“States are the entities in the best position to decide what measures need to be in place to minimize those risks. Federal statutes such as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act take into account the fact that pollution does not recognize state boundaries by requiring states to take consider the effect of their industries on the states downstream and downwind. International pollution control agreements, such as those addressing the depletion of stratospheric ozone, recognize that pollution is a global problem, and through variances for developing countries, they acknowledge that pollution and industry are necessarily intertwined. Ultimately, the international community benefits from the prevention and control of pollution, so international commerce can and must bear the costs of prevention and cleanup. The constitutional framework that enabled courts and legislatures to work together to address the problem of oil spills in an age of oil dependence should be celebrated.” (Weller, 2002, p.71)
In this context, the real problem that is holding back risk-mitigation efforts is the links between business and government. In the American context, while Washington and industry are meant to hold joint responsibility for accidents such as BP, so far they have only exhibited their shared impotence in the way the clean-up operation was dealt with. BP’s economy with the truth in properly disclosing risks, and later its total incompetency in bringing the situation under control has meant that the company has breached its social contract. And the hostile reactions to free-markets in the aftermath of this disaster are understandable. The critics are all of the view that private companies can no longer be trusted with the job of environmental protection. Sadly, though, neither can the government. The central government was, in law, and in fact, the owner of the section of the Gulf where BP drilled for oil resources. But it leased out its ownership rights to the private entity BP, which had an unimpressive safety record. The central government also “issued permits for the drilling operation, and required the company to use the government’s own flawed models in preparing for spills. It then failed to keep a sharp eye on what BP and subcontractors Transocean and Halliburton were doing to its property.” (Richman, 2010, p.2) This is likely due to the fact that government agencies do not relate to the property that private entities do. Governments also tend to get very lenient toward digressions on part of private companies. In the case of the Minerals Management Service, which is part of the Interior Department, there is a clear conflict of interest: “It makes money off the drilling it permits and regulates. Thus it could benefit from decisions that are bad for the public”. (Richman, 2010, p.2)
This brings us back to the question of why the general public (across nationalities) should bear the brunt for the failures of private corporations. It should also be remembered that the best way to mitigate risk in this area is by creating awareness among people and policy-makers alike about the non-sustainability of fossil fuel usage. Awareness should be created about the impossibility of eradicating deep-water drilling accidents. For example,
“Sophisticated technology and a multiplicity of fail-safe devices have failed: They leak, they explode, they poison the environment and they kill people. But when technology-based industries like oil drilling and nuclear power are tainted by greed, conflicts of interest, inadequate regulation and short-term thinking, catastrophes are not accidents-they are predictable outcomes. If ever there was an argument for putting public welfare over corporate profits and for establishing science-based regulatory bodies free from conflicts of interest, oil drilling and nuclear power- with their unavoidable and planet-threatening risks- are it. But beyond safety is sanity: Government must not only regulate industry, but must mandate and subsidize sustainable, green energy. Whatever the price, it is cheap compared to the costs of the current path.” (Allen, 2010, p.12)