Always tradeoffs…and complexities and externalities
For readers’ information, this study page 193 appears to be most comprehensive and recent (2005) on dispersants for oil (hat tip Salon):
One of the most difficult decisions that oil spill responders and natural resources managers face during a spill is evaluating the environmental trade-offs associated with dispersant use. The objective of dispersant use is to transfer oil from the water surface into the water column. When applied before spills reach the coastline, dispersants will potentially decrease exposure for surface dwelling organisms (e.g., seabirds) and intertidal species (e.g., mangroves, salt marshes), while increasing it for water-column (e.g., fish) and benthic species (e.g., corals, oysters). Decisions should be made regarding the impact to the ecosystem as a whole, and this often represents a trade-off among different habitats and species that will be dictated by a full range of ecological, social, and economic values associated with the potentially affected resources. Comparing the possible ecological consequences and toxicological impacts of these trade-offs is difficult. First, each oil spill represents a unique situation and second, it is often difficult to extrapolate from published research data into field predictions, especially regarding the possibility of long-term, sublethal toxicological impacts to resident species (Box 5-1 provides definitions for most the common terms used in discussions of toxicological effects).
yep
always trade offs.
for example, right now we are trading off poisoning the planet against having to drive a smaller car. god the agony of chosing.
fact is, oil was a big help in advancing technological civilization. we are now at a point where we could cut way back on its use and not hurt our quality of life. but like an oxycontin addict, we have learned to enjoy the sensation.
I wondered when some one would talk about the effects of the dispersants. Very nasty for shrimp, oysters, clams and all kinds of little organisms that feed fish. No more Apalachicola oysters for us, looks like. This is bad. The poor souls who still fish for a living in MS, AL and West Florida are going to have to look for some other kind of work. Couldn’t have happened at a worse time.
***we are now at a point where we could cut way back on its use and not hurt our quality of life.***
Yes and no. We can’t quit cold turkey. We can evolve away over several decades without a lot of pain for most people. But what do we do about suburban housing in the middle of nowhere and things like that? In a sane world, the family that wrote a half million dollar IOU for a house in Temecula is going to be in a world of hurt. As are folks that built and sold pleasure boats with huge engines. Etc, etc, etc.
And who is we? Americans/Canadians live in a different energy regeime than do Chinese or Mauritanians. The developing world wants a hell of a lot more than just maintaining their current quality of life. Ever seen a Latin American or Middle Eastern slum? It’s likely that those people are going to burn every drop of recoverable petroleum on this planet over the next century.
Codger
cutting back is not quitting cold turkey.
i hate to say this again, but we could have an electric car in every garage in the city in a year without lowering anyone’s standard of living and cutting energy use about 10% overall. if we decided we could live with a 25 mph small car in the city that needed recharging every fifty miles or so.
we could learn to live with lowered thermostats or w/o air conditioning altogether with just a little bit of sense. i lived in Florida without air conditioning, and so can you. i am fine at 55 degrees in winter. i bet you could adjust to 60 degrees. but you wouldn’t have to do it all at once.
and i have yet to see any evidence whatsoever the poverty is related to energy use. poverty is a consequence of political power. period. we could probably improve our quality of life by cutting back on our energy use.