The Ecology of Disaster

Just about three weeks ago, a BP oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico caught fire after a methane explosion, killing 11 workers and sending the rig straight to the bottom. Since then, something like 3.5 million gallons of oil have cascaded into the Gulf, beginning to wash up on shore this past week. At this pace, the spill will exceed the total oil of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster by next month. The crisis and its response demonstrate the intricate ecology of disaster.

It appears that the fire on the rig was caused by a methane explosion. The details are still emerging, and it is hard to point the finger of blame with too much assuredness yet (although that hasn't stopped at least one family of one of the workers killed on the rig to file suit). What is sure is that for decades, the oil industry has been pumping money into weakening safety regulations. Whether a more toothy regulatory stance could have prevented this disaster is hard to say, but in at least one way, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig failed: it did not have the sort of backup device used by drilling operations in Europe to prevent blowouts.

Toothless regulation is not the fault of lobbyists alone. Government must bear responsibility for weakening regulations. Average citizens have a hand in not bringing pressure to bear on government to give them the authority to push back against lobbying.

Still, I think it is mostly a reminder that as much as we would like them to be, companies are just not fully self-regulating. When not facing the pressure of regulatory standards, BP made decisions about safety measures -- such as not having the blowout preventer -- that put profit ahead of safety. It's probably unfair to think that many others in the industry would or are making different decisions.

The problem with natural resource companies is that their "externalities" are never just a cost to them. The devastation wrought by this wreck is being paid for not only by BP, or by the government, but by the out of work fisherman, the damaged Gulf coast tourist industry, and the absolutely decimated ecosystem of the Gulf, which will see untold death among its plants, fish, and animals. In short, this is everyone's disaster.

So what is the ecology of response? I think it involves a few pieces:

1. There should be a cost to BP's brand. This is the free market right? Classical economics might suggest that industries will self-regulate because the cost will be too high in terms of public relations and clean up otherwise. Let's make that the case. Let's use this to destroy the brand of unsafe drilling and unsustainable resource extraction.

2. There should be more support for smarter, updated regulation. Regulation is one of those concepts that gets smashed into black and white in our political discourse. It is not mutually exclusive to believe that as much as possible, the government should stay out of the affairs of business, and at the same time to think that there are clear cases -- based on industry, risk, and other factors -- where government has not only a right but an obligation to regulate against the excesses of industry.

3. There should be sustained support for cleanup efforts. It is going to take a massive effort to salvage Gulf wildlife. Three weeks later, BP still hasn't even been able to contain the spill. As much as it feels like the bill should be the responsibility of BP, I think it is a worthwhile use of resources to support the cleanup. There is a good list for how to do that here.

4. This needs to be a teaching moment for smarter energy. Right now, this is a disaster. Can we turn it into the nail in the coffin for dirty energy? Our relationship with the earth simply cannot continue as it is.

Photo credit: A pelican rescued but covered in oil, via IBRRC