Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: energy has consequences beyond the shoreline

One of the leading environmental stories has been the recent explosion, fire, and sinking of the Trans Ocean/BP floating oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico and the subsequent oil spill that has been expanding by approximately 42,000 gallons of oil each day from an oil head 5,000 feet deep. According to the latest news reports, efforts are being made to stem the flow of oil, using ROVs to activate what is called a blowout preventer - a system of valves situated at the well head - but, as of this posting, they have not been successful. Alternatives include drilling relief lines to reduce the pressure, but that would take several months to complete.

In the meantime, the spill continues to spread and although a high pressure weather ridge, producing offshore winds, once slowed its advance, according to the Los Angeles Times, the first oil should reach the Louisiana shoreline by Friday. To many within the general public, particularly those living in the Gulf states that lie in the path of the oil spill, that's when it will become all too real. But what about the environmental impact right now?

Although the NOAA has reported that the spill is shallow (most of it apparently appears to be on the surface), it is coming from the bottom of the ocean floor up - as opposed to right from the surface, as with an oil spill from a ship. Does this have an impact on marine life - fish, plankton, etc. - as it makes its way up to the surface and then spreads out? While we are concerned with oil fouling local beaches, what about the migratory animals that might be moving through the oil far out at sea, well beyond our vision and, perhaps, our concern?

While efforts continue to stop the oil at the source, BP (British Petroleum) intends to conduct an oil burn-off, whereby sections of the oil spill will be isolated, condensed, and set fire. The burned oil will either sink or be removed from the surface. What is the environmental impact of burned oil on the seafloor bottom if it cannot all be collected? Unfortunately, any oil spill of any magnitude is an environmental disaster and as long as we continue to drill for oil - or expand ocean drilling, as proposed by the current U.S. administration - then we must accept the possibility of spills and the consequences that ensue.

This is the trade-off we struggle with. As we promote alternative forms of energy, there is no clear cut, totally environmentally-safe solution. Wind and solar are promoted as viable alternatives, but some conservationists say that expansive solar panel and wind tower farms are harmful to the environment. There are city ordinances that limit or prevent the use of wind and solar devices on individual buildings and the current cost is prohibitive for most residents. Hybrid or all-electric vehicles are advocated, but how will the extra demand for electricity be met? More nuclear or coal power plants?

As the politicians have said, we have an addiction to oil. But in fact, we have an addiction to energy. It runs your car, your lights, and the computer you are using to read this blog. And so, from wherever we get it - fossil fuels, wind, solar, nuclear, or something else, there will negative consequences; energy is just that kind of two-edge sword. We must do everything we can to prevent broad-based environmental disasters such as what is occurring in the Gulf of Mexico (Can oil companies channel their considerable technical knowledge toward the design of auto-shutoff valves, which could have prevented the blowout or the subsequent leakage?). And we must re-evaluate our entire energy system infrastructure and how energy is consumed at the user end.

No easy task. But do we have a choice?

Consumers' Concern: Economy over the Environment

In addition to being a media producer/filmmaker, I also have a background in marketing: Here's an interesting article from the American Marketing Association regarding the results of the 2008 ImagePower Green Brands Survey (click here to view video podcast) published by the Landor agency. The survey covered a range of U.S/U.K. attitudes and perceptions regarding the environment and "green" brands or companies.
The results would indicate, perhaps not surprisingly, that the environment is taking a back seat to economic concerns. More people are thinking about the short-term consequences of energy (ie: gas). In line with their concerns on issues of immediate self-interest, the "green" brands most highly rated were those that represent products that went in or on the body, like food and personal care products. However, environmental issues were not completely off the radar. Respondents still expressed concern but responsibility was perceived differently in the two countries:

• Environmental pessimism. Sixty-seven percent of American consumers and 69% of Britons think we are in worse environmental shape now than we were five years ago.

• Responsibility and accountability. In the U.S., industry is perceived the most responsible for environmental problems with 36% of American consumers look to government to provide the policies and standards to advance environmental change. Conversely, U.K. consumers are more likely to accept their part of the blame.

So, we need to keep the flame alive, even if the consumer's interest may seem temporarily placed elsewhere. Particularly since many of our economic woes are in some degree or another tied in with environmental issues that are impacting us now or will impact us in the near future. Energy is a perfect example: our solutions to our energy crisis will be the result of our needs combined with what environmental impact they will impose (alternative energy, carbon emissions/footprint, global warming). Though we may be focused on one right now, the two - energy and the environment - are forever linked.