II: Skirting the Issue on the Dance Floor
The second part of this series will continue to elaborate on the possible environmental impact - both potentially good or bad - of the operations of two of the big four oil companies now set to return to Iraq - BP and Exxon-Mobil.Transparency and honesty are two major traits that the public seek to identify whenever they sniff out some smell of a contract being discussed between an external, usually transnational or multinational, company and their own government. With an active citizenry, coupled with a fairly democratic political culture of civil activism, the public can certainly act as the gatekeeper of the country's natural resources, safeguarding the sovereignty of its livelihood. The question that we have to ask is, given the history of these oil companies and the way they have been managed, is it likely that they will conduct their operations as judiciously and carefully overseas in Iraq as those in their home countries?
For BP, the Prudhoe Bay incident and the ensuing charges that accused the corporation of "greenwashing" - that is, attempting to paint itself as environmentally-friendly while maintaining environmentally-degrading practices - certainly contribute to the scepticism surrounding the recent PR revamp by BP, and these concerns are understandable. A cursory look into its history at Prudhoe Bay evinces a significant modicum of doubt as to whether BP truly has changed its principles of extracting oil sustainably and with minimum risk of leaving behind corrosive footprints on the fragile landscape of Alaska.
Firstly, the effects of oil spills at sea have been a familiar sight on primetime news, but these tangible consequences are only immediate and superficial. Consider the pollution and toxification of ice and snow, basically eroding the robustness of the food chain by rendering the natural habitat of birds, fishes, and micro-organisms extremely harzardous to live in (the oil spill also affected caribou herd grounds). This predictably forces these species to temporarily migrate elsewhere to search for substitute food, and therefore raise the concentration of predators in other areas. The same amount of food and rate of replenishment, coupled with an exponential increase in predators - however temporary - will upset the ecological balance of not only Alaskan territory but habitats outside of the U.S. as well.
Despoiling the landscape of Alaska for the sake of oil drilling continues unabated as the Bush administration vets proposal after proposal in what seems like a very short-sighted attempt to meet domestic consumption. If this is Bush's legacy, then it is a sorry one. Cynicism set aside, the lax government regulations are partly to blame for the lack of enforcement of operational standards in Alaska. Without any form of penalisation by the state, oil companies have even less motivation to clear up their messes. Obviously, pipeline bursts and leaks caused by corrosion and accidents (such as a hunter's missed shot) do cause huge losses for the oil companies involved, but one needs to reconsider the accompanying costs to the environment. These costs - as aforementioned - are long-term and take years to recoup. Oil spills may be easier to clear up than other environmental disasters that have lingering effects, but that doesn't imply for an instant that companies won't try to get away with avoiding the problem until it becomes too large to ignore, such as in Prudhoe Bay.
Taking a page out of Collapse, Jared Diamond's masterpiece, the devastation of Alaskan wildlife and their natural surroundings must have been difficult for the minute populations living in that area. True, there may only have been five people living at Prudhoe Bay in 2000 (according to a census), but these individuals choose to live there primarily because of the mostly untouched scenery of Alaskan territory, akin to the people living in Montana that Diamond interviewed for his book. Alaska, like Montana, is currently being mined for its raw materials, and the latter has had local community groups galvanising together to push for protection of the environment as exploitation and extraction processes continue. What Montana has in terms of grassroots support by its residents - farmers in their 50s and upwards, who choose to keep their unprofitable farmland due to their love of the way of life - and a few wealthy people (who have used their own funds to enforce barriers to limit the amount of environmental damage done by outsiders), Alaska cannot hope to have.
That is the blank cheque Washington has sought to claim from its most prized natural reserve. BP has thus far started the BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. programme, which seeks to fund educational efforts to educate Alaskan citizens about the potential that community action has in terms of saving their environment. While it is laudable indeed that BP is on the right path towards sustainable and comprehensive development, it remains to be seen whether this commitment is matched by BP management's own willingness to be transparent and own up to the true costs of disasters such as that in Prudhoe Bay - that is, funding the clean-up efforts that will certainly exceed the gross underestimations calculated before. The world is watching, and wondering if BP will avoid repeating the same mistakes in Iraq - or think it can get away with it again.
Similar doubts have been cast on Exxon-Mobil's response to the Valdez oil spill, an accident that has tarnished the reputation of the oil company due to several factors: one, the pace of the response in owning up to the actual cost of the oil spill, both short-term and long-term; two, the refusal to admit that environmental degradation will continue to despoil the Alaskan coast for a long time to come, exceeding the time period that Exxon is supposed to be liable for. What's even worse is the web of money trails linking Exxon-Mobil to various "dissuasion groups", which may be a more politically correct euphemism for lobbyist organisations posing as legitimate scientific groups preying on the general public's unquestioning attitude towards scientific institutions. Exxon-Mobil has allegedly been funding these groups as they churn out publications that advocate what seems like a simplistic formula of "less government, more trust in human nature".
To quote from one of these publications, the report on climate change states that all subsidies, taxes and basically price-distorting mechanisms in general should be entirely removed such that each technology (petrol-guzzling SUVs, incandescent light bulbs) is allowed to compete on a level playing field. Furthermore, without such "protectionist" measures existing, the impetus for entrepreneurship and innovation to produce new technologies that will more effectively address the needs of the people will be increased. While it may seem convincing that the advancement of technology is inevitable and will continue to generate better solutions to combat environmental degradation, even the underlying assumption that these technologies have created more benefits than costs is suspect. Also, this approach assumes too much: that people will have perfect knowledge and are able to discern for themselves which product is more environmentally-friendly; that people are willing to pay the extra monetary cost for a green product instead of resorting to cheaper, cruder, dirtier substitutes. If one is mired in poverty, which is a more rational, realistic option?
While this document seeks to emancipate poor peoples in Third World countries, the strategies involved seem to cater to Third World peoples with First World mindsets, capabilities and preferences. How prevalent that breed of thought is among the peoples of Africa, I do not pretend to know. Yet it seems that what the document advocates is a recipe for certain disaster: governments should protect individual property rights such that these individuals are better equipped to adapt to changing circumstances by choosing and adopting more effective technologies. Yet the word "effective" can be judged according to arbitrary standards, if you ask the slash-and-burn farmer in Indonesia. To adapt to a decrease in arable land due to intensified farming and shorter fallow time, the farmer uses the slash-and-burn method more frequently to increase the effectiveness of how well he can provide for his family. Does he consider whether it is more effective in mitigating the costs of his method while earning his income? The answer should be obvious.
While some indigenous populations have certainly devised ingenious, innovative methods of sustainable cultivation and extraction of natural, renewable resources from their environment (such as the Papua New Guineans documented by Diamond), we cannot assume that every individual will successfully devise similar strategies. More often than not, Third World societies aspiring to reach First World standards of consumption tend to reach standards of environmental impact per capita as well. Thus, if a particular resource is depleting at a rate greater than it is being renewed, individuals are likely to revert to selfish behaviour and attempt to exploit the resource faster to gain benefits. The mindset is a zero-sum one.
One should not go so far as to completely discredit the strategies suggested by such dissuasion groups, but their main stand is fatally flawed: they believe that we should devote most of our resources in simply adapting to changing circumstances, rather than devote a significant amount to actually mitigating these circumstances such that adaptational costs can be preempted or minimised in the future. While humans have proved extremely adaptable, one can sense that it is an essentially Herculean task to convince First World populations to willingly lower their living standards to adapt to the scenario whereby depleted resources require lowered rates of extraction - "Why should I compromise with a lower-grade vehicle when I've earned my SUV with my hard work?". Worse, how do you convince Third World populations to stop aspiring to First World standards of consumption - "Why should those rich people get to enjoy wealth and prosperity at the price of our welfare?". Eventually, these pseudo-scientific groups will be compelled to adopt the ends to justify the means: strengthening the state apparatus to enforce the equalisation of living standards.
Exxon-Mobil, like BP, has not convinced most of us that it is truly for tackling environmental degradation and its long-term costs. Are Shell and Total any better?
We'll find out in part III.
For BP, the Prudhoe Bay incident and the ensuing charges that accused the corporation of "greenwashing" - that is, attempting to paint itself as environmentally-friendly while maintaining environmentally-degrading practices - certainly contribute to the scepticism surrounding the recent PR revamp by BP, and these concerns are understandable. A cursory look into its history at Prudhoe Bay evinces a significant modicum of doubt as to whether BP truly has changed its principles of extracting oil sustainably and with minimum risk of leaving behind corrosive footprints on the fragile landscape of Alaska.
Firstly, the effects of oil spills at sea have been a familiar sight on primetime news, but these tangible consequences are only immediate and superficial. Consider the pollution and toxification of ice and snow, basically eroding the robustness of the food chain by rendering the natural habitat of birds, fishes, and micro-organisms extremely harzardous to live in (the oil spill also affected caribou herd grounds). This predictably forces these species to temporarily migrate elsewhere to search for substitute food, and therefore raise the concentration of predators in other areas. The same amount of food and rate of replenishment, coupled with an exponential increase in predators - however temporary - will upset the ecological balance of not only Alaskan territory but habitats outside of the U.S. as well.
Despoiling the landscape of Alaska for the sake of oil drilling continues unabated as the Bush administration vets proposal after proposal in what seems like a very short-sighted attempt to meet domestic consumption. If this is Bush's legacy, then it is a sorry one. Cynicism set aside, the lax government regulations are partly to blame for the lack of enforcement of operational standards in Alaska. Without any form of penalisation by the state, oil companies have even less motivation to clear up their messes. Obviously, pipeline bursts and leaks caused by corrosion and accidents (such as a hunter's missed shot) do cause huge losses for the oil companies involved, but one needs to reconsider the accompanying costs to the environment. These costs - as aforementioned - are long-term and take years to recoup. Oil spills may be easier to clear up than other environmental disasters that have lingering effects, but that doesn't imply for an instant that companies won't try to get away with avoiding the problem until it becomes too large to ignore, such as in Prudhoe Bay.
Taking a page out of Collapse, Jared Diamond's masterpiece, the devastation of Alaskan wildlife and their natural surroundings must have been difficult for the minute populations living in that area. True, there may only have been five people living at Prudhoe Bay in 2000 (according to a census), but these individuals choose to live there primarily because of the mostly untouched scenery of Alaskan territory, akin to the people living in Montana that Diamond interviewed for his book. Alaska, like Montana, is currently being mined for its raw materials, and the latter has had local community groups galvanising together to push for protection of the environment as exploitation and extraction processes continue. What Montana has in terms of grassroots support by its residents - farmers in their 50s and upwards, who choose to keep their unprofitable farmland due to their love of the way of life - and a few wealthy people (who have used their own funds to enforce barriers to limit the amount of environmental damage done by outsiders), Alaska cannot hope to have.
That is the blank cheque Washington has sought to claim from its most prized natural reserve. BP has thus far started the BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. programme, which seeks to fund educational efforts to educate Alaskan citizens about the potential that community action has in terms of saving their environment. While it is laudable indeed that BP is on the right path towards sustainable and comprehensive development, it remains to be seen whether this commitment is matched by BP management's own willingness to be transparent and own up to the true costs of disasters such as that in Prudhoe Bay - that is, funding the clean-up efforts that will certainly exceed the gross underestimations calculated before. The world is watching, and wondering if BP will avoid repeating the same mistakes in Iraq - or think it can get away with it again.
Similar doubts have been cast on Exxon-Mobil's response to the Valdez oil spill, an accident that has tarnished the reputation of the oil company due to several factors: one, the pace of the response in owning up to the actual cost of the oil spill, both short-term and long-term; two, the refusal to admit that environmental degradation will continue to despoil the Alaskan coast for a long time to come, exceeding the time period that Exxon is supposed to be liable for. What's even worse is the web of money trails linking Exxon-Mobil to various "dissuasion groups", which may be a more politically correct euphemism for lobbyist organisations posing as legitimate scientific groups preying on the general public's unquestioning attitude towards scientific institutions. Exxon-Mobil has allegedly been funding these groups as they churn out publications that advocate what seems like a simplistic formula of "less government, more trust in human nature".
To quote from one of these publications, the report on climate change states that all subsidies, taxes and basically price-distorting mechanisms in general should be entirely removed such that each technology (petrol-guzzling SUVs, incandescent light bulbs) is allowed to compete on a level playing field. Furthermore, without such "protectionist" measures existing, the impetus for entrepreneurship and innovation to produce new technologies that will more effectively address the needs of the people will be increased. While it may seem convincing that the advancement of technology is inevitable and will continue to generate better solutions to combat environmental degradation, even the underlying assumption that these technologies have created more benefits than costs is suspect. Also, this approach assumes too much: that people will have perfect knowledge and are able to discern for themselves which product is more environmentally-friendly; that people are willing to pay the extra monetary cost for a green product instead of resorting to cheaper, cruder, dirtier substitutes. If one is mired in poverty, which is a more rational, realistic option?
While this document seeks to emancipate poor peoples in Third World countries, the strategies involved seem to cater to Third World peoples with First World mindsets, capabilities and preferences. How prevalent that breed of thought is among the peoples of Africa, I do not pretend to know. Yet it seems that what the document advocates is a recipe for certain disaster: governments should protect individual property rights such that these individuals are better equipped to adapt to changing circumstances by choosing and adopting more effective technologies. Yet the word "effective" can be judged according to arbitrary standards, if you ask the slash-and-burn farmer in Indonesia. To adapt to a decrease in arable land due to intensified farming and shorter fallow time, the farmer uses the slash-and-burn method more frequently to increase the effectiveness of how well he can provide for his family. Does he consider whether it is more effective in mitigating the costs of his method while earning his income? The answer should be obvious.
While some indigenous populations have certainly devised ingenious, innovative methods of sustainable cultivation and extraction of natural, renewable resources from their environment (such as the Papua New Guineans documented by Diamond), we cannot assume that every individual will successfully devise similar strategies. More often than not, Third World societies aspiring to reach First World standards of consumption tend to reach standards of environmental impact per capita as well. Thus, if a particular resource is depleting at a rate greater than it is being renewed, individuals are likely to revert to selfish behaviour and attempt to exploit the resource faster to gain benefits. The mindset is a zero-sum one.
One should not go so far as to completely discredit the strategies suggested by such dissuasion groups, but their main stand is fatally flawed: they believe that we should devote most of our resources in simply adapting to changing circumstances, rather than devote a significant amount to actually mitigating these circumstances such that adaptational costs can be preempted or minimised in the future. While humans have proved extremely adaptable, one can sense that it is an essentially Herculean task to convince First World populations to willingly lower their living standards to adapt to the scenario whereby depleted resources require lowered rates of extraction - "Why should I compromise with a lower-grade vehicle when I've earned my SUV with my hard work?". Worse, how do you convince Third World populations to stop aspiring to First World standards of consumption - "Why should those rich people get to enjoy wealth and prosperity at the price of our welfare?". Eventually, these pseudo-scientific groups will be compelled to adopt the ends to justify the means: strengthening the state apparatus to enforce the equalisation of living standards.
Exxon-Mobil, like BP, has not convinced most of us that it is truly for tackling environmental degradation and its long-term costs. Are Shell and Total any better?
We'll find out in part III.
Labels:
Environment,
Iraq
0 spoke up:
Post a Comment