Jay,

While it may allow one to feel clever about himself, blaming everyone is no different than blaming no one. Both are an abdication of responsibility.

Most airplane crashes are a consequence of human error. We do not blame crashes on the general population & their insatiable demand for convenient air travel. Rather experts analyze the data and recommend changes to flight procedures so as to avoid a repeat experience. As a consequence of this learning process the rate of airline accidents continues to decline.

Oil production is an engineering marvel that has allowed much of the free world to experience a quality of life our ancestors could not even have dreamed of. It is nonsensical to treat oil as something evil or an element of greed, especially given the good that it yields, yet that attitude pervades the environmental left.

When mistakes happen the rational step is to learn from them and move forward with confidence. Self flagellation and scapegoating are attitudes befitting backwards societies who embrace ignorance and ritual as the way to deal with the unknown. Our country did not realize the prosperity it has by choosing to live in fear. Let's not start now.

There is a Forbes article that argues these accidents are far more common than people realize:

"If You Think That Oil Spill is Bad..."
Daniel Fisher and Christopher Helman, 06.10.10, 11:00 AM EDT
Forbes Magazine
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0628/outfront-bp-risk-catastrophe-nuclear-if-that-oil-spill-is-bad.html

As life gets more complex, catastrophes like the BP leak come with amazing price tags.

The Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 cost $5 billion to clean up, a huge sum that people assumed would be hard to exceed. Not exactly. BP ( BP - news - people ) has lost $70 billion in market capitalization since the Deepwater Horizon exploded on Apr. 20--one estimate, perhaps, of how much the disaster will ultimately cost the British oil company.

When it comes to catastrophes, history can tell you only so much. There is no smooth probability transition between $1 billion problems and $10 billion or $100 billion problems. Insurance experts call these accidents "fat-tail" events. By that they mean if you plot probabilities against accident size you do not get the rapid tapering off of odds found on the classic bell curve. In other words, giant accidents are not as rare as you might think after studying small accidents.

I've certainly done my share of horrific reaction, finger-pointing and all that goes with it. As time wears on, more angles arise in relation to cause/effect here. We may very well end up pointing fingers at ourselves.

Central planner banking policy that has for years now by decree favored consumption now over investment for later, is partly to blame.

One of the most basic, fundamental decisions we make as an economy is how much to consume now, versus how much to save and invest for later (presumably for even greater consumption in the future). Interest rates are the key gauge for this and forcibly keeping them artificially low skews that basic decision towards immediate gratification and away from longterm planning and investing.

We will never know what technologies and infrastructures would have developed by now under a free market monetary system.

@ Dan--

Airplane crashes are hardly an apt analogy. Most airplane crashes are not due to a plane supplier, pilot or consumer base pushing the technological or safety boundaries. And seemingly within minutes of an airline crash the full force and power of the FAA is on the scene with a well oiled investigative process. Blame the Feds alll you want but that apparatus is missing as it concerns environmental disasters.

There is no single entity to blame. We can all share the blame to varying degrees, argued only by that 20% who feel they, and everyone else, are blameless.

Are we all not, every time we complain about a nickel a gallon increase, pushing an underregulated industry, unlike the airline industry, just a little bit more. And given that industry's inability to say no to the shareholder shouldn't we demand more stringent oversight? And if not wouldn't it be prudent to add a penny a gallon to pay for the next disaster rather than hoping the guilty parties will be able to pay the bill?

I agree with Dan completely. The blame game can go on forever and in circles. Many people I know have very long commutes to work. One of the reasons is that they can't afford to live close to work (compliments of real estate bubble and no income verification loans). Not always there is someone to share a ride with and their elected officials did not provide them with any public transportation. Not everyone can buy a hybrid car because they have virtually no trunk space, so you would need at least two cars if you have family etc. Who is to blame here?

I'm just an average person with family and a full-time job and don't always have time to do research on all the issues. Just weeks before the spill we were told by our president that offshore drilling is safe. Are we supposed not to believe him? I personally had no idea how bad things were and how poorly it was regulated, etc. until this accident happened.

It is clear that obviously we need better government oversight and response to the environmental issues. (Maybe simply put FAA in charge of that?) But, in any event, BP is responsible for the spill. It was their faulty equipment and lack of proper contingency procedures. Also keep in mind they were not running some charity program to provide us with cheap gas and even their first response was not to minimize the environmental damage but to maximize their profit and keep it hush-hush.

BTW, anyone who feels guilty about the spill is welcome to join the clean-up effort any time. But I bet all those finger-pointers prefer to stay in their cozy offices instead. Give me a break.

Sorry, but that statement about "50k earners who bought 750k houses..." is completely wrong.

If I earn $50k/year, and I attempt to buy a house for $750k, it's still the bank's fault. If I have to borrow, and I apply to borrow that much money based on my income, then it is the bank's responsibility to make sure I can make the payment. The real estate bubble is entirely the fault of bankers and realtors, not buyers.

In fact, I heard that part of the financial reform that was recently passed was that banks are now supposed to make sure that anyone who applies for a mortgage has the ability to pay off the loan. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't that a fundamental principle that banks should have followed all along, instead of being told that they have to do so now?

A very balanced discussion. Thank you.