I note the existence of www.SiezeBP.org. Sweet.
More proof (as if more was really needed) that regulators often don't regulate. I'll grant that on a fundamental level, there is a built-in deficiency. The regulators need expertise in the area they're regulating. That expertise generally comes only from time spent being regulated. Thus the revolving door between those who regulate and those regulated. And so the downward slide begins.
Given that utopia is not an option and that what we have is far far short of even aspiring towards utopia, what about a significantly different approach?
A great deal of crime does not occur because there's a belief that there will be personal unpleasant consequences. Let's say that our guiding principle was that corporations and the individuals who run them are reasonable for the consequences of their actions. Let's further presume that our laws and institutional structures and processes were changed to be consistent with this guiding principle. Now let's look at this BP spill.
Given that there was a spill, BP would be immediately required to release all information it had concerning the spill. No holding back video feeds. No holding back nothing. As soon as it became clear the likely size and costs resulting from this spill, the government could simply seize control of BP and maybe Transocean and maybe even Halliburton. Every available corporate resource (along with whatever government/military resources seemed appropriate) would be used as needed at least until the ultimate tally was reasonably known. Then, if anything was left of BP, it might be returned to it's owners. And any individual, even acting within his corporate authority, who made a decision that was clearly contrary to defined procedure or carried risks that a prudent industry-knowledgeable person would not make, would be held personally responsible for whatever deaths, injuries, or damages occurred as a consequence.
If this BP spill played out as outlined above, the likelihood of another in the future would drop by a factor of 10 or more. Instead, BP may suffer significant losses but will survive and profit in the future, taxpayers will foot a large part of the costs, no one will go to jail, enforcement of regulations will be somewhat improved, and the likelihood of another similar spill in the future wil drop by maybe 10%. Given that the goal here is to prevent catastrophic spills, I have no trouble picking which way I'd like to go.
