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
GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.