posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 11:29 PM
There was an old episode on "The People's Court" where a man spray painted a house, and the overspray drifted across the property line and ended up
collecting on a neighbor's car.
The outcome of the People's court case is that the spray painter was indeed responsible for the airborne material that originated from his activity,
and ended up on his neighbor's property. As I recall the judge said something to the effect that if he couldn't guarantee his spray panting
wouldn't have an adverse effect on the neighbor's property, he should have painted with brushes and rollers instead.
To me the similarity in the two cases seems striking except for the country where it happened and the amount of damage. But clearly the US based court
ruled that indeed the originator of the airborne material was responsible for damages they caused.
In the case of Japan, even if the courts had found TEPCO liable, it would still be the government who ended up paying because TEPCO would be insolvent
as a result, so the government will likely have to pay for cleanup no matter which way they decided. But I think it would be better if Japan let TEPCO
go insolvent sold its assets to buyers in a liquidation sale with new owners and new management.
The reason for this is the same reason we have major problems with the wall street bailout. Companies take huge risks like the banks did with mortgage
derivatives, or like TEPCO did by ignoring the advice of its own scientists about what would happen in Fukushima when the battery backups were
insufficient after a tsunami hit. The gains of these risky decisions were privatized, but the losses are being socialized.
This is NOT the way to incentivize companies to make the right decisions, rather, this kind of action by government will foster more stupid
decision-making on the part of private companies if they think they can privatize the gains and socialize the losses for making risky decisions. TEPCO
should have taken action to prevent this disaster when its own scientists warned them about it, but they didn't, and decisions like this one seem to
indicate they are not having to pay a high enough price for their bad decision making.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Something that's being overlooked here:
This isn't about cleanup cost. If TEPCO can bail on ownership and responsibility here, it gives them a defense against all of the people that will
die from this and their calls for retribution, which will come.
It may be about health care costs also, but I disagree it's not about
cleanup cost. It may be about both.