How the Biggest, Most Expensive Oil Spill In History Changed Almost Nothing

merbs writes: Tthe biggest oil spill in US history, despite incurring the largest environmental fine on the books—$18.7 billion, handed down this month—has done almost nothing to change the nation's relationship to oil. Five years after the spill, and, by BP's count, $54 billion in projected total expenses, there have been no serious legislative efforts to improve the oversight or regulation of the United States' still-expanding offshore oil operations. Public opinion of deepwater drilling barely budged during the ordeal; today, a majority of Americans favor doing even more of it.

Comments

Re: Business as usual under the US Gov't

[damn_registrars]

9/11 changed nothing. It just gave a big excuse to spend even more hundreds of billions for poor results.

Which changed the way the government does business. They added a huge - and hugely expensive - new bureaucracy while simultaneously embracing fear and opening the national wallet even further to commercial exploitation by the military-industrial complex.

Yeah, it didn't change daily life for the rest of us mere mortals, but it did change how things happen in DC - which was the point of this thread.

it's not just the oil barons

[rsilvergun]

After 20 years of Karl Rove and Fox News a sizable number of Americans are opposed to any regulation. Rand Paul (or maybe his dad) argued that instead of govt regs you let the folks who own the contaminated land Sue for damages. If it's international waters I guess you'd have to prove your land was contaminated...

Re:Country run by oil barons does nothing!!!

[whathappenedtomonday]

Just bury the waste. Well, if it is that easy, why does no country in the world have a permanent solution for their waste? If just burying it is good enough, why does nobody do it? Hint: it's hard to do it safely, given the half life periods involved, since we're talking about 10,000 to 1,000,000 years, and I'd rather not touch those 500 years you mention, because you pulled that number out of a smelly place. Also, the article is talking about the problems arising from handling crude oil. Looks like we can't even handle that safely enough. What makes you think we can handle nuclear waste safely for long periods of time? Just do x and y won't be a problem. I just love that approach. We might discuss nuclear if it weren't for such utter "rational" BS.