Guest columnist
The oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico reminds us that offshore oil exploration and drilling comes at a very real environmental and economic cost.
In this case, an ever-growing outpouring of oil threatens commercial and recreational fisheries, tourism and recreation industries in at least five states. These industries generate nearly $30 billion in revenues for the Gulf economy annually.
In 2008, commercial fishing alone brought in more than $10.5 billion in sales and supported more than 200,000 jobs in the Gulf region and eastern Florida. Millions of recreational fishers take fishing trips in the Gulf. In 2006, more than 7 million people participated in bird watching in eastern Florida and the Gulf region; wildlife watchers in general spent nearly $7 billion on trip expenses and purchases like binoculars and cameras.
This income is now in jeopardy from the spill.
But offshore oil is not alone in posing real environmental risks -- all energy production involves environmental impacts in the present and potential risks that in turn have economic consequences.
Nuclear power is safe and clean until it isn't, in which case nuclear radiation can harm human beings and ecosystems. Spent nuclear fuel lasts forever. Hydropower can flood entire ecosystems. We are only beginning to understand the long-term consequences of solar panel production, but one thing is clear -- once made, solar panels and their often toxic components remain on the planet for a very long time.
The public discussion of the potential environmental costs and risks associated with power generation has not been entirely transparent or accurate. BP, for example, is on record saying that a failure at the Deep Horizon rig was highly unlikely.
Similarly, we hear about clean coal and safe, affordable nuclear power, with assurances from politicians and engineers that science and technology has, or will, essentially deal with any pesky environmental problems that could arise. Most of these promises underestimate the real impacts and risks of energy production.
The result is that political calculus, more than science and economic analysis, often guides our choices about how to proceed with a national energy policy. Offshore wind is vilified because of the effects it may have on views or bird life, but how do these costs compare to the very large, even if unlikely, costs of nuclear accidents or offshore oil spills?
The independent investigation of the Deepwater Horizon rig is critical if we are to improve the way we make decisions about our energy future. We must understand the causes of the spill, how spills can be avoided in the future, the adequacy of containment and clean-up measures for spills generally, and the implications of these findings for drilling in, or adjacent to, sensitive or ecologically important areas.
Most importantly, we must come to grips with the fact accidents do happen, these accidents have costs, and we need to carefully include these costs when planning for new offshore energy development. The commission investigating the spill should use this opportunity to lay out a path that will guarantee that our national policies fully and transparently assess these costs and do so in a way that is consistent and integrated across federal and state agencies and initiatives.
One important way to move forward in planning for our offshore energy future is to make sure that our energy and climate policies are in sync with the president's proposed national ocean policy. This policy includes a process, called marine spatial planning, for making regional decisions about how we use the ocean based on a full accounting of the real and potential economic costs of ocean uses - including energy. It is a policy in which fishermen and businessmen come together to discuss the likely consequences of offshore oil before we drill, not after we spill. (Duke University just completed its sixth national meeting in which interests from oil, ocean renewable energy, fishing, shipping, tourism and aquaculture met to discuss ways of better planning for these varied economic activities.)
In short, we need to adopt a new policy that mandates ocean planning that balances energy needs, food security, ocean business, recreation and nature by using all of the best available science, including up-to-date science about risks and environmental costs.
Linwood Pendleton is the director of Ocean and Coastal Policy at Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions
