I don't mean BP should be crucified, but they have the responsibility and they certainly have the means.
It'd be great IF bp were going to be held fully liable. From my understanding there is a limited liability clause that is going to hold BP to some unimaginably low number.
And of course, there will be a question of what cleanup means. Cleaning up the coasts, cleaning up the animals, cleaning up the sub sea plumes? I am sure some big oil lobbyists have already tempered the language of what ever legislation is in place to hold BP accountable.
So charity is going to clearly have to step in a close the gap.
Bing, Bing, Bing!
Is it clearly defined what BP is covering? If not, how do charities know that the money they're putting into action is filling the gaps instead of just reducing BP's checks?
As I said, I understood it that BP is liable up to some amount (in dollars). How that amount is assessed and so forth, I have no idea.
It's not about blame so much as the fact that with BP on the hook for the bill, money isn't the thing that's in need.
You know what will be a million times better than sending clean-up money? When the clean-up is done, book a vacation and go patronize the tourism spots that are currently deserted.
Media keeps repeating the $75 million cap story because it makes for controversy and controversy sells newspapers (so to speak).
Some effect, that!