Environmental Education Media Project

Magic Realism in the Gulf of Mexico

Wednesday, June 2, 2010 at 12:49 AM

We are in an historical moment.  So much needs to be said.  Yet words seem so inadequate, so futile -- so much talk as oil explodes from the sea floor.

The pattern is all too familiar.

Lax government oversight of profit maximizing firms; technical, health, and environmental safety still treated as irritants in the way of the core business; minimizing the scale of destruction; independent science and government regulators slow to challenge corporate pronouncements; the collection and display of dead animals; intensifying recrimination, hearings, suits; battles raging on the airwaves, in the halls of Congress; people’s job threatened or lost; mounting frustration.

There are a few systemic absurdities worth noting in this disaster.  Someone needs to perform an economic analysis of how much the offshore oil industry has invested, comparatively, in new drilling technology and in new safety technology.  That we can now drill into reservoirs of oil that sit not only a mile under the sea, but also another 3 miles underneath the sea floor is mind-boggling.  That our approach to planning for loosing control of such drilling continues to revolve around surface containment booms, burns, and skims is absolutely pathetic.  With all due respect, but how hard is it to figure out that the environmental risk from such deep drilling efforts is fundamentally different from that of a surface spill from, just for example, a tanker off the coast of Alaska?

Related, booms make sense if one expects the oil to come to the surface in large quantities.  Dispersants make sense, perhaps, as a technique for ensuring that large quantities of oil never make it to the surface – and onto beaches as well as televisions.  But massive quantities of toxic dispersants flushed into the ocean a mile down and booms placed along the surface?

As a means of keeping the oil off the evening news by keeping the worst images of damage well below the surface, dispersants may be doing a very effective job.   But as a path to mitigating long-term environmental devastation, this is nothing more than a cynical return to the most ignorant sophisms of the 1950s.  We were told over and over and over that the lake, the river, the forest, the atmosphere [fill in the blank as you like] was big enough to absorb the pollution without significant damage.  Then as now, far from resolving the problem, we are – language matters – dispersing it.

And what better name could possibly have been given to the oil field resting calmly miles below the oceans surface, ensconced in its geologic tomb only to be punctured by BP’s drill?  Macondo; the fictional name used by the master of magic realism, Gabrielle Garcia Marquez, to describe his birthplace. 

Nalco seems to have wholly embraced this literary genre when searching for product names.  The two chemical agents (9500A and 9527A) that disperse the oil bear the fantastical name of – Corexit.  Of course, it does nothing of the sort, but no matter, it surely cannot do any harm itself.  As stated on Nalco’s website that characterizes but does not name the seven ingredients in Corexit, “a third ingredient is found in a popular brand of baby bath liquid,” and “put another way, COREXIT 9527 is more than 7 times safer than dish soap.”  And if that is not reassurance enough, Dr. Manian Ramesh, Chief Technology Officer for Nalco, provides the details we really need to feel good.  He explains that “dispersants work on an oil spill as dishwashing detergent works on a greasy skillet: they break up oil into tiny droplets that sink below the water's surface where naturally occurring bacteria consume them. Without dispersants, oil stays on the water's surface, where bacteria can't get at them.”

The pattern is all too familiar.

 - Jonathan J. Halperin

Telling the Story

Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 12:30PM

Flying back from Montana, as the snow-covered mountaintops merge with the clouds, I ponder the wide-ranging discussions, topics, and personalities at the 33^rd International Wildlife Film Festival.  It was deeply rewarding and humbling to accept our award on behalf of the whole team that made, marketed, and funded “Hope in a Changing Climate.”  Animals featured in the award-winning films ran the gamut from hummingbirds to humpbacks, from freshwater shrimp to the California condor – and, of course, Homo sapiens.

Last evening, we had a peak at some of the forthcoming footage from Alastair Fothergill’s forthcoming “The Frozen Planet.”  As the creator of the seminal “Planet Earth” series, Fothergill is one of the few people today who can command the budgets needed to employ a million dollar gyroscopic gimbal to steady a camera in a helicopter in order to film frolicking polar bears.  The experience is more than visual, as one is emotionally swept into the movie.  A moment of awe, for sure, and also one of some unease; it seems almost hyper-real in ways that scramble the senses.

Nothing could be farther from the stunning spectacles filmed by Fothergill’s team, such as orcas working in a pack to dislodge a seal from the safety of its ice float, than the amateur images on Vanessa Serrao’s NatureBreak.  Hers is an effort to create an on-line social community of animal lovers who post mini-videos of their day-to-day encounters with the animals in their lives. 

But as was emphasized over and over again, it is story-telling that makes the movie.  The technology matters, the funding matters, and whether one distributes via physical DVD, a global broadcast, a web cast, or some combination the essence of a good film remains the story.

It was thus immensely gratifying to screen “Hope in a Changing Climate” in the historic Wilma Theatre in Missoula.  While we hardly filled the grand 1,100-seat theatre, the audience was clearly energized and excited by the film.  The questions flowed, enthusiasm was in the air, and people were bubbling with praise for the uplifting and empowering message.  Amidst all the documentary evidence of vast ecological problems, our small film stands as compelling evidence that something can be done to stabilize the changing climate, to address endemic poverty, and to make sustainable agriculture a reality.

In discussions with a range of talented and diverse people, I posed many questions.  And we wrestled with one set after the closing ceremony.  With the vast array of technology and knowledge available to us, with an expanding mix of distribution mechanisms unfolding around us why don’t we, the community of environmental filmmakers, tell more stories of success and opportunity?  How, conversely, do we avoid falling into the mainstream media rut of hyping devastation and destruction?  How do we convey the beauty and the drama of the everyday moment; the magnificence of the normal; the wondrous harmony of people living as stewards of the land for this and the next generation?

- Jonathan J. Halperin

Tilting at Windmills?

Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 11:26PM

Sandwiched between front-page headlines today in the New York Times--one on the approval of wind farms off the Massachusetts coast and the other on progress of the financial reform bill to reign in Wall Street excesses—was the story of the Gulf Coast oil slick.  As a thematic collage of our moment, it was arresting in its depiction not only of the renewable energy economy emerging from the goo of the fossil fuel era, but also in the juxtaposition of old money and new.

A generation ago, who would have imagined harvesting the wind? A quixotic endeavour, to be sure.  Will people a generation hence consider wind speeds in property purchasing decisions the way we today consider the view?

Who twenty years ago would have envisioned that we would today need to fix a price for carbon based not on its inherent value but rather on the earth’s limited ability to absorb it?  Although we talk about the carbon market, it is really an un-carbon market that is emerging.  If it takes some mental agility to understand Wall Street's affinity for securitized subprime derivatives, then it is world class mental gymnastics to make sense that we are now buying and trading an invisible gas that no one really wants, and of which we have vastly too much for the health of our species.

If there is value in capturing carbon, if emitters of carbon are effectively going to have to pay rent in order to use some of the earth’s capacity to absorb carbon, then it seems quite likely that wealth is going to be redistributed on scale that we have perhaps never before experienced.  We can see the turbine blades spin as we harvest wind.  It won't be long before someone devises a way to meter the photosynthetic process that draws carbon out of the atmosphere.  Granted, a bit more complex than capturing sap dripping out of a maple tree.

But impossible?  A dream?  An impossible dream?

I think not.

- Jonathan J. Halperin

What's An Ant Worth?

Monday, April 26, 2010 at 08:54PM

Listening just now to E.O. Wilson, the esteemed biologist, talking about the sophistication of ant colonies I am reminded of an energized conversation I had some years ago on this topic. The only American businessman among nearly a hundred water engineers and wastewater managers from across the Soviet Union, our discussion was usefully lubricated by the quite famous Russian national beverage - locally produced, organic and quite potent.

As we cruised among the lakes and rivers of Northern Russia discussing the challenges of running bankrupt wastewater plants from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok, remembering the robustness of mostly invisible ant colonies was a useful counterpoint to the very visible and ongoing collapse of the Soviet economy.  Though surely not a recommended approach for environmental protection, that collapse led to profound improvements in air and water quality as hundreds of immense plants were shuttered, along with their belching smokestacks and coughing drain pipes.

Fully understanding the core connections between environmental protection and economic growth remains a challenge around the world.  While nothing reduces pollution quite like economic collapse, so too developed nations devote much higher percentages of GDP to environmental protection than do developing countries.  American celebrants of the 40^th anniversary of Earth Day note with pride how much has changed in America.  The founder of the original Earth Day teach-in, Dennis Hayes, spoke with power and eloquence (and not a note or prompt) a few days ago – at the Ronald Reagan International Center.  Yet Bill McKibben writes that we have utterly failed to address the environmental issue of our time – climate change.

At sessions before and after that dinner in the Reagan Center, participants in the “Creating Climate Wealth” conference, sponsored by Richard Branson’s Carbon War Room, were challenged to identify short-term strategies for radically reducing carbon emissions over the next ten years across a variety of industrial sectors.  The former President of Costa Rica, Jose Maria Figueres, set the tone by reminding participants that “there is no Planet B,” an effective pivot from British retailer Marks & Spencer’s “Plan A” for sustainability.

I participated in a number of the conference sessions, after earlier in the week presenting EEMPs “Hope in a Changing Climate” documentary at the National Forest Service and on the National Mall.  Not surprisingly, given the focus on harnessing the power of entrepreneurs to address climate change, there was not much discussion of the post-Soviet solution to environmental protection.  There was little discussion of the benefits of buying less, flying less, driving less.  General (Ret.) Wesley Clark did note, however, that the power of entrepreneurship to build a green economy is likely to run into heavily entrenched economic and political forces quite determined to defend with their previously acquired “climate wealth.”

So the complex connections remain.  Is the issue that we don’t yet fully price environmental externalities into the costs of our goods and services?  Is it that we don’t yet fully value ecosystems, that we subsidize the price of a 2x4, but not the inherent value of a standing tree?  Can we, at the end of the day, buy our way out of the problem?

- Jonathan J. Halperin

Time

Friday, April 16, 2010 at 02:07PM

Give or take a few hundred-thousand years, the period of greatest volcanic activity on planet earth occurred about 200,000,000 years ago and lasted for about 600,000 years.  During this time, the Atlantic Ocean was formed. The first airplane flew along the shore of that ocean in 1903.  And today, a volcanic eruption in Iceland has grounded some 28,000 airplanes across Europe, reminding us of how different human time is from either evolutionary or geologic time.

Measured against the span of human life, 1903 is quite a while ago; few people alive when the airplane was invented are still alive today.  An airline flight of roughly seven hours to cross the Atlantic from New York to London (just under 3,000 miles) is really a quite remarkable feat.  But from a geologic perspective seven hours is virtually immeasurable.  With an upset infant in the row behind you, however, that seven hours can seem interminable.

The experience of time is thus as much about perception and experience as it is about the accuracy of a timepiece.  I have been thinking about time as I prepare my remarks for a screening this Sunday on the national Mall in Washington of Hope in a Changing Climate.  As part of the celebration of Earth Day, I have six minutes to talk before we play a seven-minute clip of our 28-minute documentary that looks across the sweep of geologic time to demonstrate the power of ecosystem restoration to repair our damaged world.

And as I prepare these remarks, John D. Liu and my other colleagues from the EEMP Beijing office are in Rwanda preparing a new film for UNEP that will air on World Environment Day in Rwanda on June 5.  Earth Day was first celebrated 40 years ago, on April 22, 1972; World Environment Day has been commemorated since 1973.

Whether measured on a clock or a calendar, differing perceptions of time drive different behaviors.  Actuaries work one conception of time, while marine biologists inhabit another world of time.  Flight controllers manage time very differently from someone living in the Amazon whose life may be governed more by natural solar or lunar cycles.

The EEMP calendar for April and beyond is also becoming increasingly full with terrific opportunities around the world and here in the United States to spread the core messages of Hope in a Changing Climate.

Whether celebrating Earth Day or World Environment Day; whether developing a strategic plan for a Fortune 50 company or developing a planting plan for an organic farm; whether measuring time with a quartz watch or by the length of the shadows cast by the setting sun, it behooves all of us to better understand the different ways of experiencing time.  We can, and must, choose how we think about time.  Species survival and respect for geologic and evolutionary reality demand that we become more sophisticated in how we think about time.  Ecosystems need us to better understand the timescales across which they function, become damaged and can be repaired.

Ok — the phone is ringing.  My time has run out, and I need to finish this blog. Now.

- Jonathan J. Halperin