This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Massive OIl Spill in Arkansas!!!!!

#11NoName999Posted 3/31/2013 5:06:20 AM
Don't worry, the holy free market will handle this!
---
"This grass feels funny," Kirby thought. It feels like.... pants
#12paulo_yamatoPosted 3/31/2013 5:19:37 AM
The Libertarian point of view is this.
If any private landowners are harmed by the oil spill, they should be able to sue for the maximum amount.
If the government is harmed, because it is made up of taxpayers in Arkansas, they should be able to decide if/when/how much they want to sue for.
Not the Attorney General. Not the Governor. But the actual people of the state.

Now let's look at a Libertarian outcome.
1. The landowners sue for several millions dollars each, and they ask the oil company to remove their pipeline.
2. They live off the lawsuit for the rest of their lives, and the land is rehabilitated so it can be sold after their death.
3. The oil company is punished severely enough that they put in checks and safety measures so it does not happen like this again.
4. The state decides to sue because they take a vote and the residents of the state decide that. Not a politician.
5. The state wins or loses in court, and the oil company adjusts how they do business.

The federal lawsuit from the Gulf Oil Spill achieved nothing really. BP has spent millions on PR (big bucks for the TV stations and media, most of who are LIBERAL) but has it really improved its practices? Why didn't it have in place safety measures before this happened? Think about that.

And the U.S. really needs to get off the oil standard entirely, but not with a Democrat in the White House. This was a Republican problem (Nixon) and it should be a Republican president that forces the lazy Detroit cartel (Ford/GM/Chrysler) to convert to another fuel source than oil.
---
You see it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. -Adolf Hitler
#13WordUpButterCupPosted 3/31/2013 5:22:17 AM
nbtheleftusethisforpoliticaltrolling*

Oh wait v_v
---
Samsung Galaxy S III
Posted using GameFlux
#14mystic belmontPosted 3/31/2013 6:14:46 AM
From: paulo_yamato | #012
1. The landowners sue for several millions dollars each, and they ask the oil company to remove their pipeline.
2. They live off the lawsuit for the rest of their lives, and the land is rehabilitated so it can be sold after their death.


This is assuming that the oil companies loses, and don't turn around and sue the landowners.
---
"Freedom was meaningless without ownership and control over one's own body" -Henry McNeal Turner
[Evil Republican]
#15RandomActofFailPosted 3/31/2013 6:48:59 AM(edited)
The Libertarian point of view is this.
If any private landowners are harmed by the oil spill, they should be able to sue for the maximum amount.
If the government is harmed, because it is made up of taxpayers in Arkansas, they should be able to decide if/when/how much they want to sue for.
Not the Attorney General. Not the Governor. But the actual people of the state.


Libertarians put massive faith in people, and more specifically, the judiciary. People don't have the resources to go toe to toe with large companies in court. There is a natural power asymmetry which libertarians fail to address.

Regulatory agencies, as much as people claim they are captured, have the knowledge and capability to hold market actors accountable. They also have a technical basis for decisions, whereas the courts have nothing but simpleton judges handing out verdicts.


Now let's look at a Libertarian outcome.
1. The landowners sue for several millions dollars each, and they ask the oil company to remove their pipeline.


The landowners will have difficulty winning in court and lack the resources to fight a long, drawn out battle. Best case scenario they get a pittance in damages when they settle. Also, why would the company remove the pipeline? Because people asked? Hah.


2. They live off the lawsuit for the rest of their lives, and the land is rehabilitated so it can be sold after their death.


1. Assuming they win.
2. Who will rehabilitate the land?


3. The oil company is punished severely enough that they put in checks and safety measures so it does not happen like this again.


You mean like BP in Alaska, BP in Texas City, BP in the Gulf, ExxonMobil in West Africa...the list goes on.


4. The state decides to sue because they take a vote and the residents of the state decide that. Not a politician.


True Fact: State governments are made up of *gasp* politicians. And democratic input is not a good way to settle environmental policy.


5. The state wins or loses in court, and the oil company adjusts how they do business.


Actually, if the damages are low enough the company will keep on trucking with no alteration in its safety culture. Hence, BP today despite having three major failures in three separate divisions within the past decade.


And the U.S. really needs to get off the oil standard entirely, but not with a Democrat in the White House. This was a Republican problem (Nixon) and it should be a Republican president that forces the lazy Detroit cartel (Ford/GM/Chrysler) to convert to another fuel source than oil.


That sounds like Industrial Policy. I wasn't aware Libertarians were for that.
---
"Whoever becomes imbued with a noble idea kindles a flame from which other torches are lit"
~Henry George
#16headmasterevilPosted 3/31/2013 9:16:43 AM
The Free Market knows how to best distribute environmental catastrophes and oil spills. The consumers will know not to purchase Exxon oil. If they keep buying it, then it means oil spills are good.
---
How may I help you?
#17goatthief(Topic Creator)Posted 3/31/2013 3:15:39 PM
Vid of the spill:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=772_1364753119
---
*Steals your goats*
#18goatthief(Topic Creator)Posted 3/31/2013 9:55:23 PM
WHY IS NO ONE PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS?
---
*Steals your goats*
#19CyborgSage00x0Posted 3/31/2013 10:03:54 PM
RandomActofFail posted...
CyborgSage00x0 posted...
You know, after the official Congressional report about the Keystone Pipeline showed that overall affects on greenhouse gas emissions would be virtually unchanged whether we built the damn thing or not, I was *this* close to agreeing to just build it.


However, I did note that no one had an answer to what happens if a pipeline bursts and spills oil. The general approach seemed to be "pray that doesn't happen" (tbf, it is kinda rare). But then you get stories like this, which reminds me why Keystone is such a crappy idea. And Exxon literally was in hot water for this TWO YEARS ago.


There are over 250k miles of pipeline in the U.S. It is still the safest way to transport chemical products. I do not oppose building the Keystone XL pipeline because the alternatives are less efficient and likely will have a bigger public health impact.

That said, the government needs to mandate inspection of pipelines to a significant degree. Pipeline corrosion/buckling etc. is entirely predictable. When market failure occurs, as often happens with respect to the environment, the government has a role to play.


I kinda doubt spills via truck or train happen for often than pipebursts, but I did indeed mention that they are rare in the grand scheme of things. And IIRC, the report foudn that not building the pipeline would have a lower overall effect on greenhouse gases, but it was such a small amount (.4%, I believe) that it became negligable.

But yes, inspections of virtually everything from oil to meat in this country have become far too lax.
---
Currently playing: Borderlands 2, LoL, Super Mario 3DS, Kid Icarus: Uprising, Pokemon White 2, NSMB3DS.
#20RandomActofFailPosted 4/1/2013 3:35:50 AM
CyborgSage00x0 posted...
RandomActofFail posted...
CyborgSage00x0 posted...
You know, after the official Congressional report about the Keystone Pipeline showed that overall affects on greenhouse gas emissions would be virtually unchanged whether we built the damn thing or not, I was *this* close to agreeing to just build it.


However, I did note that no one had an answer to what happens if a pipeline bursts and spills oil. The general approach seemed to be "pray that doesn't happen" (tbf, it is kinda rare). But then you get stories like this, which reminds me why Keystone is such a crappy idea. And Exxon literally was in hot water for this TWO YEARS ago.


There are over 250k miles of pipeline in the U.S. It is still the safest way to transport chemical products. I do not oppose building the Keystone XL pipeline because the alternatives are less efficient and likely will have a bigger public health impact.

That said, the government needs to mandate inspection of pipelines to a significant degree. Pipeline corrosion/buckling etc. is entirely predictable. When market failure occurs, as often happens with respect to the environment, the government has a role to play.


I kinda doubt spills via truck or train happen for often than pipebursts


...or ship. But you're correct they happen less often, but that's primarily because they are not the primary mode of transportation for hazardous liquids. Pipelines are statistically the safer bet. So the reason you'll see more pipeline incidents than shipping/trucking/rail is that the vast majority of oil and natural gas transportation is via pipeline. But incidents via other modes of transportation still happen (like the Exxon Valdez for shipping or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graniteville,_South_Carolina_train_crash for rail).

For the stats:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_17.htm

I know I know...right wing think tank. But the data is pulled straight from federal agencies and it's the only internet link that pulls the tables together instead of referring you to multiple DoT links.

That said, pipeline safety is extremely important. The public needs to be more engaged on this issue because it could impact anyone.
http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/AllPSI.html?nocache=6064
http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/AdvocacyGroups.htm?nocache=5546

You're correct that Keystone XL will have a marginal (but positive) increase in GHG emissions. However, that is only compared to the case when it's kept in the ground. I find that to be an unlikely scenario.
---
"Whoever becomes imbued with a noble idea kindles a flame from which other torches are lit"
~Henry George