Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
not really, no it's not. And the people who run it don't directly make the decisions that result in these issues, so I don't see why you'd call them evil.
It saves money because it's sole motive is to make profit and return for its shareholders. How it does that is directly driven by humanity's desire for oil, and things it does to save money are in direct response to the legislation it works to.
You can certainly say it doesn't care about the environment. But then it doesn't care about anything, because it can't because it isn't human and you are trying to project human characteristics onto an inanimate object.
If you are really looking for "responsibility" here, I'd consider the all-conquering US obsession with oil and specifically geographical self-sustainability with oil, that leads congress to permit deepwater drilling (which is fundamentally dangerous) in a hurricane zone with the bare minimum of protective or safety regs.
(, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:36, 3 replies, latest was 15 years ago)
And yes, the people who run it, from where I work, make those decisions (in fact, I'm being paid now to prove that the ugly option is cheaper and better)
Of course they're here to make profit, but that doesn't mean I have to work for them and help them doing it (and it's not oil related)
Deepwater drilling done properly is not so dangerous, but in USA don't follow the same regulations as in EU.
(, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:40, Reply)
because the rigs aren't solidly anchored. Oil and Gas 101. You're dead right about US/EU reg differences though.
Who are you talking about then, out of interest? I'd say if you have people at the very top making direct decisions about work then it's not very multinational in its behaviour
(, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:43, Reply)
I signed I'd keep my mouth shut. I don't know if what I'm saying now it's too much in fact.
(, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:45, Reply)
Everyone here is on threats of arsekicking if we discuss Deepwater Horizon with the press, and I'm only an academic.
(, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:47, Reply)
Are the Estates going to change the regulation to make it safer?
As you said, it's allways dangerous, but it can be made less dangerous.
(, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:49, Reply)
too much at stake from the US point of view. The irony of texan oilmen senators getting irate over oil spilt in the gulf was just too much, though.
(, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:55, Reply)
If it hadn't been so sad.
They should all support things like this better: www.zdnet.com/news/google-funds-major-east-coast-wind-turbine-project/474406
(, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 13:03, Reply)
because the money saved is less than the punishment the goverment has for that crime.
Are you saying that is morally ok?
(, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:40, Reply)
If they do the legal thing by moving things around between different countries, so they don't need to pay any fine and end up putting more effluents in the environment than the other way round.
If you do something wrong and you pay for it, that's good. If you do something not too wrong here, and not too wrong there, and in the middle something quite wrong, but eh, who's going to care, it's international waters, then it's not so good.
(, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:44, Reply)
Individually, no. But you're still trying to apply individual human beliefs or contstraints onto an inanimate object. Morality, in your terms, does not apply to big business as it is not a human being.
But, as a direct answer, if the punishment is less than the profit they make, then humanity somewhere obviously considers the benefits outweigh the illegality, doesn't it? Or the punishment would be higher.
(, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:46, Reply)
is money. the company will justify it by saying that they saved money which is better for their employees, shareholders and directors' duties. whether you believe this is exoneration depends on your own views i guess.
(, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:49, Reply)
that creates the market that is then, and can then, be driven only by money.
Oil is dead easy. Tell people we can prevent anything like deepwater horizon ever happening again and cut CO2 emissions by 75% and they'd go "yay". Tell them that to do that 50% of them will have to give up their cars and the rest will pay £5 a litre for fuel and they'll all go "fuck off"
And that's the bottom line. Not multinationals, not cutting corners, but simple base human desire.
(, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:53, Reply)
I had friends that are so green and cool, you know the type, always telling me off for working in a refinery. But if you tell them to stop using petrol (or plastics of any kind) they'd look at you as if you had killed a kitty.
(, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 13:02, Reply)
If a government in the 3rd world sets a fine of £50,000 for a something like heavy metal in the waters. To their local companies that would be enough to a multinational that's nothing.
Changing laws and punishments is a lot slower than buisiness works now, and their lobbiests slow it down as much as possible.
(, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:56, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread