For those of you who think this environmental disaster was old news, guess what -- Exxon is still fighting to keep every penny out of the hands of people and communities damaged by its incompetence. Remember when Exxon went in front of the cameras and promised to compensate everyone and everything was going to be okay and *insert-typical-corporation-speech-here*? Well, that hasn't panned out, exactly.
So what happened on that fateful night, anyway? I'm sure you remember, as I do, that some captain was drunk and hit a reef, right? I mean, that's what I picked up from the news reports and stored in my memory. But what if I told you that the ship's radar system--a radar specifically used to locate underwater reefs--was turned off that night? What if I told you that, in order to cut costs, Exxon stopped maintaining and using their radar system? Would that be enough to outrage you? What if I told you that Exxon wasn't even supposed to have a ship in the water that night? According to investigative journalist Greg Palast:
"On the night of March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez was not even supposed
to leave harbor. Here’s why. Tankers are not allowed to sail unless
unless a spill containment barge is operating nearby. That night, the
barge was in dry-dock, locked under ice. Exxon kept that fact hidden,
concealing the truth even after the tanker grounded. An Exxon official
radioed the emergency crew, “Barge is on its way.” It wasn’t.
Had the barge been in operation, it would have surrounded the leaking
ship with rubber skirts - and Paul’s home, and Alaska’s coast, would
have been saved. But Exxon couldn’t wait for its oil."
Click here to read Greg Palast's entire article about the TRUTH regarding the Exxon-Valdez oil spill, and the connections to John McCain.
So now Exxon is fighting all the way to Supreme Court, probably because it knows that the Supreme Court has been stacked with corporate cronies like John Roberts. Case in point: John Roberts is obviously dismayed that Exxon could be forced to actually pay for its incompetence, and he's made it absolutely clear that he's not going to vote in favor of the plantiffs suing Exxon-Mobil to clean up the mess and restore the ecosystem along the coastline. Here's an excerpt from an article by Dana Milbank from inside the Supreme Court:
"So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" Roberts asked in court.
The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill,
Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. "Well," he said, "it can hire fit and
competent people."
The rare sound of laughter rippled through the august chamber. The chief justice did not look amused.
The plantiffs in this case--thousands of fishermen and natives of the area--have not received a dime yet in punitive damages. Exxon-Mobile's strategy is simple: fight it till they're all dead.
I hope this upsets you.
