I thought about writing something regarding the remarks Mr. Carville made regarding the Obama Administration's handling of this nightmare that's continuing to unfold. I wake each morning, hoping that it was only a bad dream to find that it has just gotten deeper and more devastating in its enormity.
But the issue is this, it's so huge, so unknown that I don't even feel qualified to delve into the quagmire. The most damning circumstances to this Administration continues to be the previous administrations cozy relationship with Big Oil, shunning of the scientific community and total lack of oversight for many things that now affect the outcome of this nightmare.
I am not here to defend the apparent lack of urgency by the Obama Administration, I am frustrated beyond words that more political pressure has not been put on BP, Transocean and all those involved to do the right thing, which seems to be inherently lacking in their vocabulary because oil, profit and covering their assets seems to be a larger priority.
But I know my priorities and what we can do as a community to put pressure on this administration to do more and to act in our best interest, in the best interest of our oceans, our people and our future.
Sylvia Earle made these remarks to Congress and I believe on OUR behalf.
Please read them, I know that I, in my miniscule amount of knowledge could not have summarized this nor given it justice in any kind of way without included it in its entirety. It is public record.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the ocean and for people now and in the future who will be affected by the consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. That includes just about everyone on the planet, one way or another.
For more than fifty years, I have had experience on, around, above and under the Gulf of Mexico as a marine scientist and explorer, founded and led engineering companies devoted to development of equipment for access to the deep sea, served as a member of various corporate and dozens of nonprofit boards and as a member of numerous state, federal and international committees concerning ocean policy.
From 1990 to 1992 I was the Chief Scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency with up close and personal experience with the Exxon Valdez and Mega Borg oil spills, as well as extensive involvement with evaluation of the environmental consequences of the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf spill.
As I speak, I will be showing a video of the underwater realms in the Gulf of Mexico produced by Dr. David Guggenheim taken during the five-year Sustainable Seas Expeditions, a public-private partnership that I led involving the National Geographic, NOAA, the Goldman Foundation, and more than 50 industry, government, academic and other institutional partners--using manned submersibles and remotely operated vehicles as well as conventional and unconventional diving methods to document the nature of the coastal waters of this country and some of our neighbors to the south with special reference to areas designated for protection as National Marine Sanctuaries--and to explore other places that, if protected, could provide urgently needed safeguards against the rapid degradation taking place in our nation's Exclusive Economic Zone owing to destructive fishing practices, pollution, climate change and other impacts.
Nowhere is this more critical than in the Gulf of Mexico, yet only the tiny Flower Garden Banks and small areas within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuaries is there modest sanctity for wildlife in the U.S. Gulf waters.
Dr. Larry McKinney, who has conducted research in the Gulf of Mexico for decades remarked recently that as the present oil spill spreads, the Gulf of Mexico, the ninth largest body of water in the world, 615,000 square miles of blue, seems to be shrinking before our eyes.
Threats include:
Stress on the nation's valuable wetlands, 40 percent of such areas in the lower 48 states in Louisiana alone.
Stress for the Florida west coast and the extensive seagrass meadows and marshes--nursery areas for fish, shrimp and other organisms and, given the intricate flow of the Loop Current and its many spinoffs, threats to the wetland and offshore areas of Mississippi, Alabama ,Texas, Mexico, the Florida Keys, Cuba and via the Gulfstream, the eastern seaboard of the United States--and beyond.
Use of subsea dispersants injected at great depths, making it possible for deeper currents to move the oil's potential reach even further, and enhancing the toxic effect of oil with the toxic effect of the chemicals used to break oil into smaller droplets.
Economic impacts, such as those assessed by scientists and economists at the Harte Research Institute --a conservative figure of U.S.$1.6 Billion, taking into account losses including the production of ocean wildlife taken for food.
That does not measure threats to the billions of dollars in so-called free services provided by healthy reefs, marshes and seagrass meadows as natural filtration and shoreline protection systems. Nor does it account for impacts to the other priceless "free" services the living ocean renders to the nation's overall economy, to health, to security and ultimately, to the existence of life itself.
You have seen plenty of bad news images relating to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I want to illustrate here that the Gulf of Mexico is not, as some believe, an industrial wasteland, valuable primarily as a source of petrochemicals and a few species of ocean wildlife that humans exploit for food, commodities, and recreational fishing. These are assets worth protecting as if our lives depend on them, because in no small measure, they do.
These are assets worth protecting as if our lives depend on them, because in no small measure, they do.
Gulf of Mexico's 15,000 species
In 2009 Volume I of the 8-volume series on the Gulf of Mexico Origin, Waters and Biota lists 15,419 species within 40 phyla--embracing most of the large categories of life on Earth--covered in 79 chapters by 140 authors from 80 institutions in 15 countries.
The idea for this was hatched by Drs. Wes Tunnell, Daryl Felder and myself during a conversation at the Harte Research Institute in Corpus Christi in 2001 while reflecting on the need to update the 1954 Fishery Bulletin 89, a classic reference that provides a benchmark concerning the biological, physical, chemical meterological and economic aspects of the Gulf.
Biological data from the new series will appear electronically on the Web in Gulfbase and OBIS--the Ocean Biogeographic Information System, an online, open access, globally distributed network of systematic, ecological, and environmental data established in 1999 by the ten-year Census of Marine Life project. The Gulf of Mexico figures prominently in this year's celebration of Biodiversity of Life on Earth.
The Gulf of Mexico is a living laboratory, America's Mediterranean, a tri-national treasure better known for yielding hurricanes, petrochemicals, shrimp and, in recent years, notorious "dead zones," than for its vital role in generating oxygen, taking and holding carbon, distributing nutrients, stabilizing temperature, yielding freshwater to the skies that returns as rain--contributing to the ocean's planetary role as Earth's life support system.
As with the ocean as a whole, the most important values we derive from the Gulf of Mexico are those we take for granted. We have, because at one time, we could. But that is no longer true. We now understand there are limits to what we can put into or take out of this or any other part of the ocean without unfavorable consequences back to us.
It once seemed that--as with the ocean as a whole--the Gulf was so big, so vast, so resilient, that nothing we could do could harm it. The benefits we believed would always be there, no matter how large the trawls, how long the nets, how numerous the hooks for catching ocean wildlife--or how many, how long or how deep the pipelines, drilling operations, seismic surveys or production rigs.
While yielding to the pressure to extract golden eggs from the golden Gulf, we have failed to take care of the Gulf itself.
While yielding to the pressure to extract golden eggs from the golden Gulf, we have failed to take care of the Gulf itself.
Destructive fishing pressure has depleted sharks, tunas, menhaden, groupers, snappers, tarpon, turtles, shrimp, crabs, lobsters. More than 80 percent of some species have been extracted in 50 years, more than 90 percent of the sharks, swordfish, marlin and most grouper species. Fewer than 10 percent of the bluefin tunas remain, and all of the monk seals that once abounded as far north as Galveston have been exterminated. Used for meat and oil, the last living one was seen in 1952.
The main excuse for killing seals and whales was for the extraction of oil to provide heat and light to enhance human societies. The shift to fossil fuels may have saved the whales and seals, but now we are killing mountains and downstream rivers and the sea beyond to extract coal.
Excess carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels--coal, oil, gas--is warming the planet and acidifying the ocean. Oil spills have become less frequent with the application of new technologies, but it doesn't take many large ones, whether during the transport or drilling, to remind us of the dire consequences of neglect.
Ironically, fossil fuels have powered civilization to new heights of understanding--including the awareness that the future of humankind depends on swiftly shifting to energy alternative that do not generate carbon dioxide and otherwise cause planet-threatening problems!
Fossil fuels took us to the moon and to the universe beyond, and made it possible for us to see ourselves in ways that no generation before this time could fathom. They have provided the backbone of the extraordinary progress we enjoyed in the 20th century and now into the 21st. We now know that those of us now alive have participated in the greatest era of discovery and technological achievement in the history of humankind, largely owing to the capacity to draw on what seemed to be a cheap but by no means endless source of energy.
At the same time we have learned more, we have lost more.
We have learned more and we will lose more, will we not? At what cost? Costs that cannot be measured here of course because they have never been so far wide reaching.
And because we as a society, cannot put a value on something, until exploited, cannot really understand or quantify the actual value of the ocean and it's contents. And ultimately, I doubt it's measurable because it literally, for me, is the source of so much life and so much of what makes planet Earth, Earth.
Cheap energy, it turns out, is costing the Earth...so to speak.
Despite the enormous advance in knowledge, the greatest problem facing us now with respect to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is ignorance, and with it, complacency.
Despite the enormous advance in knowledge, the greatest problem facing us now with respect to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is ignorance, and with it, complacency.
Despite the years of research by hundreds of scientists and institutions, knowledge about the nature of Gulf of Mexico is still primitive, partly because the methods used for exploring the ocean are still primitive. Larry McKinney observes that we know more about the face of the moon than the bottom of the Gulf, and are better equipped to live and work in space than we are to explore the ocean on this planet.
We should be looking for the possibility of life in what is believed to be an ocean on one of Jupiter's moons, but why are we not at least as concerned about life in the ocean in this part of the solar system--the ocean that keeps us alive? Life in the sea, after all, supports the basic processes that we all take for granted--the water cycle, the oxygen cycle, the carbon cycle, and much more. With every breath we take, every drop of water we drink, we are dependent on the existence of Earth's living ocean.
Most of the heavy lifting concerning these benefits is accomplished by microorganisms--bacteria, phytoplankton, zooplankton. Headlines lament oiled birds, turtles, dolphins and whales, as they should, but where is the constituency concerned about oiled copepods, poisoned coccolithophorids, proclorococcus, diatoms, jellies, pteropods, squid, larval urchins, the eggs and young of this year's vital offspring of tuna, shrimp and menhaden?
We do take so much for granted though don't we, the water cycle, the oxygen cycle, the carbon cycle and so much more. We are so dependent on this big beautiful ocean and yet so many do not understand how or why. We have so separated ourselves from the Earth, her biomes and ecosystems that the basic understanding of those relationships is no longer common knowledge.
There is no life without water, clean, drinkable water. Yes, we know that and understand this on the surface, it makes sense. But obviously not enough people are angry and see the actual threat to our very existence.
Toxic Dispersants
Not only is the unruly flow of millions of gallons of oil an issue, but also the thousands of gallons of toxic dispersants that make the ocean look a little better on the surface--where most people are--but make circumstances a lot worse under the surface, where most of the life in the ocean actually is.
The instructions for humans using Corexit, the dispersant approved by the EPA to make the ocean look better warn that it is an eye and skin irritant, is harmful by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed, and may cause injury to red blood cells, kidney or the liver. People are warned not to take Corexit internally, but the fish, turtles, copepods and jellies have no choice. They are awash in a lethal brew of oil and butoxyethanol.
The technologies for finding, extracting and transporting oil and gas from the sea are as sophisticated as those required to work hundreds of miles high in the sky, yet where is the comparable technology to safeguard the ocean when something goes wrong--such as when a blowout preventer malfunctions in 5,000 feet of water?\
The dispersants. What do we know? What don't we know?
We know that the fish, turtles and all those in the sea have no choice about this corexit, they have no choice, they cannot decide to ingest it, as Earle points out. THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.
How many are dying below the surface? How many?
We cannot afford a, 'Giant Experiment' in Marine Toxicology.
Precarious solutions
The technical expertise mustered to stop the flow of oil is the best in the world, but since those talented engineers were not required to focus on adequately dealing with such problems well in advance, the make-in-up-as-they-go-along solutions sound precarious, at best. Jamming a metal top hat over the leak? Threading a mile-long straw into a torrent of toxic fluid? Stuffing garbage down the hole?
Human occupied, autonomous and remotely operated systems developed to support inspection, maintenance and repair have come a long way since offshore oil production began in the Gulf in 1947, but why aren't the U.S. Coast Guard and NOAA provided with fleets of appropriate manned submersibles, ROVs, and AUVs to monitor and evaluate the oceans everyday, and be ready when needed to respond to emergencies such as the present one?
Billions have been invested for ships, aircraft and spacecraft to provide these functions on and above the surface of the sea,and it has paid off mightily. But we have neglected technologies to explore, monitor and safeguard what is under the surface, and it is costing us dearly.
This year in this city, several celebrations were held to honor U.S. Navy Captain Don Walsh and Swiss explorer Jacques Piccard for their history-making descent seven miles down in the Mariana Trench, the deepest place in the sea. No one has been back since, and only two machines, the Japanese Kaiko, and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution's Nereus, have made successful journies there. Seven miles in the sky, meanwhile, people watch movies, take naps, eat lunch.
No one has descended to the greatest depth in the Gulf of Mexico, about three miles down in the Sigsbee Deep near Yucatan. In fact, no one knows for sure exactly where the deepest place in the Gulf is, or if they do, proving it has been an elusive goal.
Investment in new technologies to effectively explore, monitor and safeguard the ocean loom large on the short list of actions, coupled with the ongoing support to keep them in operation. The fleet of U. S. submersibles, ROVs and AUVs presently available for scientific research and ocean care is more than pathetic. It is scandalous.
The Alvin, after more than 40 years of productive service, is soon to be retired and her replacement is far from complete. The two Johnson-sea-link submersibles that have yielded priceless information and insights about the nature of the Gulf and the ocean beyond are no longer being supported at the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution.
Only Japan, Russia, France, and now China have manned subs that can go to half the ocean's depth, and the new Alvin is expected to go only two and a half miles.
We have failed to invest to protect what is underneath the surface, it seems to be a perfect analogy for so many things that we, as human beings, have failed to prepare and protect.
The surface is merely that, what lies beneath holds so much more. That iceberg's tip is what the media, the skeptics the people who deny want so many to concentrate on because no one likes the depths of the unknown.
But we have to learn to become comfortable with the idea that we do not know it all.
Our biggest failure will be our hubris. Unfortunately, this goes far deeper into our society from the halls of our Government to the boardrooms of large Corporations who think they can control the media and the message.
But the problem is this, they are not the only ones to bear the outcome of this disaster. And that is where we must stand and demand answers. We cannot point fingers only, we have to work to strip back the layers of hubris and greed to show that, in the end, the most important goal is to save our oceans and our future and to do that, we need to check our collective egos at the door.
That is an almost impossible task.
Thoughts and Solutions
I could go on about the problems, but I have only a few minutes and would like to summarize with thoughts about solutions. While encouraging and supporting all-out efforts to stop the flow of oil, the following might be considered:
- Halt the subsurface use of dispersants and limit surface use to strategic sites where other methods cannot safeguard critically important coastal habitats.
- Immediately deploy subsurface technologies and sensors to evaluate the fate of the underwater plumes of oil, as well as the finely dispersed oil and chemicals and their impact on floating surface forests of Sargassum communities, life in the water column, and on the sea floor.
- Immediately gather baseline data, both broad and detailed, to measure impacts and recovery.
- Support operations to salvage and restore the 40 or so species of affected large wildlife species and their habitats.
- Support initiatives to create large reserves in the Gulf to facilitate recovery and ongoing health of the thousands of less conspicuous species and marine ecosystems, from the deepest areas to shallow shores.
It is urgent that large areas of the Gulf of Mexico be designated for full protection from extractive activities. Protected areas are critically needed to safeguard important spawning areas for bluefin tuna, for grouper, snapper, sharks and even the wily species of shallow and deepwater shrimp. Aside from the importance of such areas for healthy ecosystems to survive, they are essential if fishing is to continue as a way of life in the Gulf. (No fish, no fishermen.)
Implementing and expanding the Islands in the Stream concept long proposed by NOAA for a network of marine protection in the Gulf would be a good place to begin.
- Make substantial investments in human occupied, robotic and autonomous systems, sensors and stations for exploration, research, monitoring and safeguarding the living ocean. The U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA, the EPA and the USGS should have such resources available to complement ships, and air and spacecraft, and it is in the nation's best interest to support development of such facilities for use by non-federal research institutions as well.
- Embark on expeditions to explore deep water in the Gulf of Mexico and establish permanent monitoring stations and protocols.
- Encourage tri-national collaboration among scientists and institutions around the Gulf.
- Mobilize good minds to address solutions such as the Gulf of Mexico Summit five years ago that helped launch a regional governance body of U.S. and Mexican states. A new summit is being planned by the Harte Research Institute to take place later this year to address next steps to assure an economically and ecologically healthy Gulf of Mexico.
Cuba, a country that some have been worrying about with respect to the possibility of oil spills heading north as exploration and drilling are picking up in that country, now is faced with worries about the consequences of a major spill from the U.S. heading south.
- While investing in rapid expansion of safe energy alternatives, new standards of care need to be implemented for industries extracting oil and gas from the Gulf and elsewhere in US waters. Thorough documentation of the nature of the seafloor and surrounding region should be made public prior to operations such as drilling, establishing platforms and laying pipeline, and monitoring of changes to the environment measured and made publically available. Environmental issues need to be taken into account, and be the basis for excluding operations when necessary to protect vital environmental concerns. Transparency is vital.
Five minutes is time enough only to touch on a few major concerns, but I want to end by emphasizing the greatest threats, past, present and future to the Gulf, to the ocean, and to the future of humankind. That would be ignorance, and its terrible twin, complacency.
The loss of human lives, the destruction of the life-giving Gulf cannot be justified as an acceptable cost of doing business, but if we really do go forward with a commitment to do things differently henceforth, we will have gained something of enduring value. We must do better about thinking like an ocean, and thinking on behalf of those who will benefit--or suffer--from the consequences of our actions.
Now, maybe for the first time, we know what to do. We still have a chance to make peace with the ocean.
Thank you Mrs. Earle for speaking for me, for so many of us who cannot have the ear of Congress and those who are the gatekeepers of our Government, who are supposed to represent us and our interests. We elect them all and for many years our voices have been drowned out by Large corporate interests and big money that can keep the real issues at hand merely floating at the surface.
What we face here is not about today, or what happened a month ago. It is much more complicated and dire. And yet, we still have a chance to make peace with the ocean.
I hope so.