happen. I haven't been able to think of one, though. For right now, though, this might be the only fair way to handle pollution.
So, in other words, 'foreign oil' really means 'Middle Eastern oil', correct?
From what I understand, they are only liable for 75 million, which is why I expect the American taxpayer will pick up the tab for the rest of the damages and lost wages/industry.
Trial lawyers are loving this.
Think of all the money they will make off of this incident.
This is funny, hearing everyone talk about these guys needing to pay for 100% of the damage costs. Why don't we hear the same cry for air pollution or water pollution? No, we need to cap those instead. Seems to me that's a lot of hypocrisy.
... because people like you swear it's having zero or no effect on our planet.
Wow...... because people like you swear it's having zero or no effect on our planet. This 'accident' on the other hand has a verifiable clear as daylight effect on the environment. We don't need to have 100 page long debates on a fact which much of the scientific community agrees on. We don't have to debate made up e-mail controversies etc. We don't have to debate whether Al Gore invented the interwebz. It's simple. BP has as of today destroyed the livelihoods of thousands because of the 'Drill Baby Drill' mentality. End of story. Two separate issues.
Wow...
Ok, obviously the incident had an negative effect on the local environment. Anyone who questions that is insane.
Stating that a single entity has cause this incident is total BS and insane too.
Blaming the "Drill Baby Drill" mentality is also total BS and insane.
The multiple issues involved here are FAR more nuanced than that.
Do you think Obama will say that those lawyers made too much?
I'm mostly concerned about the innocent fishermen who have lost their livelihoods. These are not wealthy people and cannot get along without income.
Oil balls? You mean that oil isn't disrupted enough by waves to break it apart in the ocean? That's pretty interesting, actually.
Ideally they'd pay 100% of the cleanup and 100% of the incidental damages, but that probably isn't realistic. Hopefully they'll at least have to pay for the total cost of the cleanup and SOME of the incidental damages.
It's not just BP though. Halliburton and Transocean are liable as well.
All of the above plus criminal charges. They had illegally obtained permits to drill.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?