Surely, the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico qualifies as an ecological disaster. One need not be a tree-hugging environmentalist to see this as a case of human activity gone awry, resulting in damage to the earth, in an assault to the balance of nature. The sordid impact on marine animals, plants and humans will be with us for the inestimable future.
The oil spill came a few weeks after President Obama gave the green light for limited offshore oil drilling. The president was admirably trying to formulate a mix of measures that, together, would reduce American dependence on Middle East oil. The right liked his inclusion. Groups on the left opposed him in part because of the potential for ecological disaster.
So whose case is best made with this Gulf of Mexico oil spill? The anti-drilling environmentalists on the left? The self-sufficiency advocates on the right?
The answer is both.
The April 20 oil well explosion and subsequent spill was an accident, a tragic one at that, with 11 men killed. It was an I-told-you-so moment for opponents of offshore drilling. It is being called the worst environmental disaster since the Exxon Valdez oil spill 21 years ago, and vividly illustrates both the danger of tampering with the earth to serve human needs and the need for stricter environmental controls, supervision and enforcement.
On the other hand, the disaster of more than seven million gallons of valuable yet dangerous oil having spewed into the Gulf of Mexico is an in-your-face show and tell that plenty of oil is available; that, if we do drill more, we will become at least partially free of dependence on the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The challenge once the oil well is plugged up and the spill comes under control is to learn from this disaster. Can the US learn how to prevent such accidents and also avail ourselves of the natural resources under the ocean floor in our own coastal waters?
The answer to both questions should be yes.
