From an April 29, 2010 article at MSNBC.com:
"As it is now, it's already looking like this could be the worst oil spill since the Valdez," John Hocevar, oceans campaign director for Greenpeace USA, told msnbc.com on Thursday.
"It’s quite possible this will end up being worse than the Valdez in terms of environmental impact since it seems like BP will be unable to cap the spill for months. In terms of total quantity of oil released, it seems this will probably fall short of Exxon Valdez. But because of the habitat, the environmental impact will be worse."
"Probably the only thing comparable to this is the Kuwait fires [following the Gulf War in 1991]," Mike Miller, head of Canadian oil well fire-fighting company Safety Boss, told the BBC World Service.
"The Exxon Valdez is going to pale in comparison to this as it goes on."
...
BP's well is spewing about 210,000 gallons of oil a day into the ocean, the Coast Guard estimates.
But if the leak is not capped, millions of gallons of oil could spill into the Gulf of Mexico. The environmental impact could be disastrous if the oil reaches the ecologically fragile U.S. coastline.
Meanwhile, the NYTimes, seems to think risks like this are worth taking because we can be "careful." From an editorial, today, at NYTimes.com:
The Gulf of Mexico accounts for one-third of America’s domestic oil production and one-fourth of its natural gas. There are 90 exploratory rigs working there and about 3,500 oil-producing platforms. Despite all of that activity, the federal Minerals Management Service says there have been no major spills — defined as 1,000 barrels or more — in the last 15 years, a period that includes Hurricane Katrina. In that context, the blowout — while tragic and destructive — can be seen as a freak occurrence.
A "freak occurence" that will cause immense ecological damage to local wildlife, immense economic damage to local businesses that rely on said local wildlife for their own livelihood (aka commercial fishing). And if the oil reaches the beaches, say good-bye to tourism.
Of course, you don't usually think of "ecological disasters" when you think about alternative energy, do you? There are no "solar energy leaks" that could wipe out ecological systems or kill local economies. So, considering the safety and the ease of using alternative energy sources, once developed, why are there so many naysayers still out there? It seems difficulty may be a reason--a reason that seems acceptable to some.
Why else would WashingtonPost.com give voice to a moron like Robert Bryce, who packed an entire book full of excuses as to why green energy is not a direction to go in?
People seem to obsess over immediate difficulties rather than long-term successes. Because the way solar panels are made is not perfect, people have told me that solar is all but a dead end. Mr. Bryce, in that WaPo op-ed, claims that wind farms don't reduce CO2, but he fails to explain why or point out that there are other benefits to wind farms, like lessening our need for oil. He also seems to think that because battery technology isn't flaw-free, we should not bother developing better battery technology.
I remember back around 2003, when the war in Iraq broke, I was in LA, listening to a talk show guy on the radio explain that the war for oil was a good thing. He said something to the effect that "Solar's great, but it can't get us to work tomorrow."
And it still can't. But do you think it might have gotten us to work by now if we'd started sinking millions into it back in 2003?
No wonder we don't go to the moon anymore.
We want solutions now and we don't want to work for them--hell, we don't even want to imagine them.
Responsibility is a tough thing to live up to, kids. But if we don't do it, who will?
Just my ¥2, as always, but are we going to let excuses rule our lives? Or are we going to take a risk or two?
No comments:
Post a Comment