who cares

TWO RECENT DISASTERS:
the explosion at Massey-owned Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia;
the oil spill in Gulf

Looking at news stories about these, found a "Common Denominator"

first, about the oil spill:
------------------------------------------
[from N.Y. Times, May 14, 2010]
"You simply are not allowed to conclude that the drilling will have an impact," said one scientist who has worked for the minerals agency for more than a decade. "If you find the risks of a spill are high or you conclude that a certain species will be affected, your report gets disappeared in a desk drawer and they find another scientist to do it or they rewrite it for you."

Another biologist who left the agency in 2005 after more than five years said that agency officials went out of their way to accommodate the oil and gas industry.

He said, for example, that seismic activity from drilling can have a devastating effect on mammals and fish, but that agency officials rarely enforced the regulations meant to limit those effects.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Now, the mine explostion:
-----------------------------------------------
[from N.Y. Times, April 9, 2010]
This week's blast comes after a year in which the Upper Big Branch mine had repeated problems with methane buildups. Since April 2009 federal regulators have cited the mine eight times for "substantial" violations relating to the mine's methane control plans, according to the records.

In two instances, the regulators found the mine operator was calibrating methane monitors every three months even though it is supposed to be done every 31 days. The delays in attending to the monitors meant they could not properly detect the gas, a risk inspectors said could lead to severe injuries or prove fatal.

On April 30, 2009, federal regulators found that the mine had failed to follow methane-related safety precautions.

----------------------------------------------------
You don't need a degree in marine biology or engineering to see what's going on, in both those situations:
rules not being followed
regulations and requirements not being met
Common Denominator.

"Yes, there's a rule, but we don't comply."
"Inspection every 31 days. Ummm--instead of that, once per quarter."

Government's at fault for not enforcing.
Business at fault for taking advantage, and putting safety and environment last.
(Is there so much profit to be made by doing things that way? Or is there a boundary-pushing, egotistical recklessness at work here, creating dysfunctional Business Ethics??)

Faking it doesn't cut it. The people running those companies should be proactive rather than reactive. They should not only follow the rules the government puts on them, they should change the dynamic, get out ahead of the process: instead of foot-dragging, or lobbying for more lenient rules & regs, they should
A) comply with what's given, + go beyond, over and above what's required;
and
B) point out problems & potentials problems themselves, and make some rules themselves and comply with those.

Being -- a Good Corporate Citizen, right?
Being -- "Sustainable"??

When one company does that, it will challenge all the others to do better also, because it'll make the others look bad if they don't. One good example would be powerful.

Or maybe that's not true. Maybe there are Good Examples and the other companies that resist complying with safety rules and environment regulations -- don't give a damn.

I wonder if it's true that one out-of-control, malign ego can ruin it for many hard-working, well-intentioned people at these companies.

-30-