Maybe I'm missing something (very possible!), but I don't understand donations for the oil cleanup. Every single donated penny that goes to fixing the spill or its effects should come from BP's wallet instead.
I don't mean BP should be crucified, but they have the responsibility and they certainly have the means.
All I can think is... if ifs and buts were candy and nuts....
It'd be great IF bp were going to be held fully liable. From my understanding there is a limited liability clause that is going to hold BP to some unimaginably low number.
And of course, there will be a question of what cleanup means. Cleaning up the coasts, cleaning up the animals, cleaning up the sub sea plumes? I am sure some big oil lobbyists have already tempered the language of what ever legislation is in place to hold BP accountable.
So charity is going to clearly have to step in a close the gap.
How can you tell if donations are going to help "close the gap", instead of paying for things BP should be covering?
Is it clearly defined what BP is covering? If not, how do charities know that the money they're putting into action is filling the gaps instead of just reducing BP's checks?
Maybe for some people, the point is to clean up the mess. To them, assignment of blame is less important than aversion of disaster. I'm not sure if I subscribe to that view myself, but I can certainly sympathize with it.
I get that. I guess my point is that it doesn't seem like lack of money is the problem that needs solving.
It's not about blame so much as the fact that with BP on the hook for the bill, money isn't the thing that's in need.
You know what will be a million times better than sending clean-up money? When the clean-up is done, book a vacation and go patronize the tourism spots that are currently deserted.
BP might not even be held liable (ultimately) as they weren't personally operating the rig (as far as I've been able to tell). As far as I can tell BP only leased the rig to drill it new wells, I believe (although I could be wrong) that their staff weren't operating the rigs. So I really have no clue where the liability will ultimately land.
Right. All of the hate directed at BP is a little unfair, since it wasn't actually them operating the rig at the time. But then we as a society need someone to blame, and who better to blame than a big company.
In a screw-up of this magnitude, people stop caring about the individuals who make mistakes at the bottom—they want to find the person whose greed made the situation possible, and publicly punish them to discourage others from being greedy in the same way in the future. Of course, since corporations, unlike people, are sociopathic and don't "feel guilty" the way our animal minds expect them to, this won't actually do anything.
Maybe the people to blame are the US public who complain if gas prices rise above "So cheap I don't care". Try paying £1.20/liter for petrol. Then everyone will use less.
Your understanding is a bit off. If it's found that BP was guilty of gross negligence or failed to comply full with regulatory agencies, which seems to be the case, their liability is unlimited.
Media keeps repeating the $75 million cap story because it makes for controversy and controversy sells newspapers (so to speak).
Also, the $75 million is only for economic damages, not for environmental damage or the cost of the cleanup. Plus, it looks quite possible that the limit will be raised anyway...
Soon after I read that transcript, came here and read your comment as Maybe I'm missing somebing.. and re-read it again, to see it was something and not somebing.
I wonder how much it would have cost Microsoft to buy and ad on the show (an ad that would probably have been a lot less effective...). This is probably good business, and everybody wins.
Call me old fashioned, I think it's brilliant marketing by Bing and Colbert, but I'm not keen on running over effigys of people as entertainment. This guy has a family, and while he may yet be found completely responsible for the disaster, baying for his blood is not the response of an educated society. Ask yourself, if he was your son, father or brother, would you be happy with this treatment?
Leave the retributions for the courtroom. We are all partially responsible for the oil spill with our demand for petroleum based products at the lowest price possible.
None of us are responsible for the oil spill. We did not choose or make choices that caused the oil spill. We are accountable for the demand that spurred BP's attempts with drilling, but not the spill itself.
I always find it fascinating that people uninvolved in the going-ons for random markets are blamed for unwanted side effects. BP could have just raised their prices, but they chose not to (therefore taking responsibility) and failed. Shame on them.
I'd say we are all (or most of us) responsible in some way, for not bothering to even question the practices of the oil companies (a ka "conveniently looking away"). Granted, we can not personally solve all problems of the world - that's why there are governments to do that job. But we elect those governments.
It's not as if there was never any indication that oil drilling could threaten the environment.
Who will give the permission to drill for oil in the artic, and why will the permission be given?
Agreed. Not only have we created the demand for the product, but in our "government of the people, by the people, and for the people", we are all (collectively at least) responsible for what our government does.
Moreover, as has been noted elsewhere in this thread, the buck does not stop at BP. If you're going to be consistent in the way you assign blame, you've got to follow the trail to the independent company that was actually operating the drilling rig. If you're going to pass the responsibility away from the consumer, through the gas station operator, and on to the refiner, it only makes sense to take the next step to the driller.
I think it's unclear what responsibility really means. I take responsibility when I buy a house for example. There was something I wanted - I purchased it - and now I am responsible for it's care, problems, etc.
I did not choose for them to drill offshore - I would have recommended heavily against it in fact. Therefore I am not responsible. BP is responsible because they made the decision to drill - and all of the companies that decided to help are also responsible. I am, however, accountable for increasing the demand for oil that spurred their decision.
At the end of every Bing TV add (at least on US Television), the spoken tag line is "Bing, the decision engine from Microsoft" (combined with the Microsoft logo in the corner), so I don't think the advertisers are shying away from the affiliation.
They aren't trying to hide it, but it does seem they want the name to sort of stand on it's own. For starters, they probably realize that vernacular allows for you to 'google it' or 'bing it' or 'yahoo that', but not to 'microsoft that'. If anything, 'microsofting' something probably involves putting it out of business with predatory business tactics.
Alternatively, it could be a judgement call on MS's part based on their knowledge of the Colbert audience.
In their shoes, if I had to chose between promoting the fact it's a Microsoft product and promoting it's a search engine, I would go with #2. The fact it's microsofts is irrelevant to the consumer.
Ok, Colbert (and smart MSFT product-placers) - I'll bite. Today is officially "Bing for a Day" here. I just set my Chrome default engine to Bing for the first time. Should be fun -- wondering if I'll miss the Goog in the next 24 hours.
I don't mean BP should be crucified, but they have the responsibility and they certainly have the means.