This is an interesting theory, but you may be overthinking the causal chain in order to get your sin-based theory.
I imagine it looks more like this:
Advisor 1: “Something must be done about this BP fiasco! Let’s put a moratorium on offshore drilling.”
Advisor 2: “Good idea, but that would put people out of work, which would be bad press, especially in this economy. We’d need to find a way to pay them off.”
Advisor 1: “Everyone thinks BP is doing a terrible job and won’t have to pay enough for this disaster. Let’s make them foot the bill.”
“Sin” may be part of it, but if BP had much better PR (which would probably entail, in part, being more effective), I expect people wouldn’t be all about punishing them, even if they were at fault for the oil spill.
Agreed, this looks like pretty straightforward politics. Given that there is a temporary ban on drilling, what should happen with the oilmen who are temporarily out of work? Making BP pay them looks like the least politically unpopular option.
Leaving them unpaid could intensify opposition to the moratorium, since they’re sympathetic victims of the government’s policy. Having the government pay them would attract the ire of deficit hawks, plus it would probably have to go through a battle in Congress, and it would also attract more negative attention to the moratorium. Forcing the other oil companies to pay their workers could also seem unfair and draw more opposition, plus it might not be easy for the government to get them to make those payments. BP has at least some causal responsibility for these oilmen being out of work, they’re unsympathetic (so people don’t really mind if they have to pay more), and the government has a lot of leverage over them to make them pay, so naturally they end up with the bill.
This is an interesting theory, but you may be overthinking the causal chain in order to get your sin-based theory.
I imagine it looks more like this: Advisor 1: “Something must be done about this BP fiasco! Let’s put a moratorium on offshore drilling.”
Advisor 2: “Good idea, but that would put people out of work, which would be bad press, especially in this economy. We’d need to find a way to pay them off.”
Advisor 1: “Everyone thinks BP is doing a terrible job and won’t have to pay enough for this disaster. Let’s make them foot the bill.”
“Sin” may be part of it, but if BP had much better PR (which would probably entail, in part, being more effective), I expect people wouldn’t be all about punishing them, even if they were at fault for the oil spill.
Agreed, this looks like pretty straightforward politics. Given that there is a temporary ban on drilling, what should happen with the oilmen who are temporarily out of work? Making BP pay them looks like the least politically unpopular option.
Leaving them unpaid could intensify opposition to the moratorium, since they’re sympathetic victims of the government’s policy. Having the government pay them would attract the ire of deficit hawks, plus it would probably have to go through a battle in Congress, and it would also attract more negative attention to the moratorium. Forcing the other oil companies to pay their workers could also seem unfair and draw more opposition, plus it might not be easy for the government to get them to make those payments. BP has at least some causal responsibility for these oilmen being out of work, they’re unsympathetic (so people don’t really mind if they have to pay more), and the government has a lot of leverage over them to make them pay, so naturally they end up with the bill.