The issue isn't whether or not we should do nothing. The choice we have to make is to do what we have to carefully, thinking it over carefully, and be willing to pay the price when we screw up. That is the responsible way to go about it.

We live in a free market system, as conservatives are always so self-righteously reminding us. Fine, big industrial projects like this have big costs, and a lot of them are hidden. We have to add up the total cost of this kind of development and see to it those who benefit from it pay their share of the bill, otherwise, the rest of us will have to pay the environmental and social costs for them. That is socialism for the corporations but free enterprise for everybody else.

Will BP (Christ, they're not even an American outfit!) pay for the destroyed economies and industries this accident could result in? Or at least, will their insurance companies pay for it? Will increased costs make it harder for other firms to get underwriters to cover their work when disasters like this can occur? Remember, the nuke industry only was able to proceed because the government agreed to insure them against potential accidents. If they can't get financing and insurance, maybe they just plain can't afford it. Sometimes the free market can't do it alone. Other times it would just rather not, as in the case of nuclear waste processing.

Underneath all this entrepreneurial rhetoric is an attitude of "Let me do what I want, collect the bennies, and let someone else clean up the mess if I screw up. Oh, and by the way, no regulations and no taxes". And if anyone complains, they get accused of being Socialists.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes we may have to take huge chances, or use tax dollars to help out business. Sometimes the benefits to the society are worth the costs, and sometimes the potential benefits are worth the risks. But these are public decisions involving the collective good, they need to be made with everyone contributing to the debate, not by a bunch of corporate goons behind closed doors who are only in it for Number One.

What led up to this debacle was a public debate about whether or not we needed to, and should, drill offshore for more oil. There were good arguments on both sides.
One of those arguments was "the technology has improved to the point where we can now safely take these risks". All I'm saying is that particular argument was overly optimistic, and those risks will have to be reassessed.