Risk a Catastrophe?

"Oh, it will never happen!"

They all say that, about the possibility of one as a consequence of what they do--they being all of us. Whether it's a cat hunting mice and braving the threat of coyotes--they eat cats--or JP Morgan buying derivatives of uncertain value, or BP drilling offshore, or MAL Zrt, the Hungarian Aluminum Production and Trade Company, stockpiling the sludge byproduct from producing aluminum from bauxite.

In each case, after many times when disaster did not strike, after many times when disaster was possible, but did not happen, after many times when "experts" said it couldn't happen, it struck and struck hard, in the last two cases with huge environmental damage.

When will we learn?

There is a difference between the chances for profit and the chances for disaster. Some call this asymmetrical risk. You can risk profit, and if you lose, you lose your money; if you win, you gain money. But there are other risks, like those environmental disasters. The costs are borne by a much larger number than capital investors. In the case of the Hungarian sludge disaster, which just happened, not only did people die--of alkaline burns--whole areas of Hungary will have to be dug up, the soil replaced, towns have been abandoned, and in rivers like the Raba, most of the life in them may have been killed. The sludge may reach the Danube, which flows through other countries.

Who pays for all that? The offending corporation should, their investors impoverished if necessary, but you know that won't happen. BP has been assessed damages for its Gulf oil disaster, and for its earlier refinery disaster, as well--peanuts compared to its profits--but it isn't paying the cost of restoring the Gulf to its pre-blowout condition. It won't be. So, everybody else is: the fishermen whose livelihoods have been lost, for example, the hotel owners and workers, whose businesses have been destroyed, and so on.

In most capitalist enterprise, in fact, there are huge asymmetrical risks, some of which we are only beginning to be aware, like the possible links between earthquakes and mining or deep drilling--huge spaces are evacuated underground, in both cases: there could be consequences. Again: who pays?

Our market system is engaged in the most asymmetrical risk of all: profit in the short run for the risk in the long run of a climate so destabilized that most of the human population won't survive.

Who pays?

At least, when the Roman Empire fell in the west, the whole planet was not affected: only Western Europe and western North Africa. When our industrial system poisons itself, the whole planet will suffer; it already is.

But the climate change deniers, beloved of "conservatives" and the tea party, and funded by corporations, want us to take on that risk--so that Exxon, Peabody Energy and General Electric can earn even greater profits than they do right now.

Are humans rational?

Gulf of Mexico: Only Oil Wells!

Gee, why don't we just write off the Gulf of Mexico as anything but an oil production site? Why stop drilling?

We've already committed ecocide there. Dead zones all over the place as oil and gas escape at huge volumes from BP's blowout. They'll continue to spread and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight. Even if the first relief well succeeds in tapping into the blown-out well, there is still the possibility that BP won't be able to plug it, and we won't even know if that's a success until August--if more hurricanes don't disrupt the process until after the hurricane season (June-November).

So, we should simply write off the whole non-oil Gulf Coast economy. Just open the whole Gulf to extensive oil drilling, and who cares if there are more blow outs? America needs the oil. Isn't that what Republicans, tea-partiers and others are saying? We can't have a moratorium! Oil drillers' jobs will be lost.

Since we've already screwed the Gulf, we might as well just continue doing it. Shrimpers, et al, aren't going to recover for years, so expand the oil patch and hire them as oil drillers.

We should not, under any circumstances, sanction those poor oil companies: they have so much on their plates, and if we look cross-eyed at them, why they might go and despoil the Nigerian delta, instead.

Oh. They already have.

Well, all the more reason why all oil-drilling regulations and limitations should be removed. We're competing with Nigeria, but we want the oil in our backyard. Who cares if a little bit is spilled?

Is anyone calculating the effects of the trillions of cubic feet of methane being released by the blowout? Will it accelerate global warming? But then there is no such thing. One of my favorite right-wing bloggers warns that the criminal conspirators who control the world--including Obama's White House, of course--have decided that they haven't been able to sell global warming, so they'll try to persuade everyone that the real danger is Global Cooling!

Now, if it's global cooling, then the oil spew disaster is no disaster, at all: it helps solve the problem. It releases huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere, thereby helping to hold in the precious heat this planet is in danger of losing. And polluting industries, cars, etc. all help stave off the imminent ice age.

Now that we've solved that problem, let's move on to the financial system: obviously, there should be no regulation of those poor banks. Who knows how much profits Goldman would lose!

Right-wingers unite! You have nothing to lose but your tenuous grip on reality! Somalia is our new model: no government at all.

We Shoulda Elected Hillary!

At least she would have been in-your-face. She wouldn't have pussy-footed with BP. I was against Hillary, because she stood for more of the same and she was a hawk, who never saw a war she didn't like.

But what has Obama become? A hawk, even if he talks about beginning withdrawal from Afghanistan next year (don't hold your breath). He's following Bush's policy in Iraq, keeping 50,000 American troops there indefinitely. Would Hillary already be invading Iran? I doubt it.

But on the BP oil disaster, wouldn't she have been more forthcoming and sooner, with a detailed plan for what to do from here?

McCain would have been far worse. Republicans protect the oil companies. House Republican Leader Boehner actually said taxpayers should pick up the tab for the Gulf oil cleanup, not BP!

What did Obama propose? His best moment in his oval office address was when he said he would demand BP set aside all the necessary resources to pay for damages, and that the escrow account should be controlled by an independent entity. Even then, he cited no figure (they've now agreed to $20 billion). He also should have endorsed the initiatives to repeal or raise limits on oil company liabilities from the current paltry $75 million passed in the W administration.

Obama didn't propose much else substantive. Instead, he pledged to clean up the mess--no details on how--and an "effort" to promote alternative forms of energy. He spoke about a campaign, a war-effort, but no specifics.

In other words, except for the escrow account, Obama dealt in broad generalities, despite any number of legislative initiatives he could have promoted. He also continues to entertain the fantasy: if he "reaches across the aisle," he'll gain bipartisan backing for some, unspecified, initiative that will set us on the road to alternative energy independence. When have Republicans given any indication that they would work with the administration, except on promoting the "Defense" budget?

Perhaps he didn't endorse Kerry-Lieberman on climate change and energy, because it's not a very good bill: it gives away way too much. But if he doesn't really like Kerry-Lieberman (not clear), he also didn't offer any alternative, any guidance for what he would support and work for--except that he would oppose inaction.

How do you oppose a negative? Hillary would have laid out a detailed plan.

An 81-year old friend, a Democrat, said despairingly, "We're going down!"

Every time, I hope, this is it: Obama will finally seize the moment, and lead the way as he did so brilliantly in his campaign, it's mostly words; he acts as if someone is holding a gun to his head. Possible? Palace guards killed Valentinian III (455), deposed Emperor after Emperor afterwards, and overthrew the Roman Empire in 476.

Corporations hold a big gun. I'm afraid my older friend is right: We're going down!