I think the point most people are making is not that O'ism won't solve every problem, but that it would seem to make existing problems worse.
I get that that's what they're TRYING to do, but what they're ACTUALLY doing is showing their own ignorance of how the current system works. I've spent two years working in environmental remediation, and another two and a half between remediation and preconstruction mitigation. I can tell you as a profesional that the environmental issues they say will occur under an O'ist government are already occurring, at the levels people say would occur under O'ism, and are in fact encouraged by our modern system. The single best solution to an environmental disaster that I've ever seen was one Ayn Rand herself would have approved of: the factory owner began selling the contaminant to another factory. The rest? It's a mix of stuff that works, stuff that doesn't, and stuff people like my company LOVE because it looks like it works without actually doing anything (remember, once it's clean we stop working--there's economic incentive for environmental companies to keep arguing there's contamination). And as for release of contaminants, have you ever priced out dropping of a roll-off full of contaminated dirt? Once you factor in the cost of accidently shipping one to a non-haz landfill (let's put it this way: each time I've heard about it [oddly enough, despite it happening in multiple states and with multiple companies it's almost always been PCBs that were the problem] it's worth more than my pay for ten years to do this once), it's a good gamble for many smaller companies to simply dump the stuff and hope that no one finds out.
I'm sorry, but until they understand what the modern system actually is doing, their attempts to make Objectivism look bad merely make them look like they haven't given this matter any thought whatever. And it's not my job to educate them on what the current system is--they want to say Objectivism is worse, they should at LEAST know what the current system actually does (ideally they should know both the O'ist theories on the topic and the way the modern system works, both in theory and in practice). If they ask I'll gladly tell them (unless it's under an NDA; sorry, but I'm not losing my job over this discussion), but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the opposition to be at least somewhat educated on the topics under discussion. This stuff isn't terribly hard to find.
In O'ist world I could raise capital and start drilling for oil in Antarctica or Alaska if I wanted to (Assuming of course that the land didn't already belong to someone else)?
Alaska's wilderness is owned, so as it stands now, no.
If it weren't owned, then sure. Of course, I could also put up a large fence around an area and say "No drilling here--I'm making this a nature preserve." Once you move away from an emotional rejection of the concept (and when you used the term "exploit" you demonstrated that you have a bias against it), it becomes obvious that "development" need not consist entirely of removal of economic resources. Some of Objectivists DO value untamed spaces, and would certainly be willing to contribute time and treasure to preserving them. And nature preserves are an objective value, so developing one would certainly fall under the category of developing the wilderness. It's fine to think about the people doing stupid things, but when you do so to the complete exclusion of the rest of the population you develop an extremely biased and false view of the situation.
And before you ask, no, you can't simply declare ownership of all the Alaskan wilderness. The exact method of determining ownership is for someone focused on legal theory (which falls under the heading "implementation", and is thus outside the scope of this discussion), but it's obvious that there has to be some criteria by which the land can be allocated.
Yes, but they are taking a big risk in terms of the environment.
Please quote any Objectivist stating that Objectivism is supposed to remove all risks. I'll make it easier: please quote any Objectivist saying that O'ism is going to lessen risk.
First and foremost, this risk exists because the resources is being utilized. The system of government is irrelevant; it's the process of extraction that generates the risk, so to pin this on Objectivism is to shift the culpability and to ignore basic facts of the situation. And if you think our current governmental oversites prevent that, all I can do is laugh. Again, I've been dealing with this stuff for nearly five years. Want to know how companies get around environmental regulations during construction? For big projects, they often simply buy up a bunch of land and donate it to the BLM. In a just society, we'd term it a bribe, but it's all perfectly legal--the BLM even has protocols for dealing with such land. Then the BLM gives them a number of each endangered species they're allowed to kill. And that's just one example of the type of thing that's rampant on the construction side. Don't get me started on the EPA's actions...Let's just say they're not the saints they say they are.
If you REALLY want to mess with your local environmental nut's mind, look at the environmental cost of a standard groundwater remediation program. There are studies on that topic. It's not exactly pretty.
Second, Objectivism requires you to acknowledge the risks, rather than cowering behind the skirts of governmental lawyers. The lawyers don't stop anything, they merely allow you to pretend the risk doesn't exist. O'ism removes that facad, and forces you to face the truth: we live in a world where actions have consequences, and some of them are pretty serious. If you want to extract oil from the ground, you run the risk of dumping it on the ground. If you want to harnes cheap, reliable power it's going to come with risks--fires, or chemical contamination, or radiation contamination, or the destruction of habitat (look up Ivanpah Solar to see an example of the damage a "green" technology can do; it made a huge splash in California and Nevada newspapers). You need to weigh the benefits of these processes against the risks involved. If you don't like the risks, there are things you can do. First, you can aquire the land and refuse to allow it to be used. Anyone who drills on your land will be prosecuted in O'ist states. Second, you can attempt to convince people to not use the product. I know some very friendly folks (an entire community, by the way--not sure on the numbers, but it's more than just one or two crackpots) that did exactly that: they live without electricity, and refuse to allow any generating facility or transmission lines to cross their property. You run the risk, using either method, of failure--but that's the nature of reality. You can't always win, and sometimes people disagree with you. Your desire to do something in no way guarantees your success.
ETA: Forgot one point. If there's a spill and they end up paying a huge number of people, the company may go bankrupt. That's the risk THEY take in extracting oil.
If you're looking for something without risks, I don't know of any job. I worked in fast food in high school and got to the point where second-degree burns no longer phased me (the hottest girl in the county worked with me, and I was a teenager). As you take on more responsibility and seek greater rewards the risks increase as well. If you want to extract a product worth billions, you're going to risk your company in liability lawsuits. This isn't due to Objecitivism, but rather due to the nature of reality. All O'ism does is force you to address this fact directly.
