One World, One Environment, One Recovery Fund?
ByAs we head into week seven of the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico we are unfortunately still at the stage where the situation is worsening daily. Despite some positive news over the weekend about partial containment of the leak we’re no nearer a final conclusion to the events that have grown in gravity as the weeks have passed. Many analysts don’t see anything short of the successful completion of relief wells providing full resolution, however it is rumoured that it could be completed sometime in August.
Once the oil has stopped flowing and the dust has settled the ugly business of assessing the damage to the marine life, coastal refuges and economic claims will start to be tallied and the costs associated. Whether the disaster becomes large enough to break BP is open to speculation and if they cannot meet the bill the clean up work will fall upon the federal government and ultimately the taxpayer. It might not reach a satisfactory conclusion for many if the government end up footing the bill but regardless the clean up work will need to take place and
Pelican coated in oil in Louisiana (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
lawsuits will be settled, like so many tasks of this size the actual costs are not determined for months or even years but the focus is completing the work first and resolve the fees afterward.
A very controversial suggestion has been made this week that lends itself to the fact that the collective ‘we’ all share the environment and that the funding needed to face events on this scale should be a collective proposition. Without tempting fate it would unfortunately be logical to suggest that future environmental disasters will happen – but should there me a more collective way of addressing how to pay for the inevitable problems?
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev proposed Saturday the creation of an international fund to help cover the costs of massive environmental disasters such as the current oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. In a video blog, the Russian leader suggests that nations need to contribute to a networked fund as insurance against potential environmental damage. The details as to who would pay and exactly how much remains to be seen but the initial suggestion will surely be met with stubborn resistance as national interest would have to take second fiddle. Even so, an organization such as the UN works on a global scale with pooled funding and has done so for many years. Would a global insurance fund be a practical step forward if we subscribe to the environment being a shared responsibility. I fear such a suggestion would run up against the same rocks that seem to slow international legislation in terms of curbing global warming.
Medvedev said he would seek to drive this initiative forward at the upcoming Group of 20 summit in Canada. Will the fact that it comes from the leader of Russia instead of another head of state? On the surface it may appear to be a radical approach, however relying on a single corporation might prove to be further complicating the chance of success (however we determine that word) as it stands with the current BP crisis. Medvedev said about the costs of an environmental disaster:
“In some cases the wealthiest companies and even the wealthiest countries might not have enough money. I am certain that the current laws cannot cover a catastrophe of such dimensions, therefore we must think about farther-reaching measures for preventing further accidents.”
He also acknowledged that Russia has very significant environmental problems, and that the former Soviet Union left behind 2 billion tons of industrial wastes, and that Russia still has numerous outdated waste processing and treatment plants. While this may be political posturing some type of planning must be considered for the future. The fallout of the BP disaster is far from known at this stage and while seeing any type of silver lining is difficult, perhaps a safeguard of resources for catastrophe management is a good place to start.
The best lesson of the BP situation would be to prevent any future disasters but I fear that is too much to ask for. Perhaps this is the next best tactic? I’m not sure.
2 Comments
June 8th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
An interesting proposition – would Medvedev and the Russian environmental problems be benefactors of such an international fund? It strikes me that the Oil Companies are exploiting the public hydrocarbon resources under regulation, and are generating billions of dollars in profits quarterly. Why aren’t there better safeguards in place (taxing some of these profits) to ensure that technologies and resources are immediately deployable to rectify problems? I am astonished that this Gulf disaster has continued unabated. Where are large scale skimmers and supertankers to mop this up? Instead the respondents have reverted to dispersant chemicals, and the long term effect is unknown – it is a closed system; these materials don’t go away. There is enough funding in the system to afford safeguards against disasters without establishing additional “funds”.
June 8th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Thanks for your response Doug. I’d imagine any sort of collective fund would be earmarked for future events with no grandfathering in of existing environmental issues. I’m curious to see how the idea is received at the G20, I imagine most people will say (of Russia) people in glass houses….
As to your other points, of course there is enough money in place but that would upset the shareholders who have already taken a 40% hit. I think that has led to the seemingly slow reactions, that combined with no proven methods to stop the flow of course.