Currently, the financial limits set on how much BP will have to pay out in damages to third parties like fishermen and hotels at $75 million. Congress is upping that cap. Why not eliminate the cap?
Senator Robert F. Bennett, Republican of Utah, asked if setting aside all liability limits would preclude drilling by small operators, who could not afford enough insurance, or perhaps eliminate offshore drilling all together. “What are the chances that they will be able to get sufficient insurance if the cap is set so high, or the cap is lifted all together, so that a business decision will be made by the boards of these companies, ‘the risk is too great, we will drop all activities.’ ” [article]
Isn’t this how capitalism should work? If something is too great a financial risk, it doesn’t happen. The cost outweighs the benefit.
Wouldn’t that be something, if an oil company was responsible for all the damage it caused?
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
True. But don’t make the mistake of basing all forms of capitalism on the model BP has presented though. BP is one of many bad corporations out there that is resposible for a whole lot of environmental damage, but that doesn’t mean capitalism doesn’t work. The sad truth is, almost every efficient source of energy out there is a risk. Until solar power becomes cheaper and hydroelectricity and wind energy are more refined, every type of energy exploit is going to be a risk to the enviroment. It’s really too bad Obama cancelled the Constellation program because the research on the moon could have finally provided us with a clean and almost infinite source for unlocking fusion, which could possibly be the safest and cleanest source of energy we’lll ever know.