Gulf cleanup: Mission Accomplished!

.... or maybe not so much.

Watch this YouTube vid posted by Gulf coast fishermen and see what you think.

If I hide behind my finger, you can't see me

And the corollary is also true: if you can't see it, it doesn't exist.

At least according to the UK news, the U.S. administration is trumpeting cleanup success in the Gulf, saying that 75% of the oil has been either "captured, burned off, evaporated or broken down in the Gulf of Mexico."

Uh, could you clarify that "broken down" part? Sure: "the remaining oil is so diluted that it poses little risk of harm."

And you know this for a fact? I don't think we actually know whether there will be harm, and won't know for years, if not decades. They're still finding crude in the beaches near the Valdez spill, where no dispersants were permitted for use and the water is colder (hence slowing natural microbial degradation of the crude). And we've no clear consensus on whether the dispersant Corexit (evidently so named because it "Corrects the visual problem") is itself toxic enough (it's definitely toxic) to further disrupt the already beleaguered Gulf food web; not to mention the combined effect of the two chemical complexes.

BP pressured the government to use dispersants because they were worried about their liability and knew that oil floating to shore was more visually egregious (and possibly more damaging) than oil that "disappears" beneath the surface. But there were apparently no studies to gauge Corexit's toxicity or long-term effects. In a world obsessed with surfaces and appearance, "sinking" the oil was an predictable move on BP's part. And caving to their pressure was a predictable response for a pro-business (read: business-owned) government.

Only time will tell. Begin your long-term studies now, scientists; there's a lot of data to collect as this disaster continues to unfold.

So obvious it's invisible

from www.energysavvy.com

The framer of the debate often wins the argument. Political campaigns have known this for decades. And so with Big Oil. Their message-- "we've got to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by drilling here at home"-- is a tough point to argue. We all want our troops out of the Mideast (well, everyone not in the upper echelons of the military-industrial complex), we all want to stop bleeding national treasure to war and foreign governments.

But what if that statement comes from the wrong question?

What we should be asking is, "do we need oil-- certainly ever more oil-- in the first place?" And the answer is: No. Rather than continuing in the same game (i.e., Get More Oil), we should look at the game we're playing and decide if it's the right game to be in at all.

This NRDC Switchboard blog post makes a plain and simple comparison: BP Gulf disaster spill losses vs. oil use obviated by energy efficiency retrofits. The $$ spent on "cleanup" (which, after the use of dispersants, probably cannot be achieved) could have been spent to hugely better effect to retrofit homes for energy efficiency, avoiding the "need" for risky drilling in the first place. (Be sure to follow the link to Energy Savvy toward the end of the article.)

By allowing the vested interests (Big Oil, their lobbyists and captive congresspeople) to frame the debate, we continue to lose the argument-- and the planet, piecemeal. By every measure, it's clear we must end our addiction to fossil fuels; yet we galumph along as though we have no choice. Of course we have a choice! But making the right choice will mean stepping out of our comfort zones and acting with heart and mind in concert. Not an easy request for a convenience-softened populace.

From here out, it gets uglier

International Big Oil is likely going to make a shift as a result of the Gulf disaster. Exploration & extraction in the increasingly NIMBY-minded developed nations will likely decline, putting more pressure on the un(der)-regulated developing nations, such as Nigeria, Angola, Guinea.

photo by Ed Kashi; taken from Daily Kos posting.


As the "easy oil" reserves are depleted, the Gulf disaster is an indication of how much messier things will get in the near future-- but probably not for us. Wealthy developed nations will perhaps move forward with alternative energy development and reduce risky extraction operations, while oil-rich but financially poor nations suffer further environmental, financial, and human degradation to meet still-increasing global fossil demand.

Unless worldwide alternative energy demand increases dramatically in the near term, eclipsing fossil demand, this scenario will likely play out for decades, since fossils are the best-established energy source and demand is unlikely to disappear for the foreseeable future.

Woe to the developing world, already mired in the toxic muck of our insatiable lusts.

America runs on corporate power

In yesterday's Sun-Times blog entry, Roger Ebert offers a frank perspective and many pointed questions regarding BP's culpability in the Gulf disaster--- and their subsequent, utterly predictable, avoidance of responsibility (e.g., they've yet to fund the $20 billion escrow fund Obama obligated them to create).

The next big revolution in America will be a revolt against the currently unlimited power corporations now enjoy.