Oil dependence and responsibility by Ginnie Becker

The following was written by my friend Ginnie Becker and she was kind enough to let me share it with you!

"The impending and inevitable arrival of the oil slick from the Deepwater Horizons oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico last week has many watching in horror as it threatens fragile coastal ecosystems. The loss of marine life is set to be catastrophic, and the impact on the struggling coastal economy devastating for businesses, many of which are still recovering from both Hurricane Katrina and the global economic meltdown's effect on Gulf Coast tourism. Already there is palpable anger within the community toward British Petroleum who was leasing the deep sea oil rig at the time of the accident, and supposedly lobbied members of congress not to pass stricter safety rules in favor of self-policing. Yet this anger, while understandable, is somewhat misplaced. The responsibility for this oil spill rests squarely on the shoulders of consumers, who ultimately create the demand for BP's product. Without the demand, there would be no oil spill. BP did play a role without a doubt - they have reportedly been ignoring and actively working against tougher federal safety regulations. Yet all of us as consumers have played a significant role in the unfolding disaster.

In the last American presidential election, candidates frequently tossed around the phrase "reduce dependence on foreign oil" during debates, a noble goal given that the main sources for oil are countries that harbour hostility toward the US, and China's rise to economic power causing inflation in world oil prices as demand spiked. There were debates ad nauseum about the possibility of opening ANWAR for oil exploration, offshore drilling, and the use of alternative oil extraction technologies such as shale oil. Yet in all of that debate, there seemed to be one word too many in the main argument. Instead of "reduce our dependence on foreign oil", what the debate should have focused on was "reduce our dependence on oil."

With the looming Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster nearly upon the five states it will affect, the debate over offshore drilling will be renewed with vigor. Many are already calling for a moratorium on offshore drilling, and asking that the bill signed by President Obama earlier this year allowing offshore oil exploration be revoked, citing the irreparable damage to the ecosystems caused by this oil spill. Yet, given that every single person in the nation is an oil consumer, this ultimately turns us into a nation of arrogant NIMBYs. By saying Not In My Back Yard, and continuing to consume, we are effectively just shifting oil production elsewhere, so "they" can deal with the environmental destruction that we don't want. Another version of Chinese sweatshop labor in the oil sector if you will. If we wish to consume the oil, we have to be willing to suffer the consequences of that consumption, which includes environmental destruction. Yet having seen just how devastating an oil spill can be, given the experience of the Exxon Valdez accident in Prince William Sound in Alaska, and the current disaster in the gulf which threatens to be worse, can we really make that choice? Even if we do choose to allow offshore drilling, as many people agreed with during the presidential debates (with the hideous accompaniment of the "Drill baby, drill" chorus), production values come nowhere near meeting demand in the US as it currently stands, so the idea of independence of foreign oil while nice on the surface, is not based in reality. What must happen is a radical rethink of the way we live and consume, coupled with aggressive research into and implementation of renewable energy sources

As a species, we seem particularly enamoured with the idea of technology saving us, even from ourselves. The Deepwater Horizon oil platform had state of the art technology allowing it to pinpoint to within a foot the exact place for drilling - a mile down into the ocean. It used GPS systems and computer controlled jet propulsion to remain in the correct place in the ocean, to within three feet of coordinates, instead of using anchors. It contained several shutdown mechanisms intended to avoid exactly what is currently happening. This miraculous technology is required because we are drilling in progressively more difficult places as the oil thirsty world sucks dry the oil in more accessible places. Yet this technology is obviously not foolproof, and we should not kid ourselves that "they" will come up with ways we can obtain oil so we can continue to consume as we do, at the prices we expect. Technology also has not given us ways of rectifying this accident, and the human, plant and animal residents of the gulf coast will have to live with that for decades to come. It doesn't matter how much money you throw at the problem, money does not magically bring back completely ruined ecosystems. We have dispersants for the oil, yet they are likely to have consequences for the sea life that lives in the water. We have booms, but they do not defeat tides or wave action. We have skimmer boats to suck up what we can of the oil on the water, yet even tiny beads of oil will be washing up on the beaches and affecting wildlife for years to come. Technology is not the immediate answer. The answer lies with every single one of us reevaluating the way we live and consume in the short to medium term future, and significant research and development of alternative renewable energy sources for the long term. But reigning in our voracious appetite for more must happen first, and we need to tackle that with a sense of urgency.

The Deepwater Horizons accident and oil spills promises to be a potent reminder for decades to come that we all need to shoulder our share of individual responsibility for the environmental destruction it has caused, and be judicious with our choices as consumers rather than rely on outside technology to save us from ourselves."