Hacker News Reader

Comment by McKayDavis | Hacker News Reader

I'll take this opportunity to point out that Paul Allen is a strong supporter of research to save the ocean's coral reefs.

Last June he funded [1] a nearly $4 MM USD 5 yr project for researchers at the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa (HIMB) [2] and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) to study assisted evolution to increase the resilience of coral species.

[1] http://www.vulcan.com/news/articles/2015/coral-reef-research...

[2] http://www.hawaii.edu/news/2015/08/04/ruth-gates-research-to...

(disclaimer: my wife works at HIMB)

edit: It looks as this comment is viewed by some as excusing the incident -- that's not the intent. I just wanted to point out that Mr. Allen was already helping to save reefs, not destroy them.

View on HN

Donating to MADD doesn't get one out of obeying traffic laws. If anything, this shows that Allen was well aware of how sensitive reefs are and so should have made sure his boat wasn't part of the problem.

the crew followed officials’ instructions on where to place the vessel. Shifting winds reportedly changed the position, pushing the ship toward the reserve but it was relocated to avoid damage.

Follow all the instructions you want, captains are still responsible for the physical movement of their vessels. The captain probably should have recognized that safe mourning was impossible and moved the ship elsewhere. Captains, like doctors and lawyers, are not hired to simply follow orders.

The ship was safe. The water was deep enough. The anchorage presented no threats to the ship.

I think you are over-representing the responsibility of the captain of a ship.

It's entirely reasonable to say that they did the job the best they could, but that circumstances were such that the ship still caused damage to the coral, through no fault of the ship's captain.

Lots of things that a captain can't take responsibility for - particularly when it doesn't involve the safety of the ship and it's passengers.

You do understand that while this is a nice head line it's not his "fault" in any other means than owning a yacht.

The yacht has a captain and a crew they are responsible for managing the ship and unless Paul Allen was yelling at them threatening to fire them if they do not plow into the coral reef it's just an unfortunate event that the media likes to blow up because hey it's another rich guy with a yacht.

Fault no, responsibility yes. Owners of vessels like these are responsible for the damage they do, just like any other employer.

Most of these yachts are rented out by their owners. I don't see anything in the article stating he was even on the ship. I'm not sure how you can hold him responsible if he wasn't even on the ship at the time this occurred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior

>> ... a legal doctrine which states that, in many circumstances, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment.

"When applied to physical torts, an employer-employee relationship must be established (meaning that no vicarious liability is established for work performed as an independent contractor) and the act must be committed within the scope of employment (i.e., substantially within time and geographical limits, job description and at least with partial intent to further employer's business)."

Don't think that it really falls under this legal doctrine. I'm pretty sure he'll feel responsible non the less but doesn't it mean he's liable and it sure doesn't mean that it needs to be overblown in this manner. Cargo ships do much more damage to the environment on a daily basis. That said he most definitely owns the Yacht he owns several his biggest Yacht is often loaned to researchers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus_(yacht)

The cause for the incident is probably more interesting as if the damage was done while mooring it begs a question why is there a mooring spot so close to a coral reserve in the first place.

The issue isn't who rented the boat. It's who paid the captain/crew. That is most likely some holding/management company in turn owned by Allen. Insurance is also at play. It's no different than if a bus driver crashes. The passengers on the bus aren't responsible, nor is the person who hired the bus. It is the bus owner.

If the owner is not held, then the only people left are the employees. They don't earn enough to ever pay fines associated with this sort of accident. So it's either the owners or nobody.

Potentially responsible for making good after the fact though?

Early studies suggest that not ripping up thousands of square feet of the coral reefs with your giant yacht correlates with increased health and survival of the coral reefs. As always, though, more research is needed. I can only assume that the recent incident is part of a randomized double-blind controlled trial to verify that hypothesis.

I am genuinely curious how anybody gets a pass for operating two massive private luxury yachts that are the antithesis of ocean conservation.

His operating costs on just the larger one are estimated at up 400k a WEEK. He spent 200m+ to build it.(1)

I admire his philanthropic efforts but buying goodwill like this is not a "carbon tax".

(1) http://www.businessinsider.com/crazy-facts-about-paul-allens...

I don't really have a way to judge the scale. I'd guess the lion's share of the operating costs go to the crew (60!).

Moving that thing's fat ass around probably uses a ton of fuel. I'm sure marine diesel spews out its share of co2, but more than a jet? I thought boats were super efficient relative to air travel.

I guess if your point is, rich guys screwing around shouldn't produce CO2, then, yeah, anything over 0 is bad. That seems unrealistic. any idea how to get a handle on how bad it is? how many cars worth of pollution it makes?

Why does it matter? Yes he's got a douche-boat with a helipad and 60 staff. It's obviously an extravagance that he chooses to enjoy.

In no way does it negate his good work, and in no way does his good work negate his douchery. Trying to scientifically measure the impact of the yacht is a pointless distraction. I'm certainly not going to go around counting how many miles of gleefully fuel inefficient driving I do - which seems like a pre-requisite to judging other peoples environmental impact.

The only important question is: How do we make sure this never happens again, because it sure as hell wasn't intentional and lessons can be learned.

Glad people got his permission to do what they wanted to do anyways.

Ah, he's rich and bribes excuse everything (they're for a good cause). I see. (Though in all likelihood it's the captain's fault, not his.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com