The eerie timing of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, just a month after the Obama administration announced plans to expand offshore drilling, has been widely noted. But a second coincidence is equally striking. The Congress is currently debating legislation developed in response to another man-made disaster: the financial meltdown of 2008. As attention turns to the regulatory reforms necessary to avoid the next environmental catastrophe, what can we learn from the debate over financial reform?
As in other disasters, the initial response to the financial meltdown was to find the guilty parties. And there were many candidates: the collapse of an inflated housing market, irresponsible lending practices, the negligence of governmental regulators, nefarious investment schemes. The search for such culprits helps only in demanding redress, but also in narrating the significance of the event. However, such a narrow purview distracts attention from a bigger issue: the characteristics of the overall system that made it vulnerable to these specific failures.
In the case of the financial disaster, legislators have finally turned to this latter question. One of the prominent features of the financial reform bill currently under consideration is a focus on "systemic risk." In the context of finance, this term refers to the idea that our collective well-being depends on a complex and fragile system that is potentially vulnerable to catastrophic failure.
The concept of systemic risk points to the regulatory problem posed by the existence of firms whose failure could provoke a collapse of the entire system: firms that are "too big to fail." It is now recognized that the problem of systemic risk requires new forms of government regulation. The goal of such regulation is to provide the financial system with resilience against unexpected shocks so that catastrophic failures such as the 2008 meltdown are not repeated.
What would it mean to apply this lesson to energy and environmental regulation in the wake of the Gulf spill? So far, most attention has been focused on the search for specific culprits. Questions are asked mainly about proximate causes of the disaster: Did the cementing techniques used by Halliburton lead to the initial explosion? Did Transocean fail to install the necessary blowout prevention equipment? Did government regulators neglect to insist on further back up systems for shutting off the flow of oil? Was BP underprepared for a disaster of this magnitude?
The search for a specific culprit in this environmental catastrophe is necessary insofar as it helps us pinpoint who is responsible for the costs of immediate clean up and for the remediation of direct damages. However, it should not be the sole object of inquiry as we reflect on what the spill means for the future of energy production in the US. The danger is that we will focus only on the correction of narrow regulatory lapses and on technological fixes that will allow the expansion of offshore drilling plans to go forward.
Rather, the same broad lessons that were learned from the financial meltdown should be applied to this environmental disaster. New regulatory mechanisms and public investments should focus on the mitigation of systemic risks - that is, on forms of energy production that pose the danger of catastrophic failure to the broader ecological - and economic - system.
In the Gulf Coast, we are learning that the ecosystems in which energy production takes place are complex, interdependent and vulnerable to catastrophic shock. Brown pelicans, sea turtles, bluefin tuna and other endangered species depend on a functioning Gulf ecosystem. The marshlands, coral reefs, and sea-grass meadows that support coastal life are imperiled by ecological shocks such as major oil spills. And the livelihoods of fisherman and resort operators in turn are threatened by the disaster. Offshore drilling in the Gulf is best understood as a systemic risk to these fragile ecologies and local economies.
Our response to disasters is too often limited in extent and duration. Typically the onset of an emergency situation makes it possible to galvanize resources and provide immediate relief, whereas earlier proposals for preventive measures could not muster support. During a disaster, there is a search for the proximate cause in order to attribute blame and seek redress, while the deeper structural causes remain unaddressed. And then, with time, the sense of urgency to deal with the crisis fades, and it becomes more difficult to implement reforms that would reduce vulnerability to future catastrophe.
As we continue to watch the disaster in the Gulf unfold, and seek out its culprits, it is worth attending to the bigger questions the event provokes about the vulnerabilities of our ecosystems, and about the systemic risks posed by our methods of energy production. The energy bill Congress is about to debate is a perfect opportunity to address these risks and vulnerabilities. Building a concern with mitigating systemic risk into the energy bill means investing in resilient forms of energy production, and avoiding sources of energy - such as offshore drilling and nuclear power - that may seem viable in the short term but that threaten environmental catastrophe in the long term.
Andrew Lakoff is associate professor of anthropology, sociology and communication at the University of Southern California, and the editor of Disaster and the Politics of Intervention (SSRC/ Columbia University Press, 2010).
Ms. Deborah Cranswick in the Leasing and Environment Office at (504) 736-2744
Jail, Baby, Jail
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052401974.html?hpid=topnews
Carbon tax is the way to go, not cap-and-trade http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-tax.htm
The current climate bill is wose than nothing: http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2010/05/14/kerry-lieberman-%e2%80%9cclimate%e2%80%9d-bill-is-worse-than-nothing/
Also, we need to amend the Constitution to permit only public funding of election campaigns in order to dilute the power of corporations http://www.callaconvention.org/
Check out this site as well https://sites.google.com/site/usvotersite/
When you have a no-emissions technology like PV which has NO ECONOMIES OF SCALE, can be democratically owned, does not require lengthy, hacker-ridden and weather-vulnerable transmission, has NO MIDDLEMAN SKIMMING ALL THE MONEY and does not kill our planet or its individual ecosystems, all while being MUCH CHEAPER to ratepayers/taxpayers, it is literally insane (Stockholm Syndrome?) to push for BP to kill our deserts for Big Solar. INSANE.
Point of use solutions can fully power peak loads from existing rooftops (53% of total load) with no new technology. Once we get effective storage solutions online, it can easily power 100% (see MIT hydrogen battery). The grid will become a load-balancing system, not a monopolistic delivery system, and existing gas peaker plants can easily compensate for intermittency.
The solutions are simple, cheap, clean and democratic - the problem is that Big Energy is still being allowed to control the debate (with a substantial greenwash from the sellouts at the Big Enviros).
You say there are 3 causal questions to be answered. The answer to each of your posed questions is yes. Now what do we do?
1) Shut down the Atlantic drilling site and halt permits on all drilling in gulf now;
2) put a moratorium on coastal drilling for 5 years;
3) shut off the open gusher at the bottom of the Horizon drill site and cap it with concrete.
4) In the meantime, build artificial sand bars and erect barriers islands with gabbion baskets, concrete debris and wood lattice around the estuaries and swamps of the gulf and innoculate these materials with petroleum consuming bacteria. Spray more petroleum consuming bacteria over the areas most threatened at the mouth of rivers and estuaries.
5) Issue emergency funding for Gov. Jundal's requests to build more barriers and implement with manpower from the national guard. The effort is said to cost around $350 M, a pittance compared to the $9 billion quarterly profits posted by BP this year!
6) HALT immediately the use of the dispersants and humectants. They will persist in the environment long after the oil and they will poison the estuaries and kill life at all levels. 'they are only using them to disguise the size of the spill.
But you'll need the sun or wind to do that.
Consider wind:
1) They estimate that the BP oil spill will cost at least $14B to mitigate. For that you can install 14,000 wind turbine that would power 14 million E-cars that use 0.25 kWh/mi (i.e, Chevy Volt) about 10,000 miles per year for 25 years (assuming a 20% capacity factor).
2) A surcharge of 1 ¢/kWh on all electricity would provide $37B/year that we could use to install enough wind turbines in one year to power 37 million such E-cars for the next 25 years. In less than 10 years. all light duty vehicles could be E-vehicles. No more "drill-baby-drill" and no more $700B/year to Middle East interests.
3) I heard in recent ethanol fuel ad say that an acre on corn produce 400 gal of fuel. That would power a 25 mpg car for 10,000 miles for one year. But a single wind turbine (occupying 1/4 acre) would power 1000 E-cars, 10,000 miles-per-year for 25 years. AND ... the remaining 3/4 acre can be used to plant corn for food.
Everything we grow eventually gets thrown away,
That's when we Bio Char it.
Carbon negative, energy, heat and bio fuels.
But the real zinger was the words, "In the Gulf Coast, we are learning that the ecosystems in which energy production takes place are complex, interdependent and vulnerable to catastrophic shock." Really? "We" are just learning this? Maybe the writer is, but most of us have been at least vaguely cognisant of this fact for most of our lives.
It's this passive nonsense passing for analysis that is so frustrating, and from someone with a communications degree no less? Academic tripe solves nothing, and certainly won't focus on the bigger issues.
Revolutionary technologies are beginning to emerge.
Moving Beyond Oil and The Brooklyn Project at; http://www.aesopinstitute.org discuss some new possibilities and the surprising urgency.
There are more breakthrough technologies. They are moving forward in several countries.
The science is new and difficult to accept.
But, independent labs are increasingly involved and practical applications are en-route.
As we can see, fossil fuels threaten to sharply impact life on earth much more quickly than is generally realized.
Another hit will be oil prices, which could exceed $100 per barrel in a matter of months. That can abort economic recovery.
One barrel of ordinary water can replace 200 barrels of oil. A gallon or two might power a hybrid car 1,000 miles.
The oil catastrophe in the Gulf is an alarm clock!
Time to accelerate the development of breakthrough alternatives as rapidly as is humanly possible!
A 24/7 development program is ready to be born. It will not take much to accelerate the birth!
We need to vote out of office all elected officials who have "done business" with BigOil (and frankly any other "Big" like BigPharma, BigFood, BigCoal) and start getting people in office who can thing past their wallets. Then we can start to see more sensible energy solutions in a country that is supposedly modern.
A lot of work needs to be done to generate viable alternative energy systems now. Some tiny interesting dents have been made in the problem, ranging from new battery technology, to undersea turbings (Minesto.com) to airborne wind generators (http://organicconnectmag.com/wp/2009/12/from-war-machine-to-clean-energy/).
I don't subscribe to the idea that BigOil is too big to fail. They already have.
A barrel of ordinary water can replace 200 barrels of oil and perhaps power hybrid engined cars and trucks about 1,000 miles using a gallon or two.
See Moving Beyond Oil and Running on Water at http://www.aesopinstitute.org
The report (TechnicalPresentation021710.pdf) on http://www.american-reporter.com/ is just a lot of rehashed publicity showing spectra results easily explained by crystal field theory. When science is not on your side (you can do a lot of fancy math and hand-jiving but Mother Nature has the last say), appeal to authority and bring out the celebrities: "The company has assembled a formidable board of directors that include a former head of Westinghouse, a top federal nuclear energy official, ..." The American Reporter is another left-wingnut rag. Show us something from, say, National Science Foundation or the American Physical Society.
Garret Moddel from colorado.edu have debunked all this ZPE wet dreams in his paper "Assessment of proposed electromagnetic quantum vacuum energy extraction methods" (xxx.lanl.gov). Unfortunately for himself, who has aUS patent “Quantum vacuum energy extraction,” Patent 7379286, he did not understand the physics of EM surface waves on Casimir tubes; thus his scheme is worthless. After exchanging a couple of emails, Moddel admitted to me that his patent was a mistake. Sensible people becoming silly.
As I said before, I emailed Rowan. The faculty at Rowan were tight-mouthed and referred me to Black Light Power for any discussion. They are backing away from BLP claims that they confirmed hydrinos.
Sell your contraption at QVC or Home Shopping Network. They have a lot more credibility than you and I know they will take no nonsense from you.
There is the Hydrino Study Group, an assembly of useful morons (to Mills, Roarty, and Goldes). From their website:
question (by dcampen)
It is unfortunate that Mills does not have this 2002 paper available on the BLP website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2860(02)00355-1
By putting 30 watts into a simple mixture of helium-hydrogen Mills was getting 300 watt output and a power density of 30 MW/cubic meter. Has he ever explained why he can't make a power generator from this? What is his need for these new exotic fuels when a simple mixture of helium and hydrogen would give such high power densities?
response (by VelvetPoster): Helium is a very expensive and very finite resource.
VelvetPoster's response is incorrect since first, helium can be recirculated around and helium is cheap enough tobe available at mom and pop stores. Mills and company have be switching to sodium, potassium, helium, nickel, etc..
No success.
Question: you say "we need to vote out of office all elected officials who have done business with Big Oil (etc). What about Pres. Obama and his recent flip flop on coastal drilling? What about his top deputies running the show now- Janet Nipoplitano and Ken Salizar?