John McCain and Exxon Valdez

grist.org

You're likely aware that the notorious Exxon Valdez case is back in court yet again. Yesterday, the Most Profitable Company of All Time argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that it shouldn't have to pay $2.5 billion in damages to Alaskans harmed by the spill. (That was reduced from the original $5 billion, but Exxon argues it shouldn't have to pay any damages. Yes, really.)

It is, of course, morally repugnant almost beyond measure for the company to be fighting this still today. But my outrage and disgust aren't particularly interesting. What might be interesting is a fact you may not know about the Republican presidential candidate, John McCain.

Just four months after the Valdez spill, Sen. George Mitchell introduced S.686, a measure relating to oil spills and liability. Sen. Brock Adams then introduced an amendment (S.Amdt.669) requiring double hulls on all new tankers over 20,000 tons operating in U.S. waters. (Valdez was a single-hull tanker.)

Big Oil's Best Buddy Sen. John Breaux moved to table the amendment. When the vote was taken, the amendment was indeed tabled, by an extremely narrow 51-48 vote.

Guess who voted with Breaux and Big Oil? That's right: Straight Talkin', Special Interest Hatin', Enviro-Maverick John McCain!

Again: four months after the biggest environmental disaster in U.S. history, McCain voted against requiring double hulled tankers.

To this day, Exxon is the only oil company that doesn't use double-hulled tankers to ship oil in and out of Alaska.

Comments

[hoopesaz]

Most believe that the companies should take every reasonable action to improve safety and reduce oil spillage, based both upon the environmental losses and the economic impact, primarily to people affected by the spill

What's missing from this article is the FACT that virtually NOBODY believes a double hull on the Exxon ship would have prevented an oil spill in this case. It's believed that a double hull might have limited the amount of oil spilled, but you still would have had a significant spill in excess of 5 million gallons.

So, it's a bit silly to castigate anyone for not being reactionary and supporting legislation that wouldn't have fixed the problem. Exxon should pay because they had an incompetent captain at the helm, NOT because they they were operating a single-hulled ship.

[jqcitizen]

It only took 19 years for the Supreme Court to hear the excuses from EXXON.

The reason EXXON is not liable: The Captain (a known Alcoholic) caused the accident, not the shareholders. So sue Hazelwood.

Justice Alito recused himself from this case because he owns too much EXXON stock.

By the way, 20% of the plaintiffs in this case are now dead.

[ptarantino]

F EXXON.

They have so much money that they design & build their own tankers. I almost bought a sailboat from one of their lead shipbuilders, who claimed he did not design the Valdez one.

Why can't these guy's just operate responsibly & still make more money than they know what to do with.

[LyricalLexicon]

I don't think the Straight Talk Express ever left the station. McCain is like every other politician, you talk a good game then do what financial backers tell you too.

[Ramirez]

John McCain supports oil spills.

[hoopesaz]

Is that the liberal "think tank" conclusion? It certainly is well thought out. Certainly there could be no other reasoned argument for not legally mandating double hulled tankers at that time. He must LOVE oil spills.

[Donkslayer]

Exxon is clearly not a great corporate citizen of the US.

That being said, it would've been very irresponsible for us to pass the double-hull bill. Ok, so we've passed the bill, basically no tankers can come into US ports without double-hulls, and immediately? Did the bill offer a waiting period at all? The effect would've been DEVASTATING. Instead, what should've happened, happened: all other companies got the hint that it would be terrible for them to have a ship spill like the Valdez, so they made moves to ensure they're using double-hulled tanks. Kudos to McCain for being sensible on this one.

[OverIt]

Not surprising. McCain's recent vote on torture has convinced me that I was wrong in thinking him a principled man despite not sharing his views.

[Lon]

I don't disagree with the point of this post. But it is my understanding that the issue facing the Supreme Court concerns punative damages and not damages in general. It seems from what little I have seen that actual damages were set too low. But what is being debated here is not whether they should compensage for losses caused by one of their ships, but whether they should additionally be punished for an accident caused by a drunk subordinate.

I think your argument works fine even if it is made more accurate. But there is a problem with making arguments in a misleading way even if that misleading way is not essential to the argument being made.

[DemandTruth]

Are YOU making a misleading argument? Or are you simply ignorant of the facts and of the google? Let's ask the SCOUTS, shall we?:

Ruth Ginsburg pointed to the evidence that "Exxon knew that this captain had a severe alcohol problem, and yet, they let him stay on voyage after voyage and did nothing about it."

Even Roberts seemed skeptical when he asked Exxon's lawyer, former solicitor general Walter Dellinger: "So you have to have a shareholder driving the boat before you can assess liability?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and there's this:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They also charge that Hazelwood, an alcoholic, was drunk. They argue that he consumed at least five double-vodkas in waterfront bars before boarding the ship. They say Exxon knew that Hazelwood, once treated for his disease, had resumed drinking.

Courts have agreed. "Spilling the oil was an accident, but putting a relapsed alcoholic in charge of a supertanker was not," the appeals court ruled in upholding the punitive damages.

Exxon itself stipulated that Hazelwood was a "managerial agent" of the company, they argue, and that the jury found that both Hazelwood and the company had acted recklessly.

[hoopesaz]

What post are you even replying to? Lon did not assert ANY of the things you try to dispute in your post. You clearly didn't read his post before you leveled the accusation that he was "ignorant" of the facts.

From what i read, he agree's with the conclusion, but thinks that the argument could have been made in a less obfuscated way. Listen (and read) before you speak (and write). It would serve you well.

[sugarmoes]

john mccain is a tool and only a tool. he's a hero, yes... but a tool. he's a useful tool that will operate as he is instructed to operate. his instructors are not good people.