What If the Spill Isn't As Bad As We Thought?
Michael Grunwald wrote in Time yesterday that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill might not be as disastrous as we thought. It’s not that it hasn’t had some serious consequences, obviously. The effect on the remaining population of endangered Kemp’s Ridley turtles is in itself a tragedy. And Grunwald is careful to say that it will be years before we know the long-term effects of either the oil that poured into the Gulf of Mexico or the dispersants we used to break it up. Nevertheless, the oil spill seems to be disappearing fairly quickly. And Grunwald argues that so far the damage has not been as bad as we feared. For all the ghastly pictures of oiled sea-birds, the spill seems to have had much less of an effect on local wildlife than the Exxon Valdez disaster did two decades ago. Assessment teams have found just 350 acres of oiled wetlands, which is just a small fraction of the wetlands we lose every year as it is.
Many environmentalists reacted with outrage. In Mother Jones, Kate Sheppard accuses Grunwald of “running defense” for BP and calls his argument “premature.” In Grist, Brad Johnson calls it “preemptive” and says that “the only honest take” is that the spill has been a calamity.
I have no real idea whether Grunwald is right or wrong. It’s certainly fair to point out, as Johnson does, that satellite photos appear to show that the slick is still fairly large. But Grunwald—who is an old friend of mine—is hardly an oil industry shill. On the contrary, he is known among environmentalists for his work detailing the appalling damage Army Corps of Engineers’ projects have done to wetlands around the Gulf. Nor is he suggesting that the spill has done no damage at all, or that we should rest completely easy. All he is saying is that so far the damage has been relatively limited. So why accuse him of dishonesty or of apologizing for BP? And why is it more premature to argue that the spill may turn out not to be as bad as we thought than it is to declare that it's an unprecedented disaster?
There’s a double standard at work here. It’s okay to say the spill is a disaster, because that fits the preconceptions many of us had. But drawing any conclusion other than the one we've already jumped to is premature. It’s not that we actually want the spill to be such a disaster, but rather that by being a disaster it confirms our suspicions about the dangers of drilling. For the spill not to prove to be a calamity—considering the corruption, incompetence, and greed that led to it—would seem to teach us the wrong moral lesson.
Make no mistake: if it does turn out that the damage is not as bad as we feared, that doesn’t let BP off the hook or our justify our poorly-conceived energy policy. We will have—thanks to the particular currents and the type of oil involved—gotten lucky. There is still plenty of reason to worry about the consequences of off-shore drilling. The spill should still be a wake-up call. But we shouldn’t write off evidence that doesn’t fit our preconceived notions too quickly. When those of us who care about the environment overstate the case for protecting it, we only end up weakening that case.
The way that you think about stress can actually transform the effect that it has on you – and others.
- Stress is contagious, and the higher up in an organization you are the more your stress will be noticed and felt by others.
- Kelly McGonigal teaches "Reset your mindset to reduce stress" for Big Think Edge.
- Subscribe to Big Think Edge before we launch on March 30 to get 20% off monthly and annual memberships.
These quick bursts of inspiration will brighten your day in 10 minutes or less.
Explore a legendary philosopher's take on how society fails to prepare us for education and progress.
- Alan Watts was an instrumental figure in the 1960s counterculture revolution.
- He believed that we put too much of a focus on intangible goals for our educational and professional careers.
- Watts believed that the whole educational enterprise is a farce compared to how we should be truly living our lives.
How can we use the resources that are already on the Moon to make human exploration of the satellite as economical as possible?
If you were transported to the Moon this very instant, you would surely and rapidly die. That's because there's no atmosphere, the surface temperature varies from a roasting 130 degrees Celsius (266 F) to a bone-chilling minus 170 C (minus 274 F). If the lack of air or horrific heat or cold don't kill you then micrometeorite bombardment or solar radiation will. By all accounts, the Moon is not a hospitable place to be.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.