7 MB - University of Toronto Magazine

Leading EdgeQphoto: TANNEN maURY/epa/CorbisAsk an ExpertStephen ScharperAverting DisasterThe BP oil spill in the Gulfof Mexico, by far the largestin American history, haspoisoned the waters andmarshlands of the region,killed countless birds andmarine animals and thrownthousands of people in thefishing industry out of work.Stephen Scharper, a professor of anthropology at U of TMississauga and at U of T’s Centre for Environment, spokewith Paul Fraumeni, director of research communications,about how the catastrophic spill might have been averted.You have advocated that decision-makers adhere to the“precautionary principle.” What is this?By using the precautionary principle, you anticipate potentialharm, based on scientific and other evidence, to the environmentand human communities from any kind of activity. Theprinciple says you don’t need absolute scientific evidence thatan activity is going to bring harm; you can have suggestivescientific evidence. Therefore, you put in safeguards, such asis the case with automobiles.How does the precautionary principle relate to the Gulf ofMexico oil spill?There is a lot about this oil spill that is disturbing, and whichindicates that decision-makers didn’t follow the precautionaryprinciple. It has been revealed, for example, that the MineralManagement Service, the group responsible for overseeingdrilling in the United States, is also the group responsible forencouraging offshore oil drilling – and collecting the royaltiesfrom it. Thankfully, the Obama administration separated theseresponsibilities, and the director of the service resigned.The New York Times and other news organizations havereported that the service’s inspectors received gifts from oilcompanies. In some cases the companies were allowed to writetheir own inspection certificates and reports. MSNBC hasstated that permits were not required to build and install theDeepwater Horizon oil rig; government oversight was absent.The precautionary principle may not have been followedduring the cleanup either. In May, the Environmental ProtectionAgency warned that the chemical being used to dispersethe oil in the Gulf and the wetlands of Louisiana was harmfuland ordered BP to stop using it.The public outrage over this spill seems greater than withthe Exxon Valdez disaster off the coast of Alaska in 1989.Why do you think this is?The Gulf spill hit a traditional mainland area that affectsmillions of people and billions of dollars worth of businessin fishing and tourism. “Deep ecology” celebrates wildernessand the intrinsic value of nature. “Social ecology” looks athow environmental damage affects people and social communities.What’s interesting with this spill is that it blendsconcerns from social ecology with deep ecology. That’s onereason it’s received so much media attention.Will this be a watershed? In time, will this disaster changethings for the better?It’s too early to tell. Some people will continue to see thesespills as a necessary evil as the U.S. attempts to reduce itsdependence on foreign oil. What might turn people aroundis the fragility of the Gulf ecosystem. I was heartened thatPresident Obama implemented a six-month moratorium oncoastal drilling. This is where we have to put pressure ondecision-makers. In Canada, we have potentially the same riskwith the offshore oil rigs near Newfoundland and proposalsfor drilling in the Beaufort Sea. Something similar could happenhere very easily if we do not demand stringentprecautionary measures.autumn 2010 21