http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/04/pictures/120420-gulf-oil-spill-impact-studies/#/deepwater-horizon-bluefin-tuna_51838_600x450.jpg
Studies conducted two years after the Deepwater Horizon drilling explosion in the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill reveal important findings about the spill's long-term impact on the ecosystem and the coastal communities closest to it. There is no doubt that this spill had immediate, tragic consequences on the wildlife both in the gulf itself and in the surrounding areas. Images of dying sea gulls covered in oil and struggling to breathe, dead fish washing up on the coastline, and devastated fishing communities were all over the media at the time of the spill. The long-term effects, however, were unknown and rarely discussed.
One of the things I appreciate about this article is that it highlights the oil spill's impact on less conventional/popular organisms like bacteria and deep-sea life forms that were never really highlighted in the news coverage. This is not to say that they are more or less important than suffocating dolphins, but it does pick up on an important point brought up in class regarding public appeal. Microorganisms and deep-sea coral and other less "cute" life forms are essential to the ocean's ecosystem as they are responsible for feeding (among other very important roles) the more popular animals on the food chain, and their health greatly impacts the health of the other animals.
Another important thing the article points out are the psychological effects both in animals and people directly affected by the spill. Signs of stress, anxiety, and other mental disorders have been detected in many animals and in the people living in the communities along the Gulf coast. It is easy to see the immediate physical and economic consequences of a disaster of this magnitude on these people and in the ecosystem like the ones seen in the extensive media coverage, but it is much harder to assess the far less visible psychological and social effects.
This article reminded me of the populations in Ecuador affected by the presence of Exon's drilling operations in their communities as seen in the documentary we watched in class. How can you hold a company responsible for things that cannot be "directly linked" to the oil spill? Who can really hold them accountable for permanently damaging the Gulf's ecosystem? What will happen to the Gulf communities that are dependent on tourism and fishing, and suffered so much economically (and psychologically) as a result of the oil spill? How has their social dynamic changed? Will evidence from these types of studies be enough evidence to create more pressure for us to switch to cleaner energy sources?
It's interesting that the study investigated psychological effects in addition to environmental and economic ramifications of the gulf spill. While the psychological symptoms of stress and anxiety demonstrate the magnitude of the spill's pollution in both a physical and mental capacity, I doubt these results will further the fight for cleaner energy sources.
ReplyDeleteIt is extremely difficult to prove that there is a link between an event (oil spill) and an individual's state of mind. I fear that the oil companies would refute the claims of citizens and scientists who argue that psychological effects in animals and people exist as a direct result of the oil spill. I think studies that provide information on how the economy of the local population has changed after the spill and focus more on quantitative data, would meet with more favorable results in the legal system. The crux of the problem lies in linking the company to the oil spill and forcing that company to reimburse the community for the devastation which resulted from the spill. Although it would be impossible to put a price tag on the loss of animal life (including bacteria, etc.), tourism, fishing, and well-being in body and spirit, the compensation would at least make the perpetrators pay for their mistake.