Two weeks ago — on Tuesday, April 20 — an oil drilling rig off the coast of Louisiana exploded, releasing thousands of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Since then, there has been a ton of media attention to this man-made disaster — quite appropriately, given the fact that (a) almost a dozen oil workers were killed (or are presumed to have died); and (b) the oil that has been pouring unabated into the Gulf waters is causing incalculable damage to one of the most fragile types of ecosystems in the world and threatens the livelihoods of millions of people in Louisiana and the larger region. Just as obviously, those two things are not separate. The damage to the ecosystem and the damage to the local economy — and by ripple effect a much larger geographical area — are really the same thing.
I am not going to review or revisit all that news coverage here and now (maybe in a mammoth roundup at some future date). What I want to focus on right now is a narrative I’m starting to see in some of the traditional media sources (traditional as in major news organizations and media commentary). In compressed form, the narrative goes something like this: Let’s not blow this out of proportion. Of course it’s a serious situation, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s a temporary crisis, and it’s being taken care of by the experts, and they have it under control. And besides, stuff like this has happened many times before, and even worse stuff than this has happened many times before.
The two clearest illustrations of this narrative that I have seen are a “news analysis” piece by John M. Broder and Tom Zeller, Jr., which appeared in yesterday’s New York Times; and an editorial in today’s edition of the Washington Examiner.
Here are brief quotes from each, beginning with the Times article:
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is bad — no one would dispute it. But just how bad?
Some experts have been quick to predict apocalypse, painting grim pictures of 1,000 miles of irreplaceable wetlands and beaches at risk, fisheries damaged for seasons, fragile species wiped out and a region and an industry economically crippled for years.[…]
Yet the Deepwater Horizon blowout is not unprecedented, nor is it yet among the worst oil accidents in history. And its ultimate impact will depend on a long list of interlinked variables, including the weather, ocean currents, the properties of the oil involved and the success or failure of the frantic efforts to stanch the flow and remediate its effects.As one expert put it, this is the first inning of a nine-inning game. No one knows the final score.
And from the Washington Examiner:
Eleven people died when BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil drilling platform exploded nearly two weeks ago in the Gulf of Mexico, 53 miles southwest of the Louisiana coast. It’s a sad measure of how much of the subsequent commentary on this disaster has focused solely on the environmental effects, thus ignoring completely the pain and suffering of the families of the 11 who died in the inferno. …
[…]
As for the environmental damage caused by Deepwater Horizon, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar deserves commendation for reminding everybody over the weekend that off-shore drilling is remarkably safe considering its scope and importance to the nation. … Salazar said Sunday on Fox News that more than 30,000 oil and natural gas wells have been drilled in the Gulf, and one-third of the oil and natural gas consumed by the United States is produced there. This means off-shore drilling is now and will remain for the foreseeable future a critically important national resource. The interior secretary also noted that the industry “has been conducted in a very safe manner. Blowouts occur but the safety mechanisms have been in place. Why this failed here is something we are investigating.” …
Here is the link to the transcript of that interview, since the Washington Examiner does not provide it. And here is the part of the interview in question, with Chris Wallace’s question and Ken Salazar’s answer:
WALLACE: Secretary Salazar, you helped develop the plan that the president announced at the end of March to expand exploration of oil and natural gas along several areas of the coastline, not just the Gulf, but also along the East Coast, parts of the eastern Gulf and also off a part of the Alaska coast. After this accident, have you changed your mind about the wisdom of that policy?
SALAZAR: There have been 30,000 wells, oil and gas wells that have been drilled just in the Gulf of Mexico alone. And currently today, 30 percent of our oil and gas resources come from the Gulf of Mexico. There is a huge economic infusion. Our economy depends on it. It had been an industry that has been conducted in a very safe manner. Blowouts occur, but these safety mechanisms have been in place.
Why this failed here is something that we are investigating and we have a joint investigation that will give us some answers. But right now, until we find out some more information, this will be something that will be evolving. And if we have to revisit what we have allowed in the deep water, we will do that, but that will be based on the best facts and the best science as we move forward.
Since Salazar also acknowledged (earlier in the interview) the seriousness of the oil spill and how dire the consequences could be for both the environmental and the human ecosystem (he told Wallace if the gushers aren’t stopped, the damage done could be worse than the Exxon Valdez), this does seem at first glance to be a moderate perspective. But does that mean it’s accurate? I am not willing to accept on faith the proposition that the midpoint between two extremes is always the best and the truest.
In the instance of this oil spill, the arguments being used to urge “moderation” and “perspective” are, in my view, unpersuasive on their face. Let’s turn to the Broder/Zeller piece in the New York Times for one of these:
The ruptured well, currently pouring an estimated 210,000 gallons of oil a day into the gulf, could flow for years and still not begin to approach the 36 billion gallons of oil spilled by retreating Iraqi forces when they left Kuwait in 1991. It is not yet close to the magnitude of the Ixtoc I blowout in the Bay of Campeche in Mexico in 1979, which spilled an estimated 140 million gallons of crude before the gusher could be stopped.
And it will have to get much worse before it approaches the impact of the Exxon Valdez accident of 1989, which contaminated 1,300 miles of largely untouched shoreline and killed tens of thousands of seabirds, otters and seals along with 250 eagles and 22 killer whales.
Um, excuse me? This is supposed to be reassuring?
It shouldn’t be. It isn’t. A couple of points about drawing comfort from comparisons to the Exxon Valdez disaster, and about compartmentalizing oil-related disasters in general (i.e., seeing them as discrete incidents in isolation from each other):
- AP reported recently that the Gulf of Mexico spill could actually be much worse than the Exxon Valdez spill. The article was picked up and/or quoted by a number of other major news organizations, and is easily findable — but in order to avoid linking to or quoting from the AP, here is an article from Troy Media Corporation that covers the same information, and provides a great deal of factual material about the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez oil spill — such as the facts that only about 8% of the spilled oil was recovered, and that the environmental damage done to Prince William Sound has not been reversed, and indeed may continue to adversely affect that area for decades to come. Indeed, one wildlife expert interviewed by the CBC made the point that “the battle is lost once the oil hits the water,” even the most massive cleanup effort cannot return the environment to what it was before the oil hit the water.
- Robert Bryce, managing editor of the industry publication Energy Tribune, cautions against making a direct connection between volume of oil spilled and the potential environmental damage done. The amount of oil is only one factor; the environment’s unique physical characteristics are just as important if not more:
The environmental damages caused by the spill will almost certainly eclipse those of the Exxon Valdez disaster. The volume of oil spilled in the Gulf will almost certainly be far less than the 11 million gallons spilled by the infamous tanker, but the cleanup from the Alaska spill was largely contained within Prince William Sound which had rocky beaches that could be steam cleaned. The oil that is heading into the Louisiana marshes cannot be corralled or managed in anything like the manner used in Alaska. And the Valdez spill happened on the surface. This oil is emerging from leaks 5,000 feet below the surface, which means the oil can bubble to the surface long distances from the well. Once on the surface, it can now drift.
So, back to my point about not assuming that a seemingly moderate perspective is also accurate. Moderation in all things is usually good advice, but you also have to look at who is calling for moderation, and why.
For example, Ken Salazar. What is his background? If you look at his bio at the Department of the Interior website, you will learn that, immediately prior to becoming Secretary of the Interior, he was a U.S. Senator from Colorado. You will learn that, “As a U.S. Senator, Salazar was a leader creating and implementing a vision for a renewable energy economy that is less dependent on foreign oil. He was involved in every major bipartisan legislative effort on energy since 2005, including helping craft the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. ” You will learn that he has been “a champion for farmers, ranchers, and rural communities,” and you will learn about a number of other issues — defense, children’s health insurance, e.g. — that Ken Salazar has involved himself in.
What you will not learn from his official bio is that, as a U.S. Senator, Salazar championed oil industry-friendly policies and legislative initiatives, that he is a favorite of oil industry trade organizations — one of which, the Independent Petroleum Association of America — praised Barack Obama for appointing him as Secretary of the Interior, and that he showed appallingly poor judgment by, for example, supporting former Pres. Bush’s appointment of Gale Norton to head Interior. The New Mexico Independent, in a December, 2008, article about Pres. Obama’s cabinet selections, noted that “Norton, a former lobbyist for the lead-paint industry, is the source of all the problems Interior faces today. Those problems include Interior employees having sex with oil company executives in exchange for oil and gas leases. And worse.”
Now, does all this make Ken Salazar a bad, wicked man? No, it doesn’t, as the above-quoted article acknowledges:
To be fair, Obama could have chosen worse. Salazar has a decent score with the League of Conservation Voters. He has voted for wilderness bills, and he has supported tax breaks that encourage conservation on private lands. While we already see agribusiness and mining groups praising the choice, at least the Republicans won’t be able to call him an environmental extremist. That must be worth something.
On the other hand, could Salazar’s connections with powerful oil and energy industry interests have anything to do with his sanguine attitude toward the importance of continued offshore drilling to the economy and his confidence in the integrity of industry safety mechanisms? Should those connections, at the minimum, be disclosed by newspaper editorialists and news talk show hosts? You know my answer to that question, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable.
Turning to the Broder/Zeller news analysis in the New York Times, we see another instance in which lack of full journalistic disclosure creates an impression of disinterested expertise that is not justified:
“The sky is not falling,” said Quenton R. Dokken, a marine biologist and the executive director of the Gulf of Mexico Foundation, a conservation group in Corpus Christi, Tex. “We’ve certainly stepped in a hole and we’re going to have to work ourselves out of it, but it isn’t the end of the Gulf of Mexico.”
What is the Gulf of Mexico Foundation? ProPublica had the same question:
The Times doesn’t offer any more information about the foundation. So we decided to poke around. The Gulf of Mexico Foundation [4]‘s website says it was “founded in 1990 by citizens concerned with the health and productivity of the Gulf of Mexico.” Its site shows it has sponsored conservation and educational programs and partnered with the likes of the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The site also says the group represents a “wide range of interests,” including “agriculture, business, fisheries, industry, tourism, and the environment.”
But as it turns out, industry appears to be the most represented of those interests.
At least half of the 19 members of the group’s board of directors [5] have direct ties to the offshore drilling industry. One of them is currently an executive at Transocean, the company that owns the Deepwater Horizon rig that exploded last month, causing millions of gallons of oil to spill into the Gulf of Mexico.
Seven other board members are currently employed at oil companies, or at companies that provide products and services “primarily” to the offshore oil and gas industry. Those companies include Shell, Conoco Phillips, LLOG Exploration Company, Devon Energy, Anadarko Petroleum Company and Oceaneering International.
The Gulf of Mexico Foundation’s president is a retired senior vice president of Rowan Companies Inc., an offshore drilling contractor.
Meanwhile, Transocean hosted the group’s winter board meeting in January and sponsored a dinner for the board of directors. Past board meetings have been hosted in full or in part by Anadarko Petroleum Company, Shell Exploration and Production, Valero Refinery and Marathon Oil Corporation.
Once more: It’s not the concept of putting things in perspective that’s at fault in these examples. It’s the failure to ask the critical questions: Whose perspective? And why?
Comments posted in the box below go to my e-mail address, and may or may not be published, at my discretion, unless requested to be kept private. Comments for publication should be directed here.
[contact box]
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.