Truth Spill: Gulf Disaster Brings Home the Real Costs of Fossil Fuels
Wednesday 26 May 2010
by: James K. Boyce | TripleCrisis.com

GULF of MEXICO - Workers look on as gas from the damaged Deepwater Horizon wellhead is burned by the drillship Discoverer Enterprise May 16, 2010, in a process known as flaring. Gas and oil from the wellhead are being brought to the surface via a tube that was placed inside the damaged pipe. U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Patrick Kelley. (Photo: Enrico Fuente / US Coast Guard)
“An upside-down faucet, just open and running out.” That’s how an oil-spill expert at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute describes the massive release of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico that began April 20th at British Petroleum’s Deep Horizon oil rig off the coast of Louisiana. [See live video feed of the spill here.]
The disaster has opened an information faucet, too: every day, more truth about the real costs of fossil fuels is emptying into public view. Desperate efforts to control both spills are underway.
After its 450-ton blowout preventer failed, BP tried burning the oil slick, creating the macabre spectacle of the ocean on fire.
The company then tried using chemical dispersants to reduce the oil reaching the surface, a strategy that helped to create enormous underwater oil plumes – as much as 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick – now floating toward the powerful loop current that could “slingshot the oil into the Atlantic Ocean around the Florida Keys” and threaten the eastern seaboard. The dispersants themselves are toxic, but their impacts on marine ecosystems are poorly understood because the chemical recipe is a proprietary secret.
In exploration plans filed with the government’s ethically-challenged Minerals Management Service in February 2009, BP claimed it was “unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities,” and that if this happened, “due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected.” So far, oil has washed onto 65 miles of Louisiana’s shoreline, penetrating more than 10 miles into the coastal marshes that account for 40% of the wetlands in the continental United States. Fishing has been banned in 19% of Gulf waters under U.S. jurisdiction – a devastating blow to local livelihoods.
Containing the truth spill is proving as difficult as plugging the gusher. In the wake of the spill, BP CEO Tony Hayward launched a public relations campaign to “win the hearts and minds” of the people. A predictable apologist on Fox News claimed that natural seepage puts more oil into the ocean than accidents, and Rush Limbaugh asserted that oil is “as natural as the ocean water.” The New York Times reminded its readers that “America needs the oil.” All bring to mind what the late John Kenneth Galbraith once called “the effort to make pollution seem palatable or worth the cost.”
But the truth is swamping these efforts. Each day brings new revelations about the magnitude of the disaster. Even Fox News reports that it “could be much worse than we knew.” Experts estimate the rupture at 40,000-100,000 barrels per day, far above BP’s claim of 5,000 barrels. “It is clear BP has been lying,” concludes Congressman Ed Markey, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment.
The bad news about fossil fuels is not limited to the Gulf. “All oil comes from someone’s backyard,” observes Lisa Margonelli in The New York Times, noting that “Nigeria has suffered spills equivalent to that of the Exxon Valdez every year since 1969.” Recent mine disasters in West Virginia, Russia and China underscore the real costs of coal. Mining of Canadian tar sands, now the most important source of U.S. oil imports, is chopping into the world’s largest boreal forest and creating sludge ponds “so toxic that the companies try to frighten birds away with scarecrows and propane cannons.”
In the best-case scenario – with no accidents and minimal environmental damage from extraction – burning fossil fuels “only” emits greenhouse gases that threaten future generations, together with co-pollutants that lead to roughly 20,000 premature deaths annually in the United States, according to a 2009 National Academy of Sciences study.
As the real costs of fossil fuels become more apparent, support grows for the clean energy transition. “The disaster in the Gulf only underscores that even as we pursue domestic production to reduce our reliance on imported oil,” President Obama said last Friday, “our long-term security depends on the development of alternative sources of fuel and new transportation technologies.” If the Gulf disaster accelerates this transition, it will not have been entirely in vain.
James K. Boyce is a professor in the Department of Economics & Political Economy Research Institute. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
It's us, not just the oil
Fri, 05/28/2010 - 12:22 — David (not verified)It's us, not just the oil companies. The fossil fuel industries provide us with the consumerist, capitalist, techie, earth-killing lifestyles most of us choose when we use leaf blowers, jet skis, cars, television, etc. There is no truly "clean" energy. There is only "cleaner" energy. What the real solution is for humans to immediately shrink their lifestyles, desires, breeding, needing, wanting, feeding, wars, and other behaviors so that each of us has as small a consumption and destruction footprint as possible. At present, humans are the most powerful, most murderous species ever seen on this planet. The oil companies profit off of that, but we are the only ones who can end their reign- by changing ourselves.
What if we started thinking
Fri, 05/28/2010 - 13:50 — Karen from Kansas City (not verified)What if we started thinking about where we would allow oil to be used if it were running out? Would it just go to the highest bidder for things like: plastic shower curtains for the rich? Or those four giant tires and gas for guzzling races at county fairs? Or would it go to save the life of the smallest baby if all it needed were some plastic tubing running drugs into it's body? What if it were some small cog in a wheel in a larger machine that drove water to thousands of people? Only a few of us conserve and recycle. What if we were not so bombarded with entertainment and advertising? What if we paid attention to what happens in our government, and we made sure our congress was not raking in campaign dough from corporations, and voting in laws designed by the corporations? What if our congress was only elected with public money (public campaign financing). What if there were so little oil that there were no more corporations? Without plastic - what would corporations sell? What if we didn't buy junkie plastic/oil products? Would there be no corporations to produce them? In the end it's our fault, all of us.
...funny I wrote this before I read the first post. Thinking the same thing. That's good.
I have long talked about the
Fri, 05/28/2010 - 20:44 — Joan (not verified)I have long talked about the true cost of commodities which are rarely taken into account. Partly it's because they're hard to measure, but I suspect mostly it's because those who make money mining and drilling and logging don't want us to know.
I'll bet if we could measure the cost in illness and death and lost productivity from energy production, we'd find that alternative energy isn't so expensive after all.
$18 per gallon gas is a
Fri, 05/28/2010 - 21:15 — Mathew Scott Fitsgarrett (not verified)$18 per gallon gas is a realistic true cost that solar, wind and waves can easily under bid.
truth spill - that was
Fri, 05/28/2010 - 23:04 — Anonymous (not verified)truth spill - that was exactly what sociologist Harvey Molotch called the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969. Amazing how little has changed - hopefully we'll get it soon, where the resistance of the fossil fuel industry wont matter because the forces for renewables will be too strong. (And let's make sure it's renewables, not nuclear and clean coal.)
We've heard that the
Sat, 05/29/2010 - 10:45 — Jay Moor (not verified)We've heard that the extension of oil extraction into riskier environments is the necessary bridge to the next energy economy, one based on renewables, perhaps. Yet, there is no strategic plan for getting from here to there, just rhetoric and baby steps in a few unconnected directions -- steps usually negated by withdrawal of subsidies and other support systems just as the toddler is about take some purposeful strides.
Despite the talk about wind, solar, tidal and geothermal energy, there is no apparent intention to make the cutover. Every political opportunity to do so has been squandered, from forcing GM to build all-electric vehicles (when we actually owned it), to creating a man-on-the-moon program to re-rail America's passenger train service, to taxing the hell out of oil, to creating strategic oil reserves by not taking the stuff out of the ground until it is absolutely critical, to using the bully pulpit to lead in the right direction instead of following the corporations toward continued disaster, to . . . and so on and on.
The right wing and free market apologists have so maligned the concept of planning that to suggest the government should harness the myriad sectoral stovepipes to a single plow through a strategic national development plan is to invite certain political ridicule. Planning is socialism or communism, we are warned. Yet, that is precisely what we need and what humans are good at. Instead, we are choosing to commit suicide by willful misfeasance.
Check out the Transition
Sat, 05/29/2010 - 14:20 — Rufus T. Firefly (not verified)Check out the Transition concept at
www.transitionus.org
www.transitionnetwork.org