Thoughts on disasters, the 24-hour news cycle, and unrealistic expectations…

In light of the tragic BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, there is once again an expectation amongst many Americans that a disaster of this magnitude can be fixed on demand within the framework of media talking points. The media is increasingly guilty of dramatizing events which will garner ratings, many times at the expense of the true story on the ground. Some anchors continually look for out of context sound bites and headlines that invoke our worst fears and divisive partisan opinion. To feed a hungry 24 hour news cycle, the press today has no choice but to dig for every angle, whether factual or prophetic, in order to satisfy the needy “hear what we want to, not what we need to” segment of our population.

Take for example the reporting by the major news networks over the past weeks of the oil spill: despite the common knowledge that BP was not truthful as it relates to the nature of the leak, the media is acting as if they knew the extent of the disaster when it first occurred. Next, these news anchors, talk show hosts, and partisan politicians who are swayed heavily by media reports and not researched facts, begin to spread blame along various chains of command and agencies that, while they obviously care deeply about fixing the disaster at hand, were unable to properly respond because of BP’s initial, lobbyist and public relations ridden attempts to cover up the true enormity of the pipe breach.

Unlike Hurricane Katrina, where the scope of the disaster was evident upon the breach of the levees, this disaster occurred nearly a mile below the shore, with technology to monitor the leak provided by the very people responsible. Until the oil became clearly visible from Satellite imagery, and estimates as to the scope of the leak where attained, it was virtually impossible for the US Government to put a plan into action that was based on the tangible, truthful, calculation of the extent of the spill. In addition, President Obama has expressed a sense of urgency and engagement that was absent in President Bush’s response to the flooding as a result of the failure of the Army Corps of Engineers to properly construct the levee system above the city of New Orleans.

With light speed internet sites like Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, and major news sites facilitating rumors and opinion at the expense of realistic, fact based schools of thought; it has become increasingly difficult to translate the pace of responsible decision making to the 24 hour news cycle. A thought out decision must include good information that facilitates a proper response. Until BP accepted the ramifications of its transgressions, there was no good way to know what kind of disaster to expect. The fact that it was not until today that the estimate of the size of the spill was revealed, it should not surprise people that there were mistakes and oversights in the Federal Government’s handling of the situation. The prevalent media talking point, that this disaster could have been handled well with such a broken system at the MMS and lack of candor from BP, is clearly a product of the unrealistic expectations.

Thoughts on President Obama's proposed offshore drilling plan...

Today, the President announced a controversial plan to raise offshore drilling bans on previously untouchable areas off the eastern US coast, from Virginia south to just north of Florida, northern Alaska, and the southeastern Gulf of Mexico; thus opening the door to bidders from the American oil and natural gas industry. This action should come as no surprise to those who followed Obama on the campaign trail in 2008. He stated, as a candidate, that he would take a hard look at reasonable ways to increase our domestic oil and natural gas supply while also taking into account the need to protect environmentally vulnerable areas, such as Alaska’s Bristol Bay and the numerous protected areas lining America’s west coast.

This decision is by no means apolitical, and the usual suspects have already begun to take their shots at the President’s drilling proposal. Critics from both sides of the aisle, such as House Minority Leader John Boehner, who stated “keeping the Pacific Coast and Alaska, as well as the most promising resources off the Gulf of Mexico, under lock and key makes no sense at a time when gasoline prices are rising and Americans are asking 'Where are the jobs?,” and environmentalists, opposed to any new drilling whatsoever, were quick to jump on the President’s decision. These left and right reactions act as further proof that Obama is governing primarily down the center of the political spectrum. The White House has called this kind of decision making “principled post partisanship”, largely basing their decisions on pragmatism, as opposed to party politics and short term gain.

Though the decision to increase drilling at home may be pragmatic, given that we unquestionably need to transition from foreign energy sources to domestic and alternative ones, this move was ultimately a strategic political concession made to appease conservatives in Congress in the name of the bigger picture. In order for Obama to gain broader bi-partisan support for the administrations larger agenda on energy reform, the Administration decided to go ahead with portions of the offshore drilling ban initially proposed by the George W. Bush Administration in 2008.

The difference in approach by the two Presidents’ is something that many environmentalists need to take note of. Obama, as opposed to Bush’s plan to use Bristol Bay as a drilling area, put the bay and other sensitive areas onto the list of forbidden places to drill. In addition, the plan also requires drilling to be at least 125 miles offshore from Florida, out of the view of those enjoying the coastline. In the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the plan is to drill near areas where platforms already exist, and to expand towards the southeast, not towards the western Florida coast. Governors in eastern states, such as Virginia and North Carolina, obviously aren’t excited by the prospect of oil rigs off their shores, but they do, for the most part, recognize the need to bring energy reform and independence to the forefront.

The Presidents broader point is this; as we now produce only 2% of the world’s oil supply, while we use approximately 25% of the global supply for our energy needs, it is in our best interest to harness domestic oil and natural gas as we develop new ways to power our grid and our cars. The imminent transition to clean energy will require a period of change where we wane off foreign suppliers in favor of domestic sources. Though in the short term there is the unfortunate chance of spills and harm to wildlife, there is no other way forward in the long term. The alternative is continued importation from nations in tense, war torn regions abroad. Given the entrenched views on the subject of environmental responsibility, inevitably, this is set to spur another fierce debate with a plethora of faces and arguments for and against it.

Liberal coastal populations will most likely be against this plan, but this opposition is to be expected. Republicans will have to decide whether they are going to behave in a bi-partisan manner, and join in on a policy change they have traditionally supported, or to continue the strategy of opposing every policy proposed by the Obama Administration. Democrats and Independents will need to look to the long term plan for comfort, as the prospect of offshore drilling and environmental impact is a hard pill for any environmentally conscious individual to swallow. None of these strategic decisions will be clean or without drama, and we should expect nothing less.

But, if we are to ultimately become an energy independent nation, this decision may be the crucial second step, along with increased focus on nuclear energy announced earlier this year, in a series of policy changes leading towards the larger goal of self-reliance. More steps will obviously be necessary, and the debate will probably get personal and heated, but as the national conversation pivots towards the future of the climate and energy, we will likely look back to these first two Obama decisions as crucial turning points in the long term pursuit of an energy independent America.