The British corporation stands in the dock for causing the greatest environmental catastrophe in years, and rightly so. But we consumers should be standing there with them.
For more than 30 days now, oil has been bubbling up a mile deep in the Gulf of Mexico, causing an unprecedented environmental catastrophe that we’ll be dealing with for years. And for more than 30 days now, BP, the public and the politicians have been laying blame and demanding accountability. And for 30 days, a hypocritical argument has been raging as well.
The leak hasn’t been closed off yet but knee-jerk commentary has been demanding punishment and consequences nonetheless. Experts and the public demand more governmental controls, prohibitions and regulations; politicians react hastily by threatening industry. It’s hard to trump Green Party head Claudia Roth in the populist arena when she calls for a boycott of BP.
Germany cannot berate the oil companies at the same time it bases its economic strength on motor vehicles and other machinery needing fuel — and lots of it. That’s also a reason why BP drills a mile beneath the sea, taking such unacceptable and incalculable risks. Mankind has yet to master the technology needed.
Of course, the oil companies are engaged in a quest for profits needed to keep stockholders, long since accustomed to ever-higher returns on their investments, satisfied. But there’s also a world that sees oil as the lubrication necessary for the economy. Every time the pump price of gasoline starts getting close to $7.00 a gallon here in Germany, we drivers start screaming. And now we’re supposed to boycott BP? And BP deserves to suffer alone?
That’s not how it works. On the one hand, we can’t demand cheap gasoline while driving cars that get only 24 miles per gallon while we insist on keeping the other hand clean. That way doesn’t work and neither does it answer the urgent questions about the future. What will our future energy needs be based upon? What will power our automobiles? And above all, how much will we be willing to pay for it?
It’s becoming more and more difficult to produce oil because the easily reached reserves have already been discovered and, for the most part, emptied. That’s why they’re drilling on the ocean floor and in the Arctic regions. That’s why sources such as the Canadian oil-bearing sands are being opened for production. The price for all these is high and we’re paying that price right now in the Gulf of Mexico. And then we complain about the price as we get into our big cars because that’s a quicker way to our next destination than taking the train or riding a bike.
One thing is clear: BP can’t be let off the hook. The British company has to plug the leak and pay for damages caused to others. Those responsible have to be called to account. And politicians have to rethink how governments can best regulate drilling rigs to minimize the risk of a similar catastrophe in the future. But motorists and those who waste energy can’t be let off the hook, either. The only alternative: we’ll just have to get used to the horrifying images of oil-drenched birds, dead fish and filthy beaches.
Scheinheiliger Streit um BP
von Gregor Haake
27.05.2010
Der britische Konzern steht für die schlimmste Umweltkatastrophe seit Jahren am Pranger. Und das vollkommen zu recht. Doch eigentlich gehören auch wir Verbraucher dort hin.
Seit über 30 Tagen sprudelt das Öl in 1500 Metern Tiefe und richtet eine beispiellose Umweltkatastrophe an, deren Folgen uns noch Jahre beschäftigen werden. Seit über 30 Tagen streiten der britische Konzern BP , Politik und Öffentlichkeit über Schuld und Verantwortung. Und seit über 30 Tagen wird eine scheinheilige Diskussion geführt.
Das Leck ist noch nicht richtig verschlossen, da wird schon reflexartig über Strafen und Konsequenzen gesprochen. Experten und Öffentlichkeit rufen nach dem Staat, nach mehr Kontrollen, Verboten und Regulierung. Und die Politik reagiert hastig mit Drohungen an die Wirtschaft. Es ist an Populismus nicht zu überbieten, wenn Grünen-Chefin Claudia Roth zum Boykott von BP aufruft.
Deutschland kann nicht auf den Ölkonzern schimpfen und gleichzeitig seine Wirtschaftskraft auf Autos und Maschinen stützen, die Kraftstoffe brauchen - und das nicht zu knapp. Auch das ist ein Grund dafür, dass BP überhaupt in 1500 Metern bohrt und dieses nicht akzeptable und unkalkulierbare Risiko eingeht. Der Mensch beherrscht diese Technik nicht.
Natürlich steht dahinter auch das Profitstreben eines Öl-Konzerns, der seine Aktionäre immer mit hohen Renditen und Dividenden verwöhnt hat. Dahinter steht aber auch eine Welt, die Öl als den Schmierstoff der Wirtschaft betrachtet. Jedes Mal, wenn sich die Benzinpreise in Deutschland der Marke von 1,50 Euro nähern, schreien wir Autofahrer auf. Und nun sollen wir BP boykottieren? Nun soll BP allein bluten?
So geht das nicht: Auf der einen Seite billiges Benzin haben und Autos fahren wollen, die 10 Liter auf 100 Kilometern schlucken. Und auf der anderen Seite sich nicht die Hände schmutzig machen wollen. Das funktioniert nicht. Und es beantwortet auch nicht die entscheidenden Fragen der Zukunft. Was ist die Basis für die künftige Energieversorgung? Womit sollen unsere Autos fahren? Womit heizen wir? Und vor allem: Was sind wir bereit, dafür zu bezahlen?
Es wir immer schwieriger, Öl zu gewinnen, weil die leicht zugänglichen Reserven schon längst gefunden und zu großen Teilen ausgebeutet sind. Darum wird in der Tiefsee oder in der Arktis gebohrt. Darum erschließt man etwa die kanadischen Ölsande. Der Preis dafür ist hoch. Wir zahlen ihn gerade im Golf von Mexiko! Und dann schimpfen wir darüber und steigen doch wieder in unsere großen Autos, weil es damit eben doch schneller zum Termin geht als mit dem Fahrrad oder der Bahn.
Eines ist klar: Es gibt keinen Freispruch für BP. Der britische Konzern muss das Leck schnell stopfen. Er muss für den Schaden aufkommen. Verantwortliche müssen zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden. Und auch die Politik muss sich Gedanken darüber machen, wie sie etwa durch bessere Kontrollen von Bohrinseln das Risiko solcher Katastrophen eindämmen kann. Es kann aber auch keine Entlastung für Autofahrer und Energieverschwender geben. Sonst müssen wir uns auch in Zukunft auf den schrecklichen Anblick von ölverschmierten Vögeln, toten Fischen und schwarzen Stränden einstellen.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
The economic liberalism that the world took for granted has given way to the White House’s attempt to gain sectarian control over institutions, as well as government intervention into private companies,
The economic liberalism that the world took for granted has given way to the White House’s attempt to gain sectarian control over institutions, as well as government intervention into private companies,
Grigor, you miss the most basic measurement of personal wealth: what a person can enjoy in one lifetime. If you live seventy years and sleep eight hours a day, you get six hundred seventy five thousand waking hours. When they’re gone, they’re gone: journey’s over.
Some of that time is spend procuring needs, some spend procuring wants, and some spent enjoying relationships and goods procured by the first two.
With an automobile, we get to spend more of our time doing that third thing, “enjoying.”
The fact is, cars are expensive enough that we wouldn’t own them if there were a cheaper way TO GO WHERE WE WANT WHEN WE WANT. There isn’t, and no amount of whining about buses and trains will change that.
With a car, a half-hour dentist appointment takes forty five minutes. With a bus, it takes two and a half hours, IF THERE’S A BUS THAT GOES NEAR MY HOUSE, AND IF THERE’S A BUS THAT GOES NEAR MY DENTIST.
Germany has what, ninety million people in a land area the size of Oregon? Buses and trains make economic sense in that crowded environment, but not in, say, the US. They only make sense in Russia because the Communists ruthlessly cleared out the countryside and forced nearly everyone into cities. Are you advocating some sort of country-boy pogrom? Or are you just carping on cars but not actually advocating a solution?
I have a solution for you. Mandate that all internal combustion vehicles made after 2015 be diesel, and run them on hemp oil. To meet the entire fuel needs of, say, the US, would require 7,2 million hectares of hemp (the US has 154 million hectares of farmland, and could easily put more under tillage). Germany’s needs would require rather less. Once you’ve converted the auto and truck fleet, you go after the electric generating plants.
Hemp will grow on the most unuseable land and in quite inhospitable climates, so we’re not talking about plowing grain under to plant hemp.
What you’re advocating is simply, “Hey, everyone, be poorer! Spend more of your time doing what you don’t want to do!”
My answer, along with most of the world, is “Goetz von Berlichingen!”
Grigor, you miss the most basic measurement of personal wealth: what a person can enjoy in one lifetime. If you live seventy years and sleep eight hours a day, you get six hundred seventy five thousand waking hours. When they’re gone, they’re gone: journey’s over.
Some of that time is spend procuring needs, some spend procuring wants, and some spent enjoying relationships and goods procured by the first two.
With an automobile, we get to spend more of our time doing that third thing, “enjoying.”
The fact is, cars are expensive enough that we wouldn’t own them if there were a cheaper way TO GO WHERE WE WANT WHEN WE WANT. There isn’t, and no amount of whining about buses and trains will change that.
With a car, a half-hour dentist appointment takes forty five minutes. With a bus, it takes two and a half hours, IF THERE’S A BUS THAT GOES NEAR MY HOUSE, AND IF THERE’S A BUS THAT GOES NEAR MY DENTIST.
Germany has what, ninety million people in a land area the size of Oregon? Buses and trains make economic sense in that crowded environment, but not in, say, the US. They only make sense in Russia because the Communists ruthlessly cleared out the countryside and forced nearly everyone into cities. Are you advocating some sort of country-boy pogrom? Or are you just carping on cars but not actually advocating a solution?
I have a solution for you. Mandate that all internal combustion vehicles made after 2015 be diesel, and run them on hemp oil. To meet the entire fuel needs of, say, the US, would require 7,2 million hectares of hemp (the US has 154 million hectares of farmland, and could easily put more under tillage). Germany’s needs would require rather less. Once you’ve converted the auto and truck fleet, you go after the electric generating plants.
Hemp will grow on the most unuseable land and in quite inhospitable climates, so we’re not talking about plowing grain under to plant hemp.
What you’re advocating is simply, “Hey, everyone, be poorer! Spend more of your time doing what you don’t want to do!”
My answer, along with most of the world, is “Goetz von Berlichingen!”