Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues

[chaseter]

11 men died, tourism in the coastal South was dead, fishermen were out of work for months, etc.

 

[StorminNorman]

Really? So removing the only disincentive to cutting costs and attempting bolder, more dangerous drilling feats for increased profits would be a good idea, huh?

Sorry. I don't see it. BP, a company that was responsible for the worst spill in American history, is really no worse for wear after this ordeal. That should illustrate a massive flaw in your reasoning about consumers weeding out the irresponsible companies.

So you're arguing that there wasn't a problem before regulations started being put in place?

The only disincentive for trying to prevent an oil spill is government regulations? Really?

No worse for wear after this ordeal? ********. Their reputation is mud, and they have had to dole out billions in recovery. Both are tremendously, hugely bad for business.

You know whats saving BP? THE GOVERNMENT. Government tax credits are going to allow BP to make a lot of the money back. If there was no government regulation, and there was no government safety net, unregulated companies would do their best to prevent oil spills of any kind, more effectively and most efficiently than government regulations.

Government regulations, I might add, that did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent this one.

And you don't think that the oil companies wouldn't take shortcuts or pressure the oil riggers to take shortcuts that compromise safety?

Yes. Because oil companies want oil spills MUCH less than the government does.

I'm quite sure that if we didn't have regulations in science labs, everyone would go to work in flip flops and shorts and eat their lunches and drink their Cokes at the bench next to dangerous chemicals. Never underestimate the stupidity/folly of what people can do if they could get away with it.

You are quite sure that it is regulations that prevent people from harming themselves? Okay. I don't. Furthermore, I think any individual that needs external regulations to save themselves from their own stupidity needs to be a victim of their own stupidity.

 

[StorminNorman]

11 men died, tourism in the coastal South was dead, fishermen were out of work for months, etc.

Most of the fishermen made more money this summer than ever before.

 

[StorminNorman]

Really? So removing the only disincentive to cutting costs and attempting bolder, more dangerous drilling feats for increased profits would be a good idea, huh?

Sorry. I don't see it. BP, a company that was responsible for the worst spill in American history, is really no worse for wear after this ordeal. That should illustrate a massive flaw in your reasoning about consumers weeding out the irresponsible companies.

The only disincentive for trying to prevent an oil spill is government regulations? Really?

No worse for wear after this ordeal? ********. Their reputation is mud, and they have had to dole out billions in recovery. Both are tremendously, hugely bad for business.

You know whats saving BP? THE GOVERNMENT. Government tax credits are going to allow BP to make a lot of the money back. If there was no government regulation, and there was no government safety net, unregulated companies would do their best to prevent oil spills of any kind, more effectively and most efficiently than government regulations.

Government regulations, I might add, that did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent this one.

So you're arguing that there wasn't a problem before regulations started being put in place?

Bad companies utilized bad business practices before regulation. Regulation didn't fix that. It only added political bureaucrats into the equation.

And you don't think that the oil companies wouldn't take shortcuts or pressure the oil riggers to take shortcuts that compromise safety?

Yes. Because oil spills want oil spills MUCH less than the government does.

I'm quite sure that if we didn't have regulations in science labs, everyone would go to work in flip flops and shorts and eat their lunches and drink their Cokes at the bench next to dangerous chemicals. Never underestimate the stupidity/folly of what people can do if they could get away with it.

You are quite sure that it is regulations that prevent people from harming themselves? Okay. I don't. Furthermore, I think any individual that needs external regulations to save themselves from their own stupidity needs to be a victim of their own stupidity.

 

[chaseter]

Most of the fishermen made more money this summer than ever before.

A lot of construction businesses made a ton of money and still are making a ton of money as a result of Katrina. That doesn't mean that Katrina was a great occurrence.

Oil spills are bad period and I can't believe that you think capitalism will stop oil spills as opposed to federal regulations.

 

[Anita18]

Yes. Because oil companies want oil spills MUCH less than the government does.

You are quite sure that it is regulations that prevent people from harming themselves? Okay. I don't. Furthermore, I think any individual that needs external regulations to save themselves from their own stupidity needs to be a victim of their own stupidity.

Sure oil companies don't' want oil spills. Nobody wants oil spills. That's not the point I'm making. The point is that you need someone outside talking to them and making sure they aren't taking any shortcuts. Because that's the danger in being in the industry yourself - you get lazy. You got away with it 99 times before, why should the 100th time be different? Not everyone is as responsible as you think they should be.

And sure, you could invoke the Darwin Awards and say that the stupid people should be able to harm themselves, but I bet that the 11 men who died on that rig would disagree. I bet there were some innocent people among that group who had nothing to do with the mistake that took their lives.

The girl who died in the science lab probably didn't know any better. She was only a few months into the job, after all. She was probably trained only once on the chemical she was working on, and since nobody else was making a big deal out of it, she probably didn't think it was a big deal. That's the danger.

 

[StorminNorman]

A lot of construction businesses made a ton of money and still are making a ton of money as a result of Katrina. That doesn't mean that Katrina was a great occurrence.

Oil spills are bad period and I can't believe that you think capitalism will stop oil spills as opposed to federal regulations.

I never implied that the oil spill was a great occurrence. The damage it has to the region, economically, however is completely overstated. The low tourist dollars will be replaced with BP money. That's not because of government intervention, that's because of tort law.

If there were no government intervention by way of tax credits, by way of liability caps, by way of other corporate-protection measures the company would face the full wrath of liability costs.

Without the government provided cradles, the companies would suffer a tremendous hit. The victims would be BP stockholders, but unfortunately that's the risk of the stock market.

But that series of events would also increase the vigilance of other stock holders. Suddenly the oil rig safety of oil companies becomes a major factor into stock prices. Not because of care of marine life - but because oil spills are bad for business. Always.

And that's how capitalism works. Bad companies do bad things until they fail. Look at the back lash Nike got when people learned they were made with child labor? Look at the backlash K-Mart got when they had their own labor problems. When companies serve unfit food, they lose customers. It's hard to have a successful business. As long as the markets are free, it costs too much to run a bad one.

Sure oil companies don't' want oil spills. Nobody wants oil spills. That's not the point I'm making. The point is that you need someone outside talking to them and making sure they aren't taking any shortcuts. Because that's the danger in being in the industry yourself - you get lazy. You got away with it 99 times before, why should the 100th time be different? Not everyone is as responsible as you think they should be.

But the question is whether the GOVERNMENT is responsible. What does the government do that inspires confidence? Is it the FDA who couldn't prevent bad eggs from reaching consumers breakfasts or the same regulatory bodies that couldn't prevent THIS spill from happening?

The girl who died in the science lab probably didn't know any better. She was only a few months into the job, after all. She was probably trained only once on the chemical she was working on, and since nobody else was making a big deal out of it, she probably didn't think it was a big deal. That's the danger.

And it's in their EMPLOYERS interest to teach her. If the employers aren't responsible enough to not work to protect their employer without that motivation, government regulation isn't going to help.

 

[Anita18]

But the question is whether the GOVERNMENT is responsible. What does the government do that inspires confidence? Is it the FDA who couldn't prevent bad eggs from reaching consumers breakfasts or the same regulatory bodies that couldn't prevent THIS spill from happening?

And it's in their EMPLOYERS interest to teach her. If the employers aren't responsible enough to not work to protect their employer without that motivation, government regulation isn't going to help.

That's because the FDA doesn't really have regulatory powers. They just tell us things. If it was up to capitalism, companies would want to keep the FDA as impotent as they currently are. The news media aren't very interested in keeping a close eye on this stuff anymore, we can't depend on them.

And it's not even the fear of regulatory bodies wielding fines to make people change, I do think you need to emphasize personal responsibility as well. But not like, "If you don't do this, Safety will write us up," it'll have to be more like, "We have to do this so we make sure nobody gets hurt, especially by someone else's mistakes. DON'T BE THAT GUY."

It's just that if the powers that be don't have that attitude, it'll never trickle down. My boss doesn't watch over me to make sure I wear gloves and goggles when handling phenol, he just told me once, told me why I should do it, and trusted I'd be smart enough to make the right decision. But the thing is that he had to approach the teaching in that way for it to take.

 

[chaseter]

I think you need to read The Jungle.

 

[Carcharodon]

The only disincentive for trying to prevent an oil spill is government regulations? Really?

No worse for wear after this ordeal? ********. Their reputation is mud, and they have had to dole out billions in recovery. Both are tremendously, hugely bad for business.

BP stated that they had more than enough to cover the costs of the spill. It was practically a drop in the bucket.

You know whats saving BP? THE GOVERNMENT. Government tax credits are going to allow BP to make a lot of the money back. If there was no government regulation, and there was no government safety net, unregulated companies would do their best to prevent oil spills of any kind, more effectively and most efficiently than government regulations.

You say this all the time, but you never support the argument.

Show me that without the government's help, BP would be in a heavily compromised situation. Show me the numbers. I don't believe you one bit.

Government regulations, I might add, that did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent this one.

You're intentionally trying to blur the distinction between the quality and enforcement of government regulation and the existence and practice of government regulation in its own right.

You're pushing an agenda, distorting reality as you go along your merry way.

Has this become obvious to anybody else?

 

[StorminNorman]

That's because the FDA doesn't really have regulatory powers. They just tell us things. If it was up to capitalism, companies would want to keep the FDA as impotent as they currently are. The news media aren't very interested in keeping a close eye on this stuff anymore, we can't depend on them.

I want the FDA and all agencies to be completely toothless.

The only purpose a regulatory agency should serve is fact finder. Provide the market with objective information about practices and allow the market place to react appropriately.

And it's not even the fear of regulatory bodies wielding fines to make people change, I do think you need to emphasize personal responsibility as well. But not like, "If you don't do this, Safety will write us up," it'll have to be more like, "We have to do this so we make sure nobody gets hurt, especially by someone else's mistakes. DON'T BE THAT GUY."

And regulation leads to more of the former and less of the later.

It's just that if the powers that be don't have that attitude, it'll never trickle down. My boss doesn't watch over me to make sure I wear gloves and goggles when handling phenol, he just told me once, told me why I should do it, and trusted I'd be smart enough to make the right decision. But the thing is that he had to approach the teaching in that way for it to take.

Exactly.

I think you need to read The Jungle.

You know who were the biggest benefactors of The Jungle and the largest advocates of regulation? The meat industry. Or at least the "big butchers" part of them. Regulation benefits large companies at the expense of smaller one.

BP stated that they had more than enough to cover the costs of the spill. It was practically a drop in the bucket.

You say this all the time, but you never support the argument.

BP is one of the largest companies in the world, they are one of the few that may be able to absorb the damage of an oil spill like this. However they are helped out tremendously by government intervention. Furthermore I never meant to imply it was as black and white that without the government, BP would be destroyed. But you don't think taking a gigantic fiscal hit to the tune of billions, upon billions hurts a company? No company can receive the blow from a 20 billion dollar loss and not feel the effect.

You're intentionally trying to blur the distinction between the quality and enforcement of government regulation and the existence and practice of government regulation in its own right.

Low quality of regulation is a product of government. Government is riddled with self-serving political individuals. That's why you get political jobs sold to the higgest bidder or rewarded to friends. When government writes legislation, big corporations invest in lobbyists that small corporations can't afford. That's why government regulation favors "Big Business".

It's just like the Founders Said: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Find me the angels you expect to write and then enforce government regulation and perhaps you can convince me to believe. But government regulation written by politicians and enforced by men is something I am highly skeptical in.

 

[Anita18]

I want the FDA and all agencies to be completely toothless.

The only purpose a regulatory agency should serve is fact finder. Provide the market with objective information about practices and allow the market place to react appropriately.

And with your example re: the salmonella in eggs, who's going to punish them if the FDA isn't? The market? The eggs from the infected farms were mixed in with eggs from noninfected farms. Not all the eggs from one particular company or label was affected. How does can the market affect the bad company in a case like that?

The only way that would work is if one company controlled one plant and labeled the product under one name. That's when you know that your actions in boycotting that product would actually mean something.

But it's not so simple, not anymore.

And regulation leads to more of the former and less of the later.

Exactly.

I do think you need a bit of both, though. My lab is pretty good when it comes to safety, but when Safety comes around, we ratchet it up even more.

 

[chaseter]

You know who were the biggest benefactors of The Jungle and the largest advocates of regulation? The meat industry. Or at least the "big butchers" part of them. Regulation benefits large companies at the expense of smaller one.

Uh no, we as the consumer were.

You can also thank the government for enacting the proper labeling of foods. If not, businesses would lie. Twinkies are found to lower cholesterol! They only contain 100% natural ingredients!

 

[StorminNorman]

And with your example re: the salmonella in eggs, who's going to punish them if the FDA isn't? The market? The eggs from the infected farms were mixed in with eggs from noninfected farms. Not all the eggs from one particular company or label was affected. How does can the market affect the bad company in a case like that?

The companies that sell the eggs for the farms. When salmonella hits eggs, the entire egg industry is impacted because buyers avoid eggs regardless of brands. Such action is bad for companies in the business for selling eggs, therefore such sellers are going to impose their own standards.

Again, if people are losing money due to the malpractice of someone in the industry, don't think you think it's natural that those that lost money are going to do their best to punish the perpetrators? This is self-interest at work.

The only way that would work is if one company controlled one plant and labeled the product under one name. That's when you know that your actions in boycotting that product would actually mean something.

But it's not so simple, not anymore.

That's why I believe agencies like the FDA have a place - but that place is in information, not regulation. Have a federal agency designed to demonstrate who causes problems like Salmonella and allow the Free Markets to punish. It's the most efficient, most effective and most moral system.

I do think you need a bit of both, though. My lab is pretty good when it comes to safety, but when Safety comes around, we ratchet it up even more.

But see, isn't that a problem? If you start focusing on the rules only because Safety is around, than the issue becomes more and more about Safety and less and less about safety.

 

[StorminNorman]

Uh no, we as the consumer were.

You can also thank the government for enacting the proper labeling of foods. If not, businesses would lie. Twinkies are found to lower cholesterol! They only contain 100% natural ingredients!

Lying on your food label would be fraud, which is punishable by law - not regulation.

Furthermore, once people found out that it was business practice to lie to customers, customers would react accordingly by avoiding their brand.

Again immoral business practices only pay off if no one knows. That's why I view regulation's number 1 job to be consumer information.

 

[chaseter]

Lying on your food label would be fraud, which is punishable by law - not regulation.

Furthermore, once people found out that it was business practice to lie to customers, customers would react accordingly by avoiding their brand.

Again immoral business practices only pay off if no one knows. That's why I view regulation's number 1 job to be consumer information.

What entity validates health claims and what is in our food? FDA. So no FDA, then no fraud punishable by law.

We would still be getting tons of good old MSG if it weren't for the FDA.

 

[Anita18]

The companies that sell the eggs for the farms. When salmonella hits eggs, the entire egg industry is impacted because buyers avoid eggs regardless of brands. Such action is bad for companies in the business for selling eggs, therefore such sellers are going to impose their own standards.

Again, if people are losing money due to the malpractice of someone in the industry, don't think you think it's natural that those that lost money are going to do their best to punish the perpetrators? This is self-interest at work.

Perhaps, but the companies selling the eggs are so large now that a boycott of just eggs (or what have you) wouldn't make a dent in their bottom line at all.

If anything the lawsuits from people who get injured on the job or are experiencing health effects from the infected eggs would make more of a dent. And that requires people to get sick first, which we don't want.

But see, isn't that a problem? If you start focusing on the rules only because Safety is around, than the issue becomes more and more about Safety and less and less about safety.

Granted, some of the stuff that Safety wants are kind of stupid. They required us put a label on our lab ice machine that said, "Not for human consumption" (the postdoc put another label that said, "Aliens only" ), but obviously someone somewhere did something INCREDIBLY STUPID which is why they require everyone do silly things that seems like it would be obvious.

The checks don't hurt us, really. They write us up for minor things, but they're more of a reminder for vigilance than anything else.

It's like those speed limit signs. Not everyone follows them, but they're there to remind you, at the very least. Or not to feign ignorance when a cop pulls you over.

 

[Carcharodon]

BP is one of the largest companies in the world, they are one of the few that may be able to absorb the damage of an oil spill like this. However they are helped out tremendously by government intervention. Furthermore I never meant to imply it was as black and white that without the government, BP would be destroyed. But you don't think taking a gigantic fiscal hit to the tune of billions, upon billions hurts a company? No company can receive the blow from a 20 billion dollar loss and not feel the effect.

The question is: how much did it really hurt them? We know it hurt, we just don't know how much. And when you're trying to argue that the market will regulate itself in a Darwinian fashion, the essential question becomes: would BP have survived, and by how much, without the help of the government?

If they would have (and I have a feeling they would have done so easily), that demonstrates a failure of your conceptual self-regulating system.

I would be dishonest in some fashion if I didn't point out that our existing system of regulation did indeed fail as well. However, I believe the answer is greater care and attention (in other words, quality, not quantity) rather than deregulation.

It's just like the Founders Said: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Find me the angels you expect to write and then enforce government regulation and perhaps you can convince me to believe. But government regulation written by politicians and enforced by men is something I am highly skeptical in.

I think you grossly misinterpreted that quote.

 

[StorminNorman]

What entity validates health claims and what is in our food? FDA. So no FDA, then no fraud punishable by law.

We would still be getting tons of good old MSG if it weren't for the FDA.

You don't need a government bureaucracy to validate what is in the food, you can have private entities that can break down food components. You don't need the FDA to handle simple legal matters. Knowingly mislabeling food is an easy to solve problem.

Perhaps, but the companies selling the eggs are so large now that a boycott of just eggs (or what have you) wouldn't make a dent in their bottom line at all.

Haven't we learned that companies will go the distance for any extra dollar? The margin between a successful business and a failed one are so slight that no company can afford to just give up profit without any action.

If anything the lawsuits from people who get injured on the job or are experiencing health effects from the infected eggs would make more of a dent. And that requires people to get sick first, which we don't want.

You are correct. And the threat of law suits on that end would work as a deterrent. Successful businesses are gifted with foresight (something the government seems to always lack).

Granted, some of the stuff that Safety wants are kind of stupid. They required us put a label on our lab ice machine that said, "Not for human consumption" (the postdoc put another label that said, "Aliens only" ), but obviously someone somewhere did something INCREDIBLY STUPID which is why they require everyone do silly things that seems like it would be obvious.

The checks don't hurt us, really. They write us up for minor things, but they're more of a reminder for vigilance than anything else.

It's like those speed limit signs. Not everyone follows them, but they're there to remind you, at the very least. Or not to feign ignorance when a cop pulls you over.

It's also important to remember than the removal of government regulation would not be the removal of Safety necessarily as many companies hire their own safety specialists because they realize that safety failures are business failures.

The question is: how much did it really hurt them? We know it hurt, we just don't know how much. And when you're trying to argue that the market will regulate itself in a Darwinian fashion, the essential question becomes: would BP have survived, and by how much, without the help of the government?

If they would have (and I have a feeling they would have done so easily), that demonstrates a failure of your conceptual self-regulating system.

If BP survives the oil spill in both a deregulated and a regulated world, how can success or failure of my regulated world be based on the death of BP? I promise not that deregulation would instantly kill bad companies (though companies like BP would have to become more responsible if they hope to compete in a free market - at least in America). I do promise that the consequences of BP's actions would hurt the company, would cost them billions of dollars and destroy their reputation. All of which are things that no oil company wants any part of (and will thus do their due diligence to avoid).

Again, it must be respected how much the difference between success and failure in business is. Taking a shellacking due to an oil spill is not good for any company ever.

I would be dishonest in some fashion if I didn't point out that our existing system of regulation did indeed fail as well. However, I believe the answer is greater care and attention (in other words, quality, not quantity) rather than deregulation.

Again, I question the ability of government to ever efficiently perform such tasks.

I think you grossly misinterpreted that quote.

Actually I didn't. It's one of the most brilliant political sentences ever written. It's the entire notion that the flaw of governments (and their regulation) are that they are run, not by incorruptible public servants but by corruptible men. That's why governments must remain small.

 

[chaseter]

You don't need a government bureaucracy to validate what is in the food, you can have private entities that can break down food components. You don't need the FDA to handle simple legal matters. Knowingly mislabeling food is an easy to solve problem.

Why would a third party do that? Because they are going to make tons of profit...who is going to pay them? When my health is at stake, I would rather have a entity that I pay for looking out for me than a third party entity looking out for profit.

What world do you live in? Should third parties be building our roads, rails, and handling our airways?

Should police and fire be third party?

 

[Anita18]

It's also important to remember than the removal of government regulation would not be the removal of Safety necessarily as many companies hire their own safety specialists because they realize that safety failures are business failures.

Um, most academic labs are nonprofit. Grants pay my salary. Nobody's making a profit off our stuff. What happens then?

And I think safety failures would only make a dent if someone gets catastrophically injured. Like, hurts themselves so badly they can't work for the rest of their lives. Only an injury like that could foster a lawsuit big enough for the company (and the public) to take notice. Otherwise it's settlement (and nondisclosure) land.

So barring that, anything goes?

 

[imdaly]

One of the biggest issues that caused the BP spill to take SOOOOO long to finally cap was how deep below the surface of the water it was, right? And if I'm not mistaken, wasn't it only that deep because government regulations require them to drill so far off-shore? I'd imagine that if the rig was closer to shore, and therefore in much shallower waters that it would've taken much less time to cap the spill when it happened.

Thanks, government regulation!

 

[chaseter]

Or had they followed those regulations and had a proper blow out valve installed, which failed, then we wouldn't have had this problem.

Oil rigs are that far off shore so that you cannot see them from the beaches. I personally wouldn't want to see them either. That decision is up to the states, not the federal government.

 

[StorminNorman]

Why would a third party do that? Because they are going to make tons of profit...who is going to pay them? When my health is at stake, I would rather have a entity that I pay for looking out for me than a third party entity looking out for profit.

What world do you live in? Should third parties be building our roads, rails, and handling our airways?

Should police and fire be third party?

It is important for an industry to have the trust of the people - again, corporations pay billions for a good reputation. Unregulated industries tend to form self-regulating bodies.

But that wasn't even the point I was making. You stated that you needed the FDA to "validate" what was in food, I was simply pointing how false that notion was. Anybody with the proper equipment can breakdown food products and analyze their ingredients.

If you would rather have the government in charge of your healtgcare and not a for-profit entity who makes money off your survival, be my guess. You are the one making the mistake.

And yes, I have no problem with private entities taking over roads, rails and air. (Railroad regulation was meant to solve problems caused by government intervention into railroads - it failed). I would want those decisions, however, to be made on the state level. I am against federal money going to innerstate roads. In fact doing otherwise is obviously unconstitutional.

Um, most academic labs are nonprofit. Grants pay my salary. Nobody's making a profit off our stuff. What happens then?

Follow the money. Someone signs the checks if someone dies, so whoever the entity is would have interest in preventing deaths.

And I think safety failures would only make a dent if someone gets catastrophically injured. Like, hurts themselves so badly they can't work for the rest of their lives. Only an injury like that could foster a lawsuit big enough for the company (and the public) to take notice. Otherwise it's settlement (and nondisclosure) land.

So barring that, anything goes?

Yes. Also, to a cettain extent, it's up to the employee/student/whatever to decide if s/he wants to work at a reckless company.

Again, going down to the basic logic: no one benefits from someone getting hurt in a situation like yours. Many people lose on such an occasion (the victim, the purse, the reputation of the company, the employees as a whole). Therefore I contend that the potential victim, the holder of the purse strings, those in charge of company reputation and the other employees on site are going to try to avoid accidents. It's not complicated.

You don't need government encouragement.

One of the biggest issues that caused the BP spill to take SOOOOO long to finally cap was how deep below the surface of the water it was, right? And if I'm not mistaken, wasn't it only that deep because government regulations require them to drill so far off-shore? I'd imagine that if the rig was closer to shore, and therefore in much shallower waters that it would've taken much less time to cap the spill when it happened.

Thanks, government regulation!

It's likely that oil wells would reach those depths no matter if they could drill closer to shore.

A better example of government action failing epically was them not allowing the Dutch to help with oil clean up.

 

[Anita18]

Follow the money. Someone signs the checks if someone dies, so whoever the entity is would have interest in preventing deaths.

Yes. Also, to a cettain extent, it's up to the employee/student/whatever to decide if s/he wants to work at a reckless company.

Again, going down to the basic logic: no one benefits from someone getting hurt in a situation like yours. Many people lose on such an occasion (the victim, the purse, the reputation of the company, the employees as a whole). Therefore I contend that the potential victim, the holder of the purse strings, those in charge of company reputation and the other employees on site are going to try to avoid accidents. It's not complicated.

You don't need government encouragement.

Obviously I don't think that people are stupid enough to "need government encouragement" to be safe. What people need are reminders of what is safe and what is not. Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes it's not.

And the people who would be paying out the BIG lawsuits would be the people with the money, even if it's impossible for them to oversee every individual location. It's like suing the CEO of Walmart if someone slipped in a puddle of water in one individual store. And maybe the settlement from such a lawsuit still wouldn't justify the cost of hiring a third-party to oversee safety. You do remember that explanation about car recalls from Fight Club, don't you?