Oil and BP (Buck Passing)

Obama set a lot of stall by boasting how much better he would have handled the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina than George W Bush. So now that the Gulf Coast of Mexico is drowning in black stuff he realises that he might soon be drowning in the brown stuff. But who is to blame? Really?


A lot of British commentators (like on Question Time last Thursday) are complaining that the criticism of BP is anti-British. But I'm not sure that it is; and in any case, BP does have a pretty hefty British component. Oh yes it does.

First of all remember how the (mostly American) bosses of the banks were grilled and generally excoriated by Congressmen when the financial disaster struck? That rather puts the BP Chairman's grilling into context. Secondly, BP has its origins firmly in the UK. Consider this scenario -suppose an American oil company that has 40% British shareholders and had hired UK contractors spilt millions of barrels of oil all along the south of England and made Bognor Regis even more ugly than it is now. How do you think people in the UK would have reacted. I think we know. As if there isn't enough America-bashing here already.

Yes I know - Halliburton and Transocean aren't British. And American policies have led to oil disasters around the world. But forget the drowning pelicans; 11 human beings lost their lives in this disaster, and people's livelihoods have been ruined. So anger is justified, and pointing out the inconsistencies in US policy (and I'm sure there are some) shouldn't stop BP from taking responsibility.

But if we dig a little deeper (dig, not drill) a sad fact becomes inescapable: greed. This disaster is inescapably the result of the West's - and of America's - greed for oil. Currently being joined by Asia's thirst for the black stuff too. And I don't mean guinness. It's harsh to say that American's driving SUV's are to blame for the Gulf Oil spill; but sadly, they most certainly are.