Reply #10: And the mess in Nigeria is nothing new. [View All]

[Igel]

The collapse of the USSR saw a rush for oil remediation equipment to clean up millions of barrels of oil spilled in Siberia. The Soviet government didn't much care about mostly uninhabited land when pipelines ruptured because of shoddy pipes or shoddy installation, and didn't always get repair crews out quickly.

The rush for equipment to salvage the oil was driven by purely mercenary purposes: It was there, it wasn't clear that the government would bother with it, and it would be worth a lot of money. Of course, the group I was interpreter for was corrupt as well, ex-Communist Party bosses from the area out to cement their power under a new regime, but at least there were plans to suck up the petroleum.

This environmental problem got virtually no media attention in the early '90s. Should have. This kind of thing is good for perspective, esp. when there are revisionist arguments about how the USSR wasn't so bad or it's good to have government be regulator and producer and consumer.

In fact, in Nigeria there was this same conflict of interest: If you fine the oil companies then you'll have less income. But corrupt politicians crave income. If you don't have to care about the populace or even hold them in contempt--cf. the USSR--then there's no real political downside to an environmental disaster as long as there's no negative PR that would harsh your welcome in ritzy resorts or on visits to other political leaders.