Satire in the name of love
Social
media is increasingly being used as a platform for communication, advertising and
international diplomacy, as well as for smatterings of environmental satire,
the latter is by far my favourite. To borrow a line from Peter Ustinov "Comedy is simply a funny way of being
serious”.
So, the reef
is still alive as whole, but being increasingly damaged, largely as a result of
anthropogenic induced warming of sea surface temperatures.
This has been the basis for environmental NGO concern and may have been a
factor in B.P having pulled out of drilling proposals, however other companies, including Chevron still remain.
A video from The Juice Media, in support of a Greenpeace campaign to
keep Oil exploration out of the Great Australian Bight,
captured some of the best aspects of comedy, whilst being informative, albeit
with an array of profane language, as is the Australian way (viewer discretion
is advised – profane language throughout).
I’d
like to touch upon and explore a couple of the talking points from the above
video. Firstly, the assertion that the Great Barrier Reef is dead, this
is not strictly true. Although the great barrier reef is not yet dead, coral
bleaching events have progressively increased in severity across the great
barrier reef from 1998, 2002 and 2016. During the mass bleaching event of 2016, four times as many reefs experienced extreme bleaching (>60% of corals bleached) than in 1998 or 2002, as a result of heat stress.
‘Coral bleaching’ is
when the coral expels the symbiotic dinoflagellate algae (genus
Symbiodinium), resulting in a loss of colour, leaving the coral white. Coral bleaching can occur when the corals are temperature
stressed, due to increases in sea surface temperature, as is the case in
current bleaching events, however other factors such as pollution can also
contribute to bleaching events.
 |
Figure 1. Bleached coral left, with original coral on the right. March and May 2016 off Lizard Island on the Great Barrier Reef. From XL Caitlin Seaview Survey
|
The video moves onto discussing the array of
exotic fauna which resides within the waters of the Great Australian Bight. The
most iconic family of which, would be the baleen whales, including the
Antarctic blue whale, the southern right whale, the fin whale, the minke whale
and the humpback whale. These whales were heavily exploited through the 19th
and 20th centuries for the whale oil industry, up until the brink of
extinction, but have since been protected, many still remain endangered and at
a fraction of their original numbers.
 |
Figure 2. Great Australian Bight coastline - Esperance, WA (Western Australia). Photo credit J. Chapman
|
The main environmental argument, which is being taken against
oil exploration in the Great Australian Bight, is that the risk of a
catastrophic oil spill from one of the oil rigs is unacceptably high and would
cause an environmental nightmare, damaging fisheries and the marine ecosystems as a
whole.
The most
publicised, recent case study of an oil spill is the BP (British Petroleum)
Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster of 2010, from which it’s estimated over
4.9 million Barrels of crude oil was discharged into the water column of the Gulf
of Mexico at a depth of 1500m. This is now the yard stick from which oil spills are now measured.
Independent modelling, completed using statistics released by BP, has shown that a spill of
similar magnitude, release rate and duration to that of the Deepwater Horizon
disaster, would within four months, result in 213,000km2 of ocean, having an 80 % chance of surface oil
thickness above levels likely to trigger the closure of fisheries.
 |
This brings us to a not so difficult conundrum, is
any risk of a catastrophic oil spill, into an area of outstanding natural
beauty and biological importance acceptable? Besides the potential
environmental risks of an oil spill, the utilization
of current fossil fuel resources would be more than enough to increase the global
temperature by more than the 2oC threshold, targeted by the Paris
climate agreement. So, if we can’t use the current resources, then why explore
for more?
I saw this video the other day and found it really interesting (and really Australian). In your own personal experience working inside the oil/energy industry over there... is environmental impact ever actually planned for or mitigated against, beyond whatever greenwash fluff they might parade on their websites? Is it a day-to-day aspect of their operations or is it completely ignored?
ReplyDeleteHi Kristen,
DeleteThanks for taking the time to read through the post!
I have only worked in the Nickel/Cooper/Cobalt exploration and mining, however I think there are a number of similarities in the environmental proposal process, between this and the oil/gas sector.
In Australia, when exploring for mineral deposits you apply for an exploration tenement over the area which you want to explore, to the department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP). If the tenement is granted, depending on the location and who the traditional owners of the land are, you would most likely need to conduct an ethnographic survey, followed by surveys of flora & fauna. The surveys would locate any areas of cultural importance or flag any important species within the proposed exploration area, if any of the above are identified, this may stop the project in its tracks. However, some things can be worked around - purely hypothetically, if a specific, endangered species is identified, which lives in sand dunes, if you can show that your work will not impact on any of the habitat, then you may be allowed to continue. I imagine the process in offshore oil/gas is similar. This process is purely to gain access to the land and get 'boots on ground'.
Once the above is completed, in mineral exploration, if you wish to complete any 'ground disturbing work' you have to submit a program of work to the DMP, outlining what you are exploring for and how you intend to do it, including a detailed environmental plan. For mineral exploration, this would include the area of land that would need to be cleared and the number of tracks/roads that need to be cleared/built for access. For any land cleared a rehabilitation plan would need to be submitted, this would need to be completed within 6 months of the work being completed - any holes would need to be filled in, access tracks blocked and scarified with top soils re-spread. The process for oil/gas varies from this, but the essence is similar - B.P's Environmental Plan for exploration in the Great Australian Bight can be found at https://www.bp.com/en_au/australia/about-us/what-we-do/exploring/exploring-in-great-australian-bight/environment-plan-great-australian-bight.html
This level of environmental impact assessment is required just to explore, if any deposit is actually discovered and you want to build a mine/ extract oil then the process is stepped up severely.
So yes, I believe environment impact is planned for and largely mitigated to the best of the companies abilities, but generally only up to the level that the government requires. However, I would certainly not say that every company plays by the rules, or is responsible. I think it has to be looked at in a case by case basis.
I also believe that in certain cases , the go-ahead may be given even when there is evidence that the risk is too high, such as the Adani's Coal project in Queensland. I think the quote "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it" is fitting. At the end of the day, a company is controlled by it's board and shareholders, who want to make a profit, by hook or by crook. I think it's easier to overlook environmental damage from a yacht whilst sipping cocktails, bought from the profit. This is why environmental NGO pressure is so essential :)
I've never heard that quote before but how summarising of our capitalist society! Thanks for the insight, really interesting and about what I expected. It also demonstrates how essential government policy is in 'forcing' companies to at least engage in some level of environmental responsibility. It really is up to our governments to decide for themselves where environmental health falls on the priority list.
ReplyDelete