Today is the first anniversary of BP’s infamous deep water well disaster, so it is appropriate to consider the impact of that oil spill.
On the positive side, the seafood in the gulf has been deemed safe to eat and certain oil companies have claimed that they are better able to handle a comparable disaster then they were before BP’s failed well dumped massive amounts of oil into the ocean.
On the minus side, the economic and environmental impact of the disaster seems to be continuing. For example, tourism is supposed to be suffering in the regions impacted by the spill-especially tourism related to fishing (even though, as noted above, the fish are supposed to be safe to eat). As another example, the mortality rate of baby dolphins has increased significantly since last year. While a causal link has not been established to the leak, it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility of a connection.
Interestingly enough, Congress has actually passed no new laws regulating deep water drilling. Not surprisingly, the Republicans are opposed to such laws as are some Democrats.
While I am in favor of keeping laws to a minimum, it seems clear that some changes in the regulation of deep water drilling are needed. At the very least, there should be laws specifying that companies that drill in deep water must be adequately prepared to handle disasters. Of course, oil companies have generally been somewhat lax in complying with existing laws (see, for example, the cookie cutter disaster plans that oil companies put on file) and it seems reasonable to expect they would be equally lax with any new laws.
Of course, there is also the question of whether we really need to engage in deep water drilling at all. While people will point to rising oil and gas prices as a sign that we need to “drill baby, drill”, these higher prices are not due to an actual shortage of oil. Also, allowing such drilling to continue will reduce the motivation to develop alternative energy sources that are not as damaging to the environment.
Overall, the main lesson of this disaster is that Congress did nothing.
Funny thing about the “plenty of regulations already” and ‘they’re not adequately enforced”argument. It applies to so many areas–like carrying and using a weapon, driving an automobile, child pornography, deep sea drilling,industrial emissions, coal mine safety, nuclear plant construction and operation, legislators taking bribes, performance drugs in sports, pharmaceutical drug-testing marketing and sales, etc. etc.
Some basic truths–1/ One more law may not save one more life.Or it could save hundreds. There were no safety belt rules when the first auto traveled down a city’s dirt streets.
2/One less law, if the law is truly frivolous, may not make a bit of difference when it’s gone. Its disappearance from the books may, indeed, save a life or two, because, in theory. those with the responsibility to enforce the laws will have one less law to contend with.
3/It would fairly easy to argue that at present there are too many laws and too few enforcers. Why? Either the money isn’t there to hire the necessary personnel, or those overseeing the personnel do so with their eyes closed, or it’s in the best interest of the authorities at various levels to see to it that funds aren’t available for adequate enforcement, or incompetents are hired to fill the positions, or mucho moola is being passed under many tables in DC’s better restaurants from dirty corporate fist to greedy political palm .
4/One need only look at traffic laws, varying as they do from state to state to see another reason why there are too many laws. There’s no sensible reason for such variances (a 70mph speed limit with a 5mph freebie on top is enough, even when traveling a long, hot highway in New Mexico). There’s no sensible reason, but someone would invariably say, “Well it negatively affects commerce.” or “We don’t need yearly inspections here because of the dry weather.” and blah blah blah. But because of these rather lame excuses, there are thousands of laws on the books in these 50 states that reflect minor variations on a theme–for example, “maximum speed through a school crossing zone” is 15 mph, or 20mph etc.
Ultimately we need fewer unnecessary laws and more necessary laws. I do believe, however that getting from here to there would be a royal bitch.
Laws are like bunnies: they multiply like mad and many of them are stupid.
“Interestingly enough, Congress has actually passed no new laws regulating deep water drilling.”
Does a regulation involving oil drilling really require an act of Congress?
Lots in Google under “regulations and congress”
This from the wikipedia article Code of Federal Regulations- – –
“Administrative law exists because the United States Congress often grants broad authority to executive branch agencies to interpret the statutes in the United States Code (and in uncodified statutes) which the agencies are entrusted with enforcing. Congress may be too busy, congested, or gridlocked to micromanage the jurisdiction of those agencies by writing statutes that cover every possible detail, or Congress may determine that the technical specialists at the agency are best equipped to develop detailed applications of statutes to particular fact patterns as they arise.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, the agencies are permitted to promulgate detailed rules and regulations through a public “rulemaking” process where the public is allowed to comment, known as public information. After a period of time, the rules and regulations are usually published in the Federal Register.”
And these:
http://www.socma.com/governmentRelations/?subSec=97&sub=97&articleID=2844
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90045549?California%20farmers%20complain%20to%20Congress%20about%20environmental%20regulations
The above would indicate that governmental agencies in the executive branch are provided leeway by Congress to create legislation as they see fit because Congress may be “too busy, congested, or gridlocked.” 🙂 🙂 (I love that one, don’t you?) If the legislation is onerous, the aggrieved parties can go to Congress with their complaint and the Oversight committee will hear their case and rule if Congressional action is necessary.
Presumably, the EPA and other agencies would have the right to create new, more effective regulations, and oil companies would then have the right to go to Congress and complain about the regs. And Congress could spend more of its “precious time solving yet another unnecessary problem. Something’s wrong with the system mayhaps?
“If the legislation is onerous” should be “If the regulation is onerous”