Across nations, corporations have attempted, and often with success, to emphasize oil as an emblem of culture and of modernity. In America, oil has been promoted as an image of the American dream and is important to how American freedom is perceived. For decades oil companies have invested in the image of oil fueling cars and thus fueling social mobility and autonomy (Huber). By capitalizing on the image of oil as a staple of American culture oil companies in America have harnessed tremendous control over the industry. Executives in the oil industry derive significant power from the fact that the economy relies so heavily on oil. As made evident in the circumstances leading up to the Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Spill in 2010, BP and other companies
…show more content…
Environmentalists were angry after the disaster occurred and blamed federal regulators. However, they hadn’t been focused on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico before the explosion either. MMS took recommendation from the oil industry, specifically the American Petroleum Institute, when determining regulations on oil drilling. They trusted that the industry was up to date on technology and thus allowed the oil companies to dictate the regulations that they were being held to. As David Abraham articulated, the general message was “Don’t worry. Our regulatory regime works” (7) although there was no one saying how these systems worked in case something went wrong (Eilperin and Higham). Federal law favored offshore drillers in the Gulf which made it unlikely that courts would attempt to block drilling efforts with restraining orders. Decisions were being made without legal review because legal scrutiny would slow down pursuit of oil in an industry where time is undeniably equatable to money (Sogerhan). The government relies on oil companies and in return the legal systems in place support the companies with money and resources. While civilians may be in danger they cannot resist while the individuals in boardrooms have the power to determine if safety and health risks are worth taking. In a country where reliance on oil is so deeply ingrained in culture it almost makes sense that civilians do not protest in the way that people have in other oil-dependent cultures such as in Nigeria where citizens formed MEND (Boudreaux, Raging
Environmentalists were angry after the disaster occurred and blamed federal regulators. However, they hadn’t been focused on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico before the explosion either. MMS took recommendation from the oil industry, specifically the American Petroleum Institute, when determining regulations on oil drilling. They trusted that the industry was up to date on technology and thus allowed the oil companies to dictate the regulations that they were being held to. As David Abraham articulated, the general message was “Don’t worry. Our regulatory regime works” (7) although there was no one saying how these systems worked in case something went wrong (Eilperin and Higham). Federal law favored offshore drillers in the Gulf which made it unlikely that courts would attempt to block drilling efforts with restraining orders. Decisions were being made without legal review because legal scrutiny would slow down pursuit of oil in an industry where time is undeniably equatable to money (Sogerhan). The government relies on oil companies and in return the legal systems in place support the companies with money and resources. While civilians may be in danger they cannot resist while the individuals in boardrooms have the power to determine if safety and health risks are worth taking. In a country where reliance on oil is so deeply ingrained in culture it almost makes sense that civilians do not protest in the way that people have in other oil-dependent cultures such as in Nigeria where citizens formed MEND (Boudreaux, Raging