CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Could you provide a citation, please? I had not heard this.
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.
The negligence not only led to the deaths of about a dozen people but ruined the livelihoods of tens of thousands, and you call a penalty that was entirely bearable by the corporation "disproportionate"? And is the latter part referring to the nature of a class-action law suit, or what?
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 ''profit'' of $ 18 billion.
Or they simply happen to realize that is one year of profits. When people are grossly negligent and they cause the amount of damage they did, one year of profits is paltry.
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.
Do you not realize that the Gulf still hasn't recovered? That tens if not hundreds of thousands of people lost their livelihoods and the entire regional economy was crippled, all because some dumb-shits decided they couldn't be bothered to take required precautions? The fact that the penalty was record breaking is indicative of the fact that the United States responds to environmental catastrophes with a firm smack on the wrist, nothing more. Petty insults don't change that.
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
So we shouldn't have penalized them because it might possibly affect some of their employees?
Seriously?
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.
"On Thursday, a federal judge here for the first time bluntly rejected those arguments, finding that BP was indeed the primary culprit and that only it had acted with “conscious disregard of known risks.” He added that BP’s “conduct was reckless.”
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.
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]".
I am incredibly concerned, and find the EPA to be an organization in desperate need of renewed (or actual) leadership. If it isn't being completely powerless and incapable of holding people responsible, then it is fucking things up and doing exactly what they are supposed to be protecting us from.
Now can you please, for once, behave like an adult and participate in the conversation? If not, I'll go back to ignoring you.
The EPA, who should have to pay reparations to those affected by it, and those who are individually responsible see individual punishments, be it in the form of civil suits, fines, loss of job or a combination thereof.
Now: Since you seem to think that the EPA should be held responsible for that, do you or do you not believe that Southern California Gas Company should also be held responsible?
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 😡
I asked should the U.S. government hold them responsible. You said that one part should, and one part shouldn't. The "U.S. Government" is not purely the feds.
In other words, that wasn't, in any way, shape, or form, a straw man.
Additionally, I pointed out (with great detail) why your citation failed to address the situation. Did you not read that part?
The United States government is NOT a state or local government 🙄
The United States Government is made up of local, state, and federal levels of governance.
That is not a conflation, that is basic civics. It's not my fault that people (particularly on the right, but not uniquely on the right) tend to conflate the feds with the government as a whole.
I'm still seeing you misrepresent what I said, sooooooo call it what you want it fits the definition of the straw guy. 😎 Just say'in
Except I haven't. And you still haven't addressed how the article you provided doesn't support the claim you made relevant to it.
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 !
Look at the previous comment. You asked what I thought should happen, not what is happening. Most people responsible for environmental disasters are not truly held responsible. I am saying that they all (including the federal government) should be.
There is no one to hold the federal government accountable for their pollution of a river ! But people like yourself want all others held accountable for environmental harm !