More

Sylvia Earle Talks Gulf Oil Spill Effects In Exclusive Interview

Slyvia Earle Gulf Oil Spill

The Huffington Post   First Posted: 01/13/11 02:32 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:25 PM ET

It's hard to get a straight answer on the effects of the Gulf oil spill amid all of the headlines, hearsay, and word of mouth tidbits from a friend of a friend of a friend. But we managed to track down an expert who gave us not just one answer, but four detailed, honest responses to questions that we have all been wondering for nearly nine months now.

Dr. Sylvia Earle, world-renowned oceanographer, National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence and recipient of the 2009 TEDPrize, is currently leading an expedition to the northern Gulf of Mexico to study areas affected by the Deepwater Horizon spill. Her goal for this trip is to identify areas where the Gulf's ecosystem could recover what it lost. Dr. Earle took time out of her trip to answer some of The Huffington Post's questions in an exclusive interview:


Q. Eight and a half months later, tarballs are continuing to wash ashore Gulf beaches, and reports are still surfacing of areas fouled with oil from the spill. These are just the areas we can see easily -- is the situation similar or even worse in the depths of the waters, or has the ocean taken care of much of the pollution on its own?

A. The sudden release of five million barrels of oil, enormous quantities of methane and two million gallons of toxic dispersants into an already greatly stressed Gulf of Mexico will permanently alter the nature of the area. Certain microbes flourish in the presence of oil and methane-- this is good news for them, but bad news for the diverse, complex microbial systems that are killed by these toxic elements in both shallow and deep waters. Places change over time with or without oil spills, but humans are responsible for the Deepwater Horizon gusher -- and humans as well as the corals, fish and other creatures are suffering the consequences.


Q. Have the cleanup efforts been adequate, and if not, who should be considered responsible -- BP or the government?

A. There is no way to "adequately clean up" the consequences of the blowout any more than you can uncook an egg. Most of the efforts succeeded in magnifying, not diminishing the impacts.

In some ways, we are all responsible for this catastrophe. Our insatiable appetite for fossil fuels and the corporate mandate to maximize shareholder value encourages drilling without taking into account the costs to the ocean, even without major spills.

Nonetheless, the thousands of individuals who have done their best to protect areas that escaped oiling and have attempted to clean up areas damaged by the blowout of the Deepwater Horizon well deserve recognition. However, we need to hold accountable those who authorized massive applications of toxic dispersants, especially at 5,000 ft depth, as well as those who allowed beaches to be upended, scraped, bulldozed and otherwise altered to give the appearance that the oil magically disappeared. Deployment of hundreds of miles of booms did little to contain the oil but did succeed in creating hundreds of miles of oily trash now contaminating landfills.


Q. In your opinion, how devastating has the disaster been on marine life in the Gulf, and how likely is a recovery?

A. This is a difficult question to answer given that most of the Gulf of Mexico has never been seen, let alone explored or assessed concerning marine life. Additionally, decades of pollution, coastal manipulation, overfishing and use of highly destructive gear have already significantly stressed life in the Gulf.

A recent survey of all known records indicated the presence of more than 15,000 kinds of creatures living in the Gulf, but thousands more are likely to exist, especially in deep water, not counting microbial forms. Some of these creatures are more tolerant than others of the toxic elements in the oil, methane and dispersants. Yes, the Gulf is permanently altered, but recovery will come from designating large protected areas - or "hope spots" - that are known to be breeding, feeding, and nursery areas for fish, shrimp and other sea life, allowing creates to thrive. This includes fully protecting the drifting forests of Sargassum seaweed that provide safe havens for sea turtles and young fish, as well as seagrass meadows, deep water coral reefs and shallow oyster beds, and the range of mini-mountains crowned with coral that stretch along the northern Gulf 75 to 100 miles offshore.


Q. In light of the massive tragedy that is the Gulf oil spill, what is the biggest glimmer of hope you see in the region?

A. The greatest tragedy will be if we fail to learn from this disaster and to take seriously the need to find alternatives for fossil fuels.

But, there are several reasons for hope, starting with human ingenuity and spirit. We have the power to do things better, the will to go beyond just surviving and find solutions when motivated to do so.

Certainly the resilience of nature is a major reason for being optimistic. The Gulf will never again be the way it was before the spill, but life will prosper, with ecosystems and human societies morphing into another kind of Gulf of Mexico.

I share with Jane Goodall these and another reason for hope, and that is the hope that comes from children, whose future depends on actions we take now. Children provide incentive to not waste this disaster, to recognize that it was preventable, not inevitable, and to change course accordingly. Humans are the only creatures with the ability to dive deep in the sea, fly high in the sky, send instant messages around the globe, reflect on the past, assess the present and imagine the future. Deep sea creatures may live as long as we do and some may know the world has changed since they were hatched, but they do not know why and they do not know what to do about it. We do. That's cause for hope.

--

Throughout the expedition, the team has been sharing video and photo updates, which you can find on National Geographic's Newswatch blog.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

It's hard to get a straight answer on the effects of the Gulf oil spill amid all of the headlines, hearsay, and word of mouth tidbits from a friend of a friend of a friend. But we managed to track dow...
It's hard to get a straight answer on the effects of the Gulf oil spill amid all of the headlines, hearsay, and word of mouth tidbits from a friend of a friend of a friend. But we managed to track dow...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 41
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
04:54 PM on 01/18/2011
At least Dr. Earle isn't trying to soft-soap the damage, as so many now are trying to do. The complex chemical carnage created by the blowout and BP’s sacrifice of the long-term livability of the Gulf of Mexico for the prospect of keeping its precious wellhead intact is lurking beneath the waves, far from the media's myopic tunnel vision. This video from After the Press explains what is really happening, and that BP knew all along that it would:
http://www.youtube.com/afterthepress#p/a/u/2/vfv34nyAWO0
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thepostalfeminist
05:19 PM on 01/15/2011
Our glorious ocean is a key to the health of the environment. The risk to the planet and to humanity is too great NOT to take this seriously.

For decades we have ignored personal contributions like: drive less, drive more slowly, turn down or turn off the air conditioner. The essence of those suggestions is to encourage and inspire a personal and intentional decrease in energy consumption.

We can blame the car companies for continuing to build bigger gas guzzlers - but it is 'we the people' who continued to demand more and more.

It is time for us to take personal responsibility for our energy consumption.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tony581
12:33 PM on 01/14/2011
Wow, that expert scientist is a complete downer. She has nothing good to say - all depressing. All I can say is that there have been situations where 80 or 90 percent of the species died during cataclysms in the past, and life returned and flourished. Admittedly, it took a few million years for recovery to occur, but it did eventually happen.
06:10 PM on 01/14/2011
she's just speaking the truth.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tony581
08:15 PM on 01/15/2011
So am I. Life will come back, it just might take some time. Humans may be extinct by that point, but life will come back.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
garymc8
We got OBL- not gop
11:50 AM on 01/14/2011
Will this be the lesson so many needed concerning the true concerns of the MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS that have our country in a head lock?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:36 AM on 01/14/2011
I don't think anyone caught the truly insightful remark.

"the corporate mandate to maximize shareholder value"

The results of choosing this over maintaining the conditions necessary for life and health is the single greatest thing to ever happen to the wealthy, and the single most dangerous thing that has ever faced the human race. I wish us luck.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Donald Simon
09:02 AM on 01/14/2011
Two years ago a geologist told me that oil serves as a shock absorber between the giant tectonic plates of the earth and that removing more oil will likely cause more earthquakes, tsunamis and volcano eruptions. Perhaps there is a purpose to oil being in the earth. May we awaken.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ampoliros
Semper Fidelis Tyrannosaurus!
01:03 PM on 01/16/2011
Dino 3:16 For God so loved the earth, he put all those dinosaurs that never existed into the crust to keep it from cracking up.
08:55 AM on 01/14/2011
The answer to ending reliance on fossil fuels is nuclear energy. Most of the stock in trade objections to nuclear are false. The energy density of uranium makes all the difference. It is on the order of a million times that from fossil fuel. So the effects of mining are minimal. One semi-trailer every 18 months refuels a reactor that supplies electricity to 1 million people. Spent fuel is technically simple to dispose of, partly because there is so little of it, but we might as well just keep it and burn it in breeder reactors in the centuries to come.

Nuclear is the answer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
garymc8
We got OBL- not gop
11:55 AM on 01/14/2011
The SUN, WIND, WAVES are the real answer. They won't kill everyone when MAN eventually screws something up. You cannot get any more religious than God gave us these items the tame and use. They cannot be used up.
photo
GregHooper
what is this
12:14 PM on 01/14/2011
4 words

Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor

This is a simple introduction to a concept that was proven to work during the runup to the Manhattan Project but was abandoned due to the fact that it cannot produce fissionable material for bombs

Thorium is everywhere like Bauxite is for aluminum and has a negligable halflife These reactors are self regulating meaning it is impossible to melt down The reactor gets too hot and the material stops reacting until it cools

Deeper in YouTube is a sequnce of lectures from a number of neclear scientists who can better explain

I just grabbed the first Google hit for a link You want the answer to all our enrgy problems this is it The remaing problem is it works so well that the money will no longer own our energy and by way of that they won't own us

Expect major resistance except in countries that put people ahead of profit which means we will most likely get left in the dust

France has one coming online soon but thats socialism for you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h4ecEWXrKg
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thepostalfeminist
04:20 PM on 01/15/2011
Excellent comment!
For a brief history, the following website is very comprehensive:

http://energyfromthorium.com/2006/04/22/a-brief-history-of-the-liquid-fluoride-reactor/
08:55 AM on 01/14/2011
"However, we need to hold accountable those who authorized massive applications of toxic dispersants, especially at 5,000 ft depth, as well as those who allowed beaches to be upended, scraped, bulldozed and otherwise altered to give the appearance that the oil magically disappeared."
You're talking about our President. Can't you just say so? Tiptoeing around the complete responsibility this administration bears for the failure to even attempt an honest effort to limit or address this horrible disaster in any honest way assures that the oil companies are free to control the government; and that the government will continue to be complicit in the insane level of devastation they are free to leave behind.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TrishtheFish
09:56 AM on 01/14/2011
Those of who lean left and are honest about how terrible Obama has been on nearly every issue are painted by their own party as crazy radicals. The reactionary right is now considered centrist, and you speak logic to it at your own risk. More of us need to take this risk. Radical wrongs often require radical solutions. Maybe it is time we all opened our eyes to the wrong and injustices that exist in our country and on our planet. Maybe it is time for all of us to embrace our "radical" sides, and commit ourselves to peace, equality and justice. Who else but the "radicals" can possibly save humanity from itself?
12:28 PM on 01/14/2011
Fact would prove you wrong. He said to stop using it and they ignored him with the excuse "it's the only thing we have to use."

Multinational corporations just dumped it in with no regard to anyone.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dkrypt
Unencumbered by political correctness
08:30 AM on 01/14/2011
I think the perfect solution is to push oil rigs further out into the ocean, where they're more likely to fail, and harder to clean up if they do. Either that, or buy more oil from our enemies.

Right?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
garymc8
We got OBL- not gop
11:57 AM on 01/14/2011
But what ever we do don't develop any thing until we run completely dry of every drop of oil so they can profiteer all they way down the tubes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dkrypt
Unencumbered by political correctness
12:08 PM on 01/14/2011
Yes, I forgot that part.

Now that we (the USA) are 15 trillion dollars in the hole (plus unfunded benefits for SS & Medicare etc.) (not counting state/city/business/family debts), and billions more in national debt are created every day by governmental spending, now is the perfect time to overspend tax dollars on speculative technologies which are decades away from even coming close to oil in energy production efficiency.

You have a great point.
photo
tucsoncindy
dyslexia bob
12:04 AM on 01/14/2011
Breaks my heart to read this, but I think we all expected this. I'm in hopes
Sylvia Earle can wake up the powers with her work.
09:38 PM on 01/13/2011
well unless you are OPEC and have cooked your inventory books, then you will know that peak oil is coming sometime between 2010-2025, and when it does we will have no choice but to switch to other sources of energy... but of course we could just push LENR-CANR research and end all this energy debate and wars... Frank Znidarsic (he is an electrical engineer) has shown how these LENR-CANR reactions can occur... if you are interested here are some links

Frank Z.'s theories explained by someone who had the time to read his papers and translate to the lay man's terms, along with historical context...
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Review:_Anti-Gravity_/_Cold_Fusion_Explained_In_Detail:_A_New_Era_in_Physics

Dr. Eugene Podkletnov - NASA tried to replicate his experiment and were exploring it when the programs funding got cut...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgyAFElQZcU
BlackbirdHighway
Brawndo's got electrolites!
09:07 PM on 01/13/2011
"we are all responsible for this catastrophe. Our insatiable appetite for fossil fuels... "

Uhh, nope. My electric car is charged from solar panels. Sorry, but I do not accept your blame.
09:28 PM on 01/13/2011
No doubt the people who manufactured your car used fossil fuels to transport it... so you are supporting a company that does have a environmental impact, also your batteries in that car will need to be replaced supporting an mining industry as well as one known to cause pollution of bodies of water (not necessarily from production of hybrid batteries)...

Can we have a net zero environmental impact? It be nice if there was a way to grow our resources... possibly someone could modify a non-food source plant to amass certain metals and minerals for us to use.... and then legalize hemp for fabrics, plastics, and anything we currently use for fossil fuels...
BlackbirdHighway
Brawndo's got electrolites!
02:12 PM on 01/14/2011
"No doubt the people who manufactur­ed your car used fossil fuels to transport it... so you are supporting a company that does have a environmen­tal impact, also your batteries in that car will need to be replaced supporting an mining industry..."

I refuse this mindset that we cannot do anything about the problem until everyone else cleans up everything first.
BlackbirdHighway
Brawndo's got electrolites!
02:19 PM on 01/14/2011
It is called personal initiative Something that is severely lacking in the country
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CJCalgirl
nothing breeds faster than stupid
10:46 PM on 01/13/2011
Blackbird, Think deeper.  Buying a used economy care produces LESS of a footprint than buying a new hybrid or straight electric.  Especially if you buy something 15-20 yrs. old.  The biggest crime against nature is our predisposition to constantly throw away that which can be repaired and continue to use.  My mechanic LOVES me, but I do alot of maintenance myself.  I haven't owned a car that gets less than 25MPG in over 20 years, and the last three have done better than 30.  My recently deceased '84 civic hit just under 40.  I save $$, I save all the costs of the new car and its' accompanying use of raw materials, and feel just fine.  My latest is a 95 Saturn wagon, which, by the time I fixed a couple of things, did the maintenance to 'bring it up to snuff' cost me less than 2K, and it gets over 30MPG.  Plus I have A/C (something that was missing in the civic! :)
   If we lived in a universe where we could 'take it with us' when we leave, I might feel differently, but as it is, I have different priorities.
BlackbirdHighway
Brawndo's got electrolites!
02:16 PM on 01/14/2011
Well, everyone must follow the path that they think is right for them.

For me, sorry, but no, you are NOT going to convince me to keep buying gasoline. Search on the internet for GULF OIL SPILL to learn a little bit about the oil industry.

I am not going to support that. If you want to be best buds with Exxon, Chevron, and BP that's your business, but don't try to tell me to follow that path.
photo
singsingsing
it's not easy being green
06:23 AM on 01/17/2011
CJCcalgirl, good thinking, now if only the macho 500hp truck crowd would get the message.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bill Bushing
Liberal but open to ideas that make sense (leaves
05:54 PM on 01/13/2011
Dr. Earle is a voice for the oceans that should be listened to. Unfortunately some in the first Bush administration did not. I was privileged to work with Sylvia back in the mid-1970s on several Cousteau educational programs, and to have her as a member of the board at the private school where I taught marine biology. It will be interesting to read of her findings on this expedition. I hope HP will carry news stories about them
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
doctorj2u
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CJCalgirl
nothing breeds faster than stupid
10:48 PM on 01/13/2011
Bill, She certainly is an eloquent voice!  I applaud her grace when I think of the destruction she has witnessed.
03:31 PM on 01/13/2011
And right-wingers are still repeating their foolish canard, "The oil went away!"
03:17 PM on 01/13/2011
i have had major concerns on the long term and far reaching effects of the chemical dispersant used.when i learned of the sudden mass bird deaths i immediately thought of the gulf and could not help but wonder just what harm these chemicals could be doing.sigh.