It's been a long haul since the Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, releasing million of barrels of crude oil into the sea above. BP has promised to pay the fishermen and residents affected by the spill, but what about the "other residents" who didn't get to voice their concerns at town hall?
An article from the ABA Journal voices this point, emphasizing the need to revise environmental law to include reparations for wildlife disturbed by man-made messes (including oil spills). I don't necessarily agree with this notion in the same way in which PETA does (who, from my understanding, wants to file suit for suffering), but rather I think we need the government to measure environmental ruin in a tangible way to create precedent for future disasters. Unfortunately, no amount of money can undo all of the suffering, but instead of BP "pledging" to throw money at the situation in the long-run, why not reevaluate the regulatory means that prohibit companies from setting up camp in the first place? Maybe higher taxes or potential fines for companies working in close proximity to wildlife?
I'll admit: I'm no expert on this topic, but I do know that something productive needs to come out of this oil spill -- why can't more stringent federal protection for the environment and wildlife be it?
No comments:
Post a Comment