BP to pay for "gross negligence"

The US is holding BP accountable.

According to Reuters, the US Justice department has recently confirmed that it will hold BP accountable for gross negligence. This recent sharpening of the DoJ’s attitude towards BP’s responsibility in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill (the largest in history) foreshadows steeper than predicted reparations; if BP is found to have been guilty of misconduct, under the Clean Water Act, it faces charges of up to $21 billion (four times what was previously predicted) - on top of punitive and compensatory damages. As Reuters notes, both BP and Transocean ltd. (owner of the platform) were found guilty of cutting corners by the government-filed report:

Specifically, errors made by BP and Swiss-based Transocean Ltd, owner of the Deepwater Horizon platform, in deciphering a key pressure test of the Macondo well are a clear indication of gross negligence, the Justice Department said.

"That such a simple, yet fundamental and safety-critical test could have been so stunningly, blindingly botched in so many ways, by so many people, demonstrates gross negligence," the government said in its 39-page filing.

As noted by an Economist blog in 2010, the Horizon debacle stands as “one way to price in externalities”; the oil spill highlights the more obvious negative side-effects of our reliance on fossil fuels, and is – for now – the only way that oil companies’ income will reflect (an infinitesimal part) of their harm to society. Cynics at the time commented that the US government is far too shortsighted to hold BP accountable, and that the incident would soon blow over (in sharp contrast to the oil that still lingers in the Gulf). Two years down the line, Obama can only be praised for ensuring that big business is not above the Clean Water Act. The DoJ’s perseverance will serve as a glaring reminder that the oil industry is shirking some serious debits and is not as profitable as it appears.

It’s a shame there is no Clean Skies Act to hasten the market’s demand for renewable energy.

(On that note, BrainPickings reminds us that 35 years ago today, the Voyager 1 was launched to explore the solar system. Follow the link to watch an animated version of Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot. It kind of puts things into perspective.)

Photograph: Getty Images
Show Hide image

No, David Cameron’s speech was not “left wing”

Come on, guys.

There is a strange journalistic phenomenon that occurs when a party leader makes a speech. It is a blend of groupthink, relief, utter certainty, and online backslapping. It happened particularly quickly after David Cameron’s speech to Tory party conference today. A few pundits decided that – because he mentioned, like, diversity and social mobility – this was a centre-left speech. A leftwing speech, even. Or at least a clear grab for the liberal centre ground. And so that’s what everyone now believes. The analysis is decided. The commentary is written. Thank God for that.

Really? It’s quite easy, even as one of those nasty, wicked Tories, to mention that you actually don’t much like racism, and point out that you’d quite like poor children to get jobs, without moving onto Labour's "territory". Which normal person is in favour of discriminating against someone on the basis of race, or blocking opportunity on the basis of class? Of course he’s against that. He’s a politician operating in a liberal democracy. And this isn’t Ukip conference.

Looking at the whole package, it was actually quite a rightwing speech. It was a paean to defence – championing drones, protecting Britain from the evils of the world, and getting all excited about “launching the biggest aircraft carriers in our history”.

It was a festival of flagwaving guff about the British “character”, a celebration of shoehorning our history chronologically onto the curriculum, looking towards a “Greater Britain”, asking for more “national pride”. There was even a Bake Off pun.

He also deployed the illiberal device of inculcating a divide-and-rule fear of the “shadow of extremism – hanging over every single one of us”, informing us that children in UK madrassas are having their “heads filled with poison and their hearts filled with hate”, and saying Britain shouldn’t be “overwhelmed” with refugees, before quickly changing the subject to ousting Assad. How unashamedly centrist, of you, Mr Prime Minister.

Benefit cuts and a reduction of tax credits will mean the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for “equality of opportunity, as opposed to equality of outcome” will be just that – with the outcome pretty bleak for those who end up losing any opportunity that comes with state support. And his excitement about diversity in his cabinet rings a little hollow the day following a tubthumping anti-immigration speech from his Home Secretary.

If this year's Tory conference wins the party votes, it’ll be because of its conservative commitment – not lefty love bombing.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.