Pacific Standard July-August 2013 Cover

Oil Spill Outlines the Limits of Government

If Americans don’t want the dubious comforts of a full-fledged nanny state, then they can’t come running for comprehensive succor when some milk, or oil, spills.


President Barack Obama is briefed by National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen, as Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Carol Browner listens aboard Marine One en route to spill-effected Louisiana May 28 (Pete Souza/The White House)
June 2, 2010 • By • 13 Comments
0 Flares 0 Flares ×

Since oil started gushing into the Gulf of Mexico six weeks ago, government officials have cycled through a series of crisis-management messages. First they were monitoring BP’s response, then working with BP, then keeping “a boot on the neck” of BP. Then they were distancing themselves from BP, refusing to share a podium with BP, and finally, this week, investigating BP.

Amid the evolving debate about government’s role in the disaster cleanup — a debate that has drawn fine distinctions between who’s “responsible,” who’s “accountable” and who’s “in charge” — one thing officials haven’t said is the uncomfortable truth: Americans don’t actually want the kind of government that keeps on hand at all times billion-dollar deep-sea contingent equipment and the highly trained experts who know how to use it.

The government that could do what BP has thus far failed to is not the government most American taxpayers would honestly elect — and certainly not taxpayers in the small-government coastal red states now most affected by the spill.

BP has been unable to plug the leak through a month of increasingly ridiculous-sounding seat-of-the-pants maneuvers. Nobody in government has had any better ideas, largely because offshore oil-well-plugging is not government’s job. When Interior Secretary Ken Salazar crowed that officials would push BP “out of the way” if it couldn’t halt the spill, the government’s lead man in the Gulf had to concede reality.

Idea Lobby

THE IDEA LOBBY
Miller-McCune's Washington correspondent Emily Badger follows the ideas informing, explaining and influencing government, from the local think tank circuit to academic research that shapes D.C. policy from afar.

“To push BP out of the way would raise the question of ‘replace them with what?’” said Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen.

So then what exactly is the feds’ role, in this industrial disaster and others, if Uncle Sam can’t actually roll up his sleeves and operate a lower marine riser package cap containment system?

Government is rightly responsible for what’s now too late to correct in the Gulf — the front-end regulation of the drilling permits that were given to BP on the company’s word alone that it was prepared for worst-case scenarios. The administration is responsible for setting up the independent commission that will investigate flawed government oversight, the April 20 rig explosion and BP’s response.

Idea Lobby

THE IDEA LOBBY
Miller-McCune's Washington correspondent Emily Badger follows the ideas informing, explaining and influencing government, from the local think tank circuit to academic research that shapes D.C. policy from afar.

Government is on the hook for coordinating the available resources of agencies like the Coast Guard with BP and ensuring that BP compensates local areas for damage. And if there were any crimes committed by BP — in violation of environmental statues, for instance — government is responsible for prosecuting that, too.

But beyond that?

“Just imagine what would have happened six months ago if the president had suggested a new agency that would be trained and funded to clean up disasters like this, granted the authority to take over an oil well at the first sign of trouble, and this agency would be funded by a large tax on oil companies,” wrote University of North Dakota law professor Joshua Fershee on the Business Law Prof Blog. “You can be sure that the response would have been that the government shouldn’t be in this business because the oil companies are better trained, better prepared and better able to respond to such problems.”

Then imagine the infinite other highly technical low-probability contingencies for which government would have to bone up on behalf of private industry: coal-ash spills, mine collapses, chemical leaks, refinery explosions, factory fires, ship collisions.

A government that could clean up all that by itself would not only be unsustainably expansive and expensive — it would be subsidizing private industry and reducing the cost to companies of taking on risk.

That means if we want BP to clean up BP’s mess, without the comfort of knowing a higher power can step in, and if we want a restrained government that monitors industry without acting like it, then we may have to accept the possibility of periodic events like this one.

Small-government Gulf state politicians, already on the defensive for decrying the failure of big-government response, can’t say this.

And it’s hard to imagine President Obama telling Americans this either — that outside of times of disaster, we haven’t actually ordered up a government equipped to do what many are now asking.

More like this: Politics, The Idea Lobby
Tags: , , ,
  • fireatwill

    Maybe we don't need a government capability to take over, but we sure need a stronger requirement on the drillers to have a plan B, C, and D.

    This is the equivalent of allowing nuclear power plants to operate according the industry's whim, without any contingency plan or cpability to execute — or is that gone from nuclear power and weapons plants as well?

  • dorveK

    “… we may have to accept the possibility of periodic events like this one.” Brilliant; we may not be asked if we agree or not, anyway…

  • Jeff Rosenberg

    Excellent analysis notably lacking from MSM coverage. This event helps expose the hollowing out of regulatory oversight, via corporate capture of politicians and thence the bureaucrats, as an underlying structural failure in our political system. The bank bailouts serve as another example.

    Preventing problems in the first place is the realm of gov't; instead, gov't is now focused on providing bureaucratic cover after the fact to absolve corporations of responsibility on those instance where their risky behavior backfires on them and us.

    We need a fresh cast of actors in gov't, preferebly without any ties to the current ensemble.

  • Anonymous Coward

    I like your brain, Emily.

  • sbvidemus

    That's correct, it seems to me: there are limits to government, especially in terms of high tech. industries such as undersea, a mile undersea, oil drilling. The knowledge and skills to do the job and do it right are highly technical and limited.

    But what the article fails to address is the responsibility to clean up the errors or simply the accidents. It is outrageous that BP is in charge of the cleanup and everything has to be run through them. The result is now close to two months into this nightmare a failure to not only protect the environment, but to save the creatures and even to rescue them.

    This is not high tech. Anyone can go out and rescue a bird (protecting themselves from oil exposure with gloves and clothing) but people are not being allowed to help. Thousands and thousands of people have volunteered. Few to none are called. There's only one washing station (and washing a bird is not high tech) and they, too, the Tri-State and partnened IBRRC, seem to be a monopoly and are not accepting volunteers. It's a small, closed and often petty world, wildlife rehabilitation. In such a disaster as an oil spill, there needs to be much more openness.

    From reports, beaches and off-shore islands are often empty of people there to save the birds and other marine life. Booms are missing or inadequately laid out. Only because of a few reporting photographers, Charley Reidel, Carolyn Cole, especially, and, especially, too, Anderson Cooper's 360.com, have we been able to see what's happening to the NATIONALLY-PROTECTED wildlife. These are creatures protected by federal laws, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, for instance — but not rescued by the federal government. Protection and restoration efforts are minimal when BP and this oil drilling are involved.

    It is a disgrace, a horror — and I believe no one should find this a correct way to proceed. BP, in charge, has fallen down on the job; the US government has not stepped in sufficiently demanding transparency and efficiency. Countless seabirds, marine life, marsh ecosystem, the essential underwater ecosystem that supports coastal economies are all in collapse because of this failure. Shame on them; shame on us.

    I hope Miller-McCune will send an investigative reporter there on these efforts, what's being done and, importantly, what should be done. Only that way will there be changes in how protective and restorative work should be done. It's too late now for the entire crop of this year's chicks of the Louisiana state bird, the Brown Pelican, and most of the adults and probably millions of other creatures, large to tiny, but there are still some uncontaminated or little contaminated that could be saved. No doubt, there will be another oil spill, somewhere.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/BetsyRC BetsyRC

    That's correct, it seems to me: there are limits to government, especially in terms of high tech. industries such as undersea, a mile undersea, oil drilling. The knowledge and skills to do the job and do it right are highly technical and limited.

    But what the article fails to address is the responsibility to clean up the errors or simply the accidents. It is outrageous that BP is in charge of the cleanup and everything has to be run through them. The result is now close to two months into this nightmare a failure to not only protect the environment, but to save the creatures and even to rescue them.

    This is not high tech. Anyone can go out and rescue a bird (protecting themselves from oil exposure with gloves and clothing) but people are not being allowed to help. Thousands and thousands of people have volunteered. Few to none are called. There's only one washing station (and washing a bird is not high tech) and they, too, the Tri-State and partnened IBRRC, seem to be a monopoly and are not accepting volunteers. It's a small, closed and often petty world, wildlife rehabilitation. In such a disaster as an oil spill, there needs to be much more openness.

    From reports, beaches and off-shore islands are often empty of people there to save the birds and other marine life. Booms are missing or inadequately laid out. Only because of a few reporting photographers, Charley Reidel, Carolyn Cole, especially, and, especially, too, Anderson Cooper's 360.com, have we been able to see what's happening to the NATIONALLY-PROTECTED wildlife. These are creatures protected by federal laws, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, for instance — but not rescued by the federal government. Protection and restoration efforts are minimal when BP and this oil drilling are involved.

    It is a disgrace, a horror — and I believe no one should find this a correct way to proceed. BP, in charge, has fallen down on the job; the US government has not stepped in sufficiently demanding transparency and efficiency. Countless seabirds, marine life, marsh ecosystem, the essential underwater ecosystem that supports coastal economies are all in collapse because of this failure. Shame on them; shame on us.

    I hope Miller-McCune will send an investigative reporter there on these efforts, what's being done and, importantly, what should be done. Only that way will there be changes in how protective and restorative work should be done. It's too late now for the entire crop of this year's chicks of the Louisiana state bird, the Brown Pelican, and most of the adults and probably millions of other creatures, large to tiny, but there are still some uncontaminated or little contaminated that could be saved. No doubt, there will be another oil spill, somewhere.

  • swampfoxniner

    and what the govt is good at these days is telling us what to do and how to do it. you guys should check out the new facebook group NANNY STATE LIBERATION FRONT.

  • Edgar79

    The argument that you have to embrace the nanny state or else you can't expect the President to do his job is absurd. Since 1990 it has been the President's legal responsibility to respond to oil spills. 33 U.S.C. 1321states:

    ("c) Federal removal authority
    (1) General removal requirement
    (A) The President shall, in accordance with the National
    Contingency Plan and any appropriate Area Contingency Plan,
    ensure effective and immediate removal of a discharge, and
    mitigation or prevention of a substantial threat of a discharge,
    of oil or a hazardous substance –
    (i) into or on the navigable waters;
    (ii) on the adjoining shorelines to the navigable waters;
    (iii) into or on the waters of the exclusive economic zone;
    or
    (iv) that may affect natural resources belonging to,
    appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of
    the United States."

    Exploiting Obama's incompetence to further a leftist agenda is unconscionable. Obama needs to either man up and executive the duties of his office or resign.

  • anti-fascist

    Lame article. If this spill hasn't proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Companies like BP NEED a NANNY, then either Emily Badger is willfully ignoring the truth, or she is, like ALL of MILLER-MCCUNE, a paid shill for the multinational corporate world "government". If you put a solely-for-profit corporation in charge of regulating itself, it will always take the path or least resistance – and become "corrupt" in the process. Look at the financial sector. Look at the mining sector and mountaintop removal. Look at the oil sector. The corporate balance sheet always maximizes profits by dumping its waste on the public. They don't pay for their waste, we see it time and time again. Ignoring the ecological disaster of mountaintop removal, where does the carbon dioxide go when you burn coal? The electrical companies dump it into the atmosphere, instead of capturing the carbon. The expense is passed into your lungs, into global warming, into acid rain which changes the oceans' chemistry, and, ultimately, onto the next generation.

    All for quick, short term, quarter-by-quarter profits.

    The selfish, sociopathic behavior of the corporate form of ownership must be abolished. Obama talks about a spaceship making a mission to Mars. How insane is that? If you know anything about outer space, you would know that there is NOWHERE else for humans to go. This is it, this earth, this is it. This is our spaceship. If we keep its water filtration system clean (don't dump mercury, etc. into rivers), we can have water. If we keep its air filtration system clean (plant trees) we can have clean air. If we keep the oceans pure, and REGULATE the world's fishing fleets for long term sustainability, we can have fish to eat. Humans are, regrettably, short sighted, greedy creatures seeking instant gratification and always endeavoring to take the rewards and pass the problems on to some sucker. But when we are all locked in the same spaceship (mother earth), it turns out that the sucker is us.

  • Johnathan Higgins

    I have been to the Nanny State Liberation Front site as well. Great info and articles about this sort of thing. Highly recommeded!!!

  • aznomad

    There is a time and place for government involvement and number 1 is protecting the homeland regardless who or what the invader might be. It has failed miserably with the oil spill. It is obvious they have tied the hands of those who could get the clean up accomplished. Too many lawyers in the process and obviously no leaders. Yes, it is BP's job to stop the spill and to clean it up. But when they don't or can't then its time for government.

  • John Mountfort

    I'm afraid we'll have to wait for another Texas president before we'll see taxpayers footing the bill entire to clean up the messes of oil corporations ('course Bush would've took the hurt off by slashing taxes to make up the difference…).

  • Rick Caughey

    It's fairly obvious to me that those who like the Obama administration say that Obama couldn't put his finger i the leak and stop the oil flow and those who don't like the Obama amninistration say that they should have done more and been better prepared.

    Let's hear what the commission reports when all the fact are in.