iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
David Ropeik

David Ropeik

Posted: June 27, 2010 02:43 PM

The Oil Spill Catastrophe: Biggest Ever? Not Close.

What's Your Reaction:

The National Mississippi River and Aquarium in Dubuque, Iowa, has opened a huge tank with water, and artificial coral, and see-through stickers on the window that look like oil...and nothing else. No fish or plants or birds. Just lifeless water, to show what the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico looks like.

Bravo to the folks who want us to appreciate what this disaster is doing to the marine environment! They are also perfectly demonstrating something else... that the psychology of risk perception often gets in the way of risk reality, at our peril. The oil spill is a catastrophe, but risks that are catastrophic scare us more than risks that are chronic, even though in many cases, the chronic risks are far bigger threats.

Catastrophes have three unique affective qualities that feed our fears. The American Heritage Dictionary defines catastrophe as "A great, often sudden calamity." (Emphasis is mine.) A catastrophe has to be big, it has to happen all at once, and something about it has to be calamitous, unusual and really bad. All three things are absolutely true about the BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

But every year, the marine life in the same part of the Gulf of Mexico is choked to death in the "dead zone," an area that gets so rich in fertilizer run-off carried by the Mississippi River from the agricultural middle of America, that gigantic mats of algae bloom and then suck the oxygen out of the water as they die and decay, and so much oxygen is consumed that there isn't enough left in the water for anything else. The only things left alive in an area as big as 8,000 square miles are single-celled organisms.

And this happens every year. But where are the headlines about that? Where are the network newscasts live from the shores, and environmentalist outcry and Tweets and demands for government action and displays of the Dead Zone in aquariua? Marine biologist Sylvia Earle frets that the oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico could "create another dead zone". Yes, but what about the annual dead zone!? Why doesn't that chronic risk get the same attention?

Because chronic risks don't hit us in the gut the way a "catastrophe" does. The dead zone is not sudden, like an oil spill, or an industrial accident, or a plane crash. And unfortunately, it's not some sort of unusual calamity. It happens all the time. So it's like regular murder compared to mass murder, or the gradual disaster of climate change compared to single event environmental catastrophes like Chernobyl or Bhopal, or dozens of daily deaths in car crashes compared to one plane crash. The chronic risks may be bigger, but they don't feel that way. The large scale, sudden calamity rings our alarm bells louder, which the media senses and feeds, compounding the awareness of and fear about catastrophic sorts of risks.

Consider what that does to overall public and environmental health. The Gulf of Mexico dead zone is one of dozens that occur along populated coastal areas around the world all the time. And fertilizer runoff-fed dead zones are only one of the profound harms we're constantly doing to the marine environment. Carbon dioxide pollution is acidifying the oceans and killing coral reefs, along with climate change, by warming the water. We're destroying basic food supplies with overfishing, we ravage the benthic (bottom) environment with steel-netted drag trawlers.

But while we demand that BP pay to clean up the oil spill, are we demanding that the agricultural industry pay for the dead zones their fertilizer use creates? Are we demanding that food companies put billions in escrow accounts to pay for the damage that unsustainable fishing practices cause? Are we demanding that fossil fuel burning be taxed to pay for the environmental damage it does? Are we demanding the government do more about any of these things? A little, maybe, but not nearly like we're jumping all over BP and the government for the Deepwater Horizon mess. We call them externalities, not catastrophes, and these far greater harms persist, in large measure because they just don't upset us as much as catastrophes do.

In How Risky Is It Really? Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts, I call this The Perception Gap, the gap when we're too afraid of some lesser risks or not afraid enough of some bigger ones, and that creates a danger in and of itself. We do have to fear fear itself... too much or too little. And the catastrophic nature of some risks, as bad as such events can be, is one of the reasons we sometimes get the big risk picture wrong.

 
 
 

Follow David Ropeik on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dropeik

 
 
  • Comments
  • 58
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
08:22 AM on 08/15/2010
Excellent article! Case in point, the Three Mile Island "disaster" hurt no one and is still referred to every day, over 30 years later; coal fired plant air pollution statistically kills thousands every year, mining accidents kill some more, the Kleen natural gas explosion where people were killed and injured earlier this year all fade into the background. So people make the decision to build more fossil plants and not nuclear plants based on perceived risk, while real people continue to die.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Faust Eddie
12:14 AM on 07/08/2010
Where are Al Gore and Laurie David and Cheryl Crow?
photo
Erzsebet Gilbert
author, expat, traveler
08:31 AM on 06/30/2010
Give it a few decades and the slow, systemic problems will end up noticed in a larger discourse, rued and cursed... retrospect is so Hubble Telescope.
04:29 AM on 06/29/2010
FACEBOOK ATTEMPTS TO SILENCE BAYOULEE
Reported By: Bayou Lee
June 28, 2010
FaceBook executes a "top kill" on Boycott-BP group. FaceBook apparently is in the barrel for BIG OIL!!! They are a slippery bunch. No notice. No warnings of supposed violation of usage policy. Total disregard for procedure. Sound like BP???

Not only has FaceBook and BP targeted me, they have also targeted anyone close to me. My daughter's and two close friends' FaceBook accounts have been removed. ERASED!!!

I am working with my Webmaster to add blog capabilities. Our teams are collaborating day and night to bring you the ability to make your voice heard. I am continuing my efforts to contact FaceBook for an explanation for why we were pulled off. I don't expect that we will be allowed a forum again on FaceBook. So, we are using all available resources to bring an outlet for your voices. Keep the faith!

http://bayoulee.com/
02:06 AM on 06/29/2010
Americans and much of the world, neither understand the severity of the systemic catastrophes,

nor the long term catastrophe too slow to see.

That's human, we only understand that which is within our experience.
09:44 AM on 06/29/2010
"off topic"
---
That guy on the nasa post is a real bummer. He's even starting on personals attacks. What a cheap shot he's doing.
10:09 PM on 06/28/2010
Excellent article.
08:58 PM on 06/28/2010
As we enter one of the most aggressive hurricane seasons on record, I cannot even imagine what a hurricane would do with oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Dealing with oil on the beach is one thing, but what if we had to deal with it in our streets, in our businesses, in our homes? What if we had to rescue humans covered in oil? What if this is no longer isolated to just the Gulf Coast but found its way up the great rivers to our inner cities? Now imagine if you will, the dispersants mixed with oil which could possibly cause untold diseases and catastrophic health hazards of a biblical proportion. It staggers the imagination, or is it prophetic? What if we are dealing with the wrath of God? Please visit my website at http://www.revelation-truth.org Author of the book Final Warning
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Murphdogg
This micro-bio is literally a nano-bio on steroids
06:08 PM on 06/28/2010
Nice article. However, while reading the comments it struck me that if algae ate oil, we'd be pretty fired up about that right now. Nature has a clean-up plan for the fertilizer, algae. One currently doesn't exist for the oil.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
humandecency
01:10 PM on 06/28/2010
So much for risk assessment. Interior Secretary Salazar's Department exempted the BP rig project using an exemption under the National Environmental Policy Act that was intended for projects like building latrines in National Parks, not projects like the rig in deep waters with extremely high stakes. How did it happen I ask? What are the chances the commission will tell us. Maybe the corporate enviromentalist on the commission will have an answer. I doubt it. We wouldn't want Obama to lose the next election would we. That's the real risk. Got to prioritize those risks, right? All the science in the world isn't going to help this corrupt, selfish, pathetic culture we're living in.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:20 PM on 06/28/2010
Legitimate point, but not responsive to this story (other than helping to confirm his point by example).
12:51 PM on 06/28/2010
Excellent perspective. I would add that the entire notion of the delta coastal zone being a fragile ecosystem and therefore one that should be protected is likewise a product of our conditioning. That coastal system should be robust. The reason it's fragile is because of what we've been doing to it for so long. With the money spent on Katrina and which will be spent to by BP and the US protect that tiny weakened fragment of what should be (and if allowed to be would again be) a vital, life supporting habitat, we should have moved New Orleans, and the rest of our human infrastructure to a better spot and left the Mississippi back into its original dynamic state where the delta would continue to grow and provide the super abundance it was once famous for.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:22 PM on 06/28/2010
Move N.O.? Do you have a Plan B?
11:42 AM on 06/28/2010
The Gulf Catastrophe could have been avoided if the US were growing algae. Algae is renewable, does not affect the food channel and consumes CO2. No explosions, no fires, no deaths and no environmental problems.

We have spent over $2.5 billion on algae research at US universities for over 35 years. It's time to move it out of the lab and go into commercial-scale production. A $100 million dollars for one off-shore rig is too costly. We need to be thinking about growing algae for biocrude oil in Lousiana. Entrepreneurs are building commercial-scale plants throughout the US using all off-the-shelf existing proven technologies. More algae production plants are coming online. Algae is one solution to get the US off of foreign oil and create new jobs right here in the US. The algae industry is being built today by Americans who all want to get off foreign oil, using Amercan technology and Amercan equipment. What's wrong with that???
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
01:51 PM on 06/28/2010
Absofrigginlutely we should use algae biofuels and many other sensible and renewable methods for our energy needs. Pollution just does not pay in the long run. Fossil fuels are not cheaper when actual costs are considered.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:08 PM on 06/28/2010
I agree with you.
And we should be growing hemp here in the States. Hemp can be made into plastics, car parts, building material too. No pesticides to pollute our lands and waters when hemp is grown.
11:35 AM on 06/28/2010
Forget "chronic." See heraldnet.com: "This is not the worst oil leak ever. The total effect of this oil leak will be like one one-millionth of an ounce of oil in a bathtub of water. [Further], there has already been a worse oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico...The Mexican Pemex (The Mexican government's oil monopoly) oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 1979 was far worse than the BP well: 140 million gallons poured out of the Mexican well. After four months, an oil slick had covered about half of Texas’ 370-mile gulf shoreline, devastating tourism. Finally, Saddam's deliberate oil spill of over 400 million gallons into the much-smaller Persian Gulf in the 1990-91 War (Desert Storm) was much, much worse. Still, there was little long-term damage, according to the UN."

--Perspective, anyone?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
humandecency
01:13 PM on 06/28/2010
Are your freakin kidding me with the "one-millionth of an ounce of oil." Come on. Get real. Your comparisons are causing you to utter absurd conclusions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
01:54 PM on 06/28/2010
You are repeating the opinions of those who profit from polluting industries. Check the facts with marine biologists about the health effects of oil pollution in the ocean.
10:44 AM on 06/28/2010
And all of this pales in comparison to the threats... no the actions that Mother Nature WILL take in global warming. The dead zones, the oil spill, and the earthquakes are child's play when compared to what's coming.
10:41 AM on 06/28/2010
Oh, the oil spill is not to bad after all because the agricultural industry creates dead zones? We are just too scared? I wonder who funded this guy...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:24 PM on 06/28/2010
You missed his point, I believe.
04:17 PM on 06/28/2010
He made the point while missing it.
10:36 AM on 06/28/2010
It's not measured in barrals of oil. I believe there is more to it, like where it happens and when, etc. I don't think our instincts should shut off just because and 'Experts' shows up.