Twenty-five years ago today, the Exxon Valdez spilled 161
million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound near Alaska. After
billions of dollars of clean-up and reparations, and decades of legal disputes,
and thousands of lives changed forever….
Crude oil still pollutes the waters of the sound.
When incidents like this happen, we are supposed to learn a
lesson. Tell a person that they should use caution because something MIGHT
happen, and most of the time you caution will fall on deaf ears. However, once someone sees what HAS happened,
they usually respond with a passion to correct the wrong – especially if it has
harmed them or someone they love.
After twenty-five years, however, we seem slow to make the
corrections necessary. Every year, we
hear of a new spill, leak, or other environmental incident associated with the
extraction, transportation, or processing of fossil fuels. The news stories talk of companies that
regret the damage, and that will make reparations swiftly and fairly. As Exxon Valdez proves, all the talk in the
world will not restore an ecosystem, or return a living to a fisherman who no
longer has a place to fish.
The common response from politicians or industry leaders
conveys part of the problem. They state
that, “Everything that could have been done to prevent the damage was done, and
everything that can be done to clean it up will be done.” This makes for a helpful sound bite, but does
not convey the whole truth. What that
statement means is that they did the bare minimum of what they were required to
do, and that they will do whatever they can afford to do. Neither the business leaders nor the
politicians have all the responsibility for this. Their response echoes the desires that we as
a society have for the energy from these fossil sources. We want to believe that our use of these
energy sources has no negative consequence, and that any disturbance causes
only temporary and localized damage.
As populations increase, and the need for these resources
continue to increase, we will only hear about more oil spills, mine collapses,
earthquakes, etc. associated with fossil fuel development. If we truly want to quell or mitigate these
incidents, then we have one simple recourse…
Make sure that the companies that we have delegated to
perform this task carry all the costs associated with prevention, response,
clean-up, and damage to health.
This means that the fossil fuel industry needs to employ
more inspectors, build more resilient and protective infrastructure, and
maintain response crews at and along every piece of its network. They would employ better technology, find the
most efficient way to accomplish the risk management, and protect lives in the
process. In this requirement for bearing
all the costs, we would include a zero-tolerance policy for failure. Any life ended or damaged would require full
and pre-determined compensation. Any
ecosystem damaged would require full and immediate restoration. Any clean-up would require full and immediate
completion. Although I know that the
costs of climate change should fall under this umbrella, I would accept – as a
start – including the direct costs of spill prevention, mine collapse
prevention, earthquake prevention, particulate emissions elimination, coal ash
decontamination, oil spill clean-up….all the activities that have a direct tie
to the supply chain.
Those in industry would decry such regulation as
over-reaching. In truth, it simply lets
the reality of the industry match the perception and outward appearance that
the corporations want. People want to
believe that fossil fuels systems have little to no impact on their daily
lives, and that we can use them safely.
Industry wants us to believe that environmental issues occur rarely, and
that when they do happen, they respond immediately and completely. It is not an over-reach to want this to be
the reality.
Industry is right when it says that this will impact the
viability of the industry. If people do
not want to pay the cost for this level of security, some sectors of the
industry may collapse. In few other
businesses, however, do we let this prevent us from protecting lives. We do not allow a restaurant to remain open
if it poisons someone, we do not allow a medical practitioner to continue work
if they do not do everything within their power to save a life. If the industry cannot protect life and
survive, then we need to know that. A basic principle of economics holds that all parties in a transaction have full
knowledge of the transaction when they do business.
For years, the fossil fuel industry has violated this basic
tenant of the free market, and it is time that we held ourselves accountable.
No comments:
Post a Comment