Would a ban on off shore drilling be consistent with the NAP?

Economics Political Theory
1

I have always been at odds with the libertarian community in this regards. I am for factories. I am for cars. We need oil. Etc. But where I differ from many people in the libertarian community here is that libertarians do not believe in Earth rights. I used to be a progressive, and, when I was a progressive I was a really huge believer in environmentalism. I am more of a believer in environmentalism even now still, and, I believe the NAP can be used to justify bans on harmful practices that wreck the environment, and harm other peoples lives. My question is this: just what happens when we drill so much that we destroy ecosystems, making it hard for fisherman to find food to eat, and, if we make water undrinkable because of our insistence on drilling which then wrecks the environment and poisons the water? I mean, just look at this. Isn’t the results of the off shore drilling enough to directly conflict with the libertarian NAP philosophy?

The Gulf oil spill: By the numbers## As the BP oil slick spreads relentlessly, Americans are struggling to grasp the scope of the disaster. The facts are chilling**POSTED ON MAY 6, 2010, AT 10:40 AM

With 5,000-plus barrels of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico per day, damage to wildlife could be devastating. Photo: GettySEE ALL 13 PHOTOS

President Obama recently called the massive oil slick spreading in the Gulf of Mexico a “potentially unprecedented environmental disaster.” The situation is so dire,comparisons to Hurricane Katrina have become commonplace. To get a sense of the magnitude of the spill’s damage and cost—and how much worse it could get—here are some salient facts and figures:

11 million
Size in gallons of the ExxonValdez oil spill—until now, the worst in U.S. history

12.2 million
Size, in gallons, of the BP spill as of May 1, according to one estimate from an oceanography professor at Florida State University

90
Days it will take to cap the leak, according to many estimates

1 of 3
Number of leaks patched, as of May 6

100
Weight, in tons, of the four-story concrete-and-steel bell BP is deploying to stop one of the larger leaks

1 million
Gallons per day of oil currently leaking from the sunken BP rig, according to industry insiders

94 million
Ultimate size of spill, in gallons, if that rate continues for 90 days

6.8 million
Gallons per day BP predicts could begin gushing out of the well in the “worst-case scenario” of a complete “blowout” at the sunken rig

378 million
Total spill size, in gallons, if this “worst case scenario” leak rate were to continue for 90 days—or 34 times the size of the Valdez spill

400
Animal species put in harm’s way by the spill

29
Dead sea turtles already found washed up on shore

1,050
Estimated size of the oil slick, in square miles, on April 29

2,000
Estimated size of the oil slick, in square miles, on May 5 (the latest such estimate)

7,000
Square miles of federal fishing areas in the Gulf that have been closed due to the slick

75
Percentage of U.S. shrimp production that comes from the Gulf Coast

$75 million
Limit on what companies have to pay to cover damage from oil spills (if they’re not at fault), under federal rules

$10 billion
The new liability limit under the proposed “Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act” in Congress

$7 billion
Cost of the Exxon Valdez spill

$14 billion
Current estimated cost of the BP spill

$300+ billion
Estimated cost of the spill in a worst-case scenario, according to a top financial analyst

$20 billion
BP’s loss in market value, following a 13 percent plunge in its stock price

$163 billion
BP’s total profits between 2001 and 2009

$6 million
Amount BP has been spending per day on the spill

7,900
Number of people directly involved in the effort to stop the leak and contain the damage, as of May 5

79
Number of ships and other seafaring vessels involved

5,000
Depth, in feet, of the wellhead and the sunken rig

18,000
Depth, in feet, of the oil reservoir

30,000
The number of other oil wells in the Gulf, according to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar

(This story was last updated on May 6)

http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/05/03/oil-spill-in-gulf-of-mexico-2010-cost/

Let’s forget about money. Isn’t the cost alone too great to both the ecosystem and ourselves for us to keep doing this willy-nilly?

2

Let’s see, government interference makes the ocean a “tragedy of the commons”, government interference limits BP’s overall liability, government interference prevents more sensible drilling on land or close to shore. So, let’s get some more government interference!

Also, what exactly is an “Earth Right”?

3

Do you believe the following?

That the free market system has a tendency to exhaust and deplete natural resources in the absent of some coercive regulatory system that will “curb” this tendency.

If yes, it’s not clear at all why you would support the free market at all.

4

Is your opposition to off shore drilling because you believe it harms people, harms the earth, or both?

5

its funny that this week a venezuela oil rig(nationally owned) sanK but nobody talking about it ONLY BUSINESSES COMMIT ATROCITES TO MOTHER EARTH

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iM_JjQsVjr56jTW8nOhWguqljjQQ

6

DD5

I don’t believe that at all. But the off shore drilling isn’t part of the free market. It’s something that’s been supported by the government the whole time. So, no I don’t blame private enterprises for it. In fact, I believe the government is much at fault for this. Oil drilling can be done, but, it would have to be done responsibly, and by the market.

That’s how I justify putting the NAP on it. This isn’t a market activity. It’s more of a government fueled crazy boom. Can’t you guys see that this off shore oil drilling frenzy has been mostly government driven rather than private driven?

DD5

I don’t believe that at all. But the off shore drilling isn’t part of the free market. It’s something that’s been supported by the government the whole time. So, no I don’t blame private enterprises for it. In fact, I believe the government is much at fault for this. Oil drilling can be done, but, it would have to be done responsibly, and by the market.

7

Southern, my opposition to off shore oil drilling is in part because it harms people and the earth. I know it harms the ecosystems. But like with this oil spill, if we do this in like Alaska and the Arctic, imagine what would happen if we had a similar tragedy there. The drinking water would become unusable, and the damage irreparable.

8

“But the off shore drilling isn’t part of the free market”

Bingo!

“This isn’t a market activity.”

I think I understand what you’re getting at. Birds, fish, etc.. are also living beings but can’t participate in the buying and selling of the market process. Correct?

“That’s how I justify putting the NAP on it”

Practically, this means that humans must act on their behalf. Private property is therefore the best hope for the environment. So it is not clear to why you are not in agreement with libertarians.

9

The oil in Alaska’s federally-protected wilderness is seeping out of the ground! Believe it or not, oil is actually natural and part of the ecosystem :wink:

10

DD5

Not quite. I am just talking about off shore drilling in general. It was more of a political driven craze that went back from the Bush administration. Democrats and Republicans were fiercly debating over alternative energy, and, Republicans rejected green energy and decided that it would be best to do off shore drilling. My belief is that if the market were left to do off shore drilling and all this anticipation wasn’t on them for results within the field of politics, that, perhaps they could have spent more time designing the oil refineries so they would be safer, etc. But the political frenzy that fueled this mess is what got us into this mess in the first place. I hope I make myself more clear. I view this as kind of like a boom and bust cycle. The boom was when we allowed the off shore oil drill companies to just drill wherever, and, this is kind of like the bust.

I would consider changing my position on off shore drilling if they made refineries that were safer and didn’t explode like the one in this case did. Until then, I believe that off shore drilling can cause irreparable harm to the environment and can hut humans as well. But I would be open to it if they could show they had safety mechanisms which would stop these kinds of problems in the future.

11

The oil in Alaska’s federally-protected wilderness is seeping out of the ground! Believe it or not, oil is actually natural and part of the ecosystem :wink:

I have had family work in Prudhoe Bay. They have told me the same thing.

12

There’s no such thing as a risk-free enterprise. The best incentive for businesses to take all necessary precautions would be to make them fully liable if damages occur under the framework of private property rights. Naturally they’d need insurance to undertake risky endeavors and the insurance would incentivize safety a lot better than arbitrary bureaucratic regulations.

As I said before, it’s the government incentivizing this kind of risky drilling in the first place. The continental US has abundant opportunities for safer oil exploration on land and close to shore, but government regulations (and the fact that they own a lot of this land, and the coastline) are directly impeding this.

13

I think he’s saying that he has a problem with off shore drilling because it’s not a free market and he doesn’t trust the government. He’s against it since the reality is that the government is involved.

Is that correct? If it is, it’s quite an original excuse for being against it.

14

I am with you on the NAP and off-shore oil drilling, but to a certain extent. It is fine to drill in the ocean, just as long as drilling does not pollute another entities property. If the oceans were private, it would be easy to say one is polluting another entities property. However, oceans are not private. Here is where the conflict in using the NAP arises.