CreateDebate


Debate Info

12
12
Yes, because... No, because...
Debate Score:24
Arguments:34
Total Votes:24
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, because... (11)
 
 No, because... (11)

Debate Creator

GenericName(3430) pic



Environmental Harm and the Case for Public Recompense

In case you haven't heard, Aliso Canyon, California, is experience a massive environmental disaster in the form of a methane leak that is erupting methane gas at a rate of 110,000 pounds per hour.  1,700 people have been evacuated thus far, and the owners of the facility, Southern California Gas Company, does not expect the leak to be stopped until late February or early March.

Now even if one doesn't believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change, this massive leak is causing a very real drop in air quality in the surrounding area.  If one *does* believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change, this leak is a substantial eruption of a green house gas that is responsible for 1/4 of the warming we have been experiencing.

My question is this:  When private companies (such as Southern California Gas Company) are responsible for substantial public harm, should they be held responsible by the United States government (as opposed to the citizen law suits that they are facing) or no, and why?

Additionally, if you do believe they should be held publicly accountable, what sort of recompense and punishment do you believe groups such as this deserve?

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/why-we-cant-stop-the-enormous-methane-leak-flooding-la?utm_source=vicefbus
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-methane-idUSKBN0TL06120151202

Yes, because...

Side Score: 12
VS.

No, because...

Side Score: 12
1 point

The answer must be yes. President Obama screwed the British petroleum giant B.P. for $20 billion for their oil spill in the gulf of Mexico during 2010. It will be interesting to see if this environmental disaster by an American company is pursued with same level of aggression for compensation in favour those who suffered as a consequence of gross negligence by the Southern Californian Gas Company and the severe pollution they, and or their agents have caused to the local, and indeed global environment/atmosphere. My interpretation of an accident is when someone/a group, or property gets struck by a natural disaster such as a meteorite strike, a bolt of lighting, an earthquake, tsunami and so forth. Everything else is due to human error or criminal negligence for which the guilty parties should be legally and morally required to make appropriate recompense.

Side: Yes, because...
GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

Out of curiosity, you think that paltry sum was "screwing" BP, when their conscious negligence caused one of the worst environmental disasters in United States history and crippled two of the largest industries in the Gulf of Mexico?

Side: Yes, because...
Antrim(1287) Disputed
1 point

Well, it has been established that a lot of the claims were inflated and in many cases, fictitious. The evidence substantiating the fraudulent nature of the a % of the claims was dismissed out of hand by the U.S, administration and this ''pooh poohing'' led to a flood of profiteering by low lives jumping on the gravy train. The oil spill was, apparently, a shocking case of corporate negligence and those responsible were, quite rightly punished, perhaps disproportionately, and were rendered unable to defend themselves properly by the application of repressive governmental decrees which disabled the possibility of the introduction of an effective defense against the flood of spurious claims. Anyone who refers to an $ 18.7 billion fine as a ''paltry sum'', is either a lunatic, or someone who hasn't the remotest notion of business and the volume of ''turnover'' it would require to come up with a''net profit'' of $ 18 billion. Whilst this undoubtedly was the worst environmental disaster in American history, it was also the ''largest environmental fine in American history'' and for some smart ass computer/barroom barrister to belittle such a record breaking penalty illustrates nothing but juvenile blustering. B.P, employs 1000s of Americans and it's profits go towards the financing of pension funds worldwide. The weakening of such a company affects a vast number of people from all walks of life as well as the shareholders and the fat cat executives. You are treading on very thin ice when you accuse B.P, and it's subcontractors of conscious, or, in other words, willful negligence. That has never been proven in a court of law. They were found guilty of gross negligence, but legally there is a vast difference between the use of the two terms.

Side: No, because...
2 points

First there is the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxyl_radical

effect that will naturally deal with the excess methane as it dispersed into the atmosphere. This will limit damage to temporary local effects. Certainly many citizens have been and will be locally effected. None the less, the issue of accountability rests squarely on the private company involved. IMO lawsuits by citizens and state authorities are sufficient to deal with the damages caused.

IMO it is best to not involve federal authorities or agencies unless the damage is clearly present on a federal level. "One size fits all" solutions coming from the federal level will likely be both inadequate or overkill in specific local situations.

Side: No, because...
GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

First there is the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxyl radical

effect that will naturally deal with the excess methane as it dispersed into the atmosphere.

Your post really doesn't say that, though. It says the presence of Hydroxyl radicals can decrease the life expectancy of some amounts of methane to about 5 years. It doesn't really go into details about the rate or how wide spread its presence is.

This will limit damage to temporary local effects.

I don't think anyone thought it was going to cause permanent effects. That doesn't change the fact that it is certainly causing public damage one way or another.

Certainly many citizens have been and will be locally effected. None the less, the issue of accountability rests squarely on the private company involved.

I think you might want to re-read the debate topic. The question isn't whether or not the public is accountable, it is about whether or not the company should be accountable to the public, or simply to private citizens who sue. If they are causing a public (as opposed to private) harm, should they not be held accountable for public recompense?

IMO it is best to not involve federal authorities or agencies unless the damage is clearly present on a federal level.

I never made any mention of the federal government. I think one could make an argument about the federal government getting involved due to a national-level public harm, but that would be based entirely on anthropogenic climate change, and I know that's a dead-end path when discussing with you due to your beliefs on that matter, so I'll stick to a more localized situation, which would be the state government (or even the district government).

Edit: I was mistaken, it does talk about the prevalence of hydroxyl radicals: "The lifetime of •OH radicals in the Earth atmosphere is very short, therefore •OH concentrations in the air are very low" and "In 2014, researchers reported their discovery of a "hole" or absence of hydroxyl throughout the entire depth of the troposphere across a large region of the tropical West Pacific. They suggested that this hole is permitting large quantities of ozone-degrading chemicals to reach the stratosphere, and that this may be significantly reinforcing ozone depletion in the polar regions with potential consequences for the climate of the Earth.[10]".

Seems you missed that part :P

Side: Yes, because...
outlaw60(15368) Disputed
2 points

Well what about the Environmental Harm done by your EPA there Leftist !

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/09/us/colorado-epa-mine-river-spill/

You have much to say about that ?

Who is going to be held responsible for the mess ?

Side: Yes, because...
daver(1771) Clarified
1 point

I think you might want to re-read the debate topic

OK topic is : Environmental Harm and the Case for Public Recompense

I said IMO state and local government as well as citizens are due recompense. You also DID refer to the US government on your OP, and I said IMO they usually screw it up on a local level.

Once again you "straw man" me and then criticise what I have not said.

You asked a question. I offered my opinion (with citation) and so there 😡

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

Do you not like natural resources there Lefty ? How about this let's just cut off all natural resources to places like New York and Chicago and see how well they make it through the winter !

Side: No, because...
GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

Why do you struggle to respond legitimately? It really isn't hard to behave maturely.

Side: Yes, because...
outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

Do Blue States not depend on natural energy to stay warm in the winter months ? If they don't i would for you to show me that they don't !

Side: Yes, because...