The massive and growing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico instantly presented this nation with a stark contrast of the pros and cons of oil exploration. There is the potential for great economic riches – though the distribution of those riches is far from even – but there is also a great hazard.

When the rig first exploded it presented us with a safety and human hazard. Several people were injured, dozens had to be rescued at great peril, and 11 unsuspecting men were killed.

After the rig sank we were presented with a very real and potent environmental hazard. Unknown quantities of oil – somewhere between 40,000 and 200,000 barrels per day – began flowing from a series of leaks somewhere nearly one mile below the surface.

The oil was taken by prevailing currents into a collision course with the pristine wetlands, fishing grounds, and wetlands of the Gulf Coast. The government joined with private enterprises to keep the oil out to sea and to burn it off on the surface.

When that failed to stop its spread the teams turned to chemical dispersants, which are in and of themselves also very toxic, to break apart the oil before it made it to shore.

When that failed teams of private citizens, military vessels, and corporate charters were brought in to scoop crude from the surface and erect barricades against the ooze.

Eventually, the sheer magnitude of the spill, the uncertainty of its containment, and the impossibility of its collection won over against the best defenses. Oil has already begun washing ashore in Louisiana and other coastal regions. It has already coated birds and sea life. It has already destroyed fisheries. It has already cost an embattled region billions in lost productivity and lost time.

Now, the oil spill is rearing its head to present yet another hazard to the people of this nation. This time it is a moral hazard. Newsweek ran a long and comprehensive article outlining the effect of British Petroleum’s deep pockets in the Washington political scene.

It is no secret that money buys influence in this country – or any country for that matter. However, many people fail to grasp the full scope of how this money is made, and how it is “invested” in our political system so as to ensure that the profits keep on flowing.

America had already built up plenty of reasons to get off oil by the 1970s. A massive spill off the coast of California muddied its beaches with oil, tar and noxious fumes. The creation of OPEC and the usage of an “oil weapon” against America, and the West, sent prices soaring and guaranteed that America no longer dictated the terms of the global oil economy.

Most Americans were fed up with the prices at the pump. Many would have supported an alternative to oil if one were made available. Yet, as soon as the crisis had begun, it ended. The U.S., through the use of diplomacy and force, acquired a stronghold in the oil-rich Middle East. Instead of investing in other technologies to save us from oil, we invested in oil to save us from oil.

We deregulated safety measures to make oil “cheaper” – the cost of the Gulf cleanup will never be felt at the pump, but the taxpayers will still have to foot the bill. We discouraged manufacturers from joining in the high-speed passenger rail revolution.

We, more or less, set ourselves up for this disaster, and every other oil disaster that came before it. President Obama has stated that BP will be footing the bill for this cleanup effort, but given its influence in the halls of Congress that is far from guaranteed. When the EPA noticed major lapses in BP safety protocols in 2007 it was authorized to lay down its largest fine in history. Yet the fine, a mere $50 million, represented roughly one day’s worth of BP’s annual profit from that year ($17.2 billion).

British Petroleum, like all massive and profitable companies, gets to dictate to the government what it does and how it does it. It is among those industry titans that are able to avoid nearly all U.S. tax laws, while profiting from the system it refuses to financially support. It is happy to reap the benefits of being allowed to drill off our coastlines, while successfully blocking the allegedly “costly” regulations that keep those coastlines safe.

Print PDF