Mass Killing; dead infant dolphins in the Gulf

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) declared that an unusual mortality of dolphins in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida was observed since the spill.

The death toll along 200 miles of shoreline has climbed to at least 82 death since the spill, about 15 times the normal mortality rate for dolphins along the Gulf Coast this time of year,

This increasing number of dead infant dolphins is completely without precedent.  Not mentioning the unfrequented beaches of Alabama, blocked by BP and far from media coverage where dead infant dolphins are left in the sand. How could we believe that tons of oil and dispersant can be just disappearing?

Offshore drilling in the Artic or the polar bear; we must make a choice

Oil industry’s wanted to drill offshore in the Arctic for 20 years. A United States Geological Survey report released last November; cut by 90 percent the agency’s estimates of onshore oil in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve, after environmentalists successfully challenged a decision to grant the company air-quality permits , throwing Shell's exploration program into disarray. This is a victory especially for the polar bears as the oil and gas development was planning to drill in America’s most important polar bear habitat. The polar bear is not a small species is the representation of an entire ecosystem. Additionally, large carnivores are sensitive indicators of ecosystem health; WWF has identified the polar bear as a unique symbol of the complexities and inter-dependencies of the arctic marine ecosystem.

The environmental problem associated with oil is also the burning and the transport that contribute to global warming. The Arctic sea-ice, the Polar Bear Habitat may be reduced if Greenhouse gas emissions are stabilized (USGS, 2010). In addition, according to the journal, Nature, habitats essential to polar bears would benefit if global greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced. Due to Oil and gas activity, and shipping, the Arctic between September 2006 and September 2007, has a loss of sea ice equaled the total amount of ice lost during the previous 27 years (USGS, 210). This exponential loss of ice in such a short time was one of the reasons why so many scientists were concerned that there “might be a tipping point beyond which sea ice would be irreversibly lost” (USGS, 2010).

One aspect of increasing fossil fuel costs is to try to drill at any price the last fossil fuel world’s reserves regardless of the terrible consequences for the environment. Offshore oil drilling is a good example of what human can do to an already highly polluted ocean when huge financial interests are involved. Oil spill can spoil the ecology and economic value of a region for decades. Offshore drilling jeopardizes our natural richness for short term economic profit for Multinational Corporations which pays taxes also offshore, thus, do not contribute to the local economy and do not including the cost of environmental damages into the equation. The oil industry’s benefit is at the opposite of the long term perceptive that concerns the environment and social, health, ascetic, educational, environmental and natural heritage. Furthermore, environmental damages can be irreparable if animal species or coral reefs are harmed.

The oil companies can drill and make us pay the high price of any non-renewable declining commodity, a clean cut benefit for them. Some scientists estimate that the reserve of oil will be depleted within 50 years, thus, our children will live in a world without fuel. Even with technological advances, the most optimistic predictions are for global oil production to peak around 2035 (Murck, Skinner, 2010). We are the last generation to be able save what left of the Arctic and the world’s biodiversity. While the discussion of drilling in the Arctic is ongoing, the technology in photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, biomass and some many innovative scientific technologies is only waiting for a little investment. 

 
References: 

Murck, B. W., Skinner, B. J., & Mackenzie, D. (2010). Visualizing geology, 2nd ed. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley. USGS. Press release (2010) http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2666&from=news_side New York Times. Editorial (2010). http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/u-s-firms-up-critical-habitat-for-polar-bears/?scp=4&sq=offshore%20drilling%20Arctic%20National%20Wildlife&st=cse VANISHING KINGDOM, The Melting Realm of the Polar Bear. (n.d.). [Brochure]. Retrieved from
http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/Publications/WWFBinaryitem4928.pdf

Our children will have to live in a world without fuel so why are we still drilling?

We a choice, offshore oil drilling near coastlines and drilling in general  or a clean energy economy that would stop global warming. A sustainable and clean future instead of pursuing false solutions that jeopardize our natural richness. The solutions for our future can't be analysis with short-term projection based on cost/benefit analysis.


The issue of drilling involved not just risks but also total incertitude on the after drilling, "placing a price tag on the environment involves serious ethical and philosophical consideration". Natural capital is a large part of the national economic wealth and should be counted like human capital in economical analysis.


Drilling along Florida coast is analyzed by his supporters with a cost-benefit analysis approach. The problem of this calculation is that the benefit is only the one of oil companies and they are at the opposite of the people benefit.  The monetary benefit of oil companies and the long term benefit of people and future generation is not the same.The cost of drilling for an oil company is a matter of monetary investment, for people the cost is not measurable in dollar but in social, health, ascetic, educational, environmental and natural heritage parameters. As a scientific fact, “the reserve of oil and gas will be largely depleted within 50 years”


The oil companies can drill and make us pay the high price of any non-renewable declining commodity, a clean cut benefit for them. Oil companies do not even create good jobs for the local community because they consist on short-term job market just for the time of the drilling operation. At the opposite, the environmental damages are not going to be eliminated as fast as the jobs or the drilling platform, environmental damages can be irreparable if animal species or coral reefs are harmed. The failure to add the price of environmental damages of oil drilling to the cost/benefit analysis is part of a short-term approach that can cost unknown monetary sum to future generation.


In economics, "value is considered to flow from our desires and preferences", thus, the question is, are we talking about desires of oil companies and preferences of politicians for their campaign funding? Or, are we analyzing people and future generation health and sustainable future?   It seems inconsistent to alter our assessment of long-term environmental problems based on current interest rate fluctuations arising from financial markets that have little to do with the environment”.




References:
Harris, Jonathan (2006). Environmental and Natural resource economics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin