On Oil Spill Disasters and the White House Correspondents’ Dinner
Posted May 1, 2010 in Curbing Pollution, Environmental Justice, Green Enterprise, Health and the Environment, Living Sustainably, Moving Beyond Oil, Reviving the World's Oceans, Saving Wildlife and Wild Places, Solving Global Warming, The Media and the Environment
Tonight is the White House Correspondents’ Association annual dinner. NRDC coordinated the greening of that dinner. But today it is impossible not to first think about the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and how it relates to everything we do, including fancy dinners.
I recall being at my NRDC office one day back in 1989 while the Exxon Valdez disaster was unfolding. I was chatting with our organization’s founder John Adams. He said: “They should send every member of the military up there with tissues to clean than mess up if that’s what it takes. Everything needs to be done.”
“Everything needs to be done.”
That phrase seems so applicable today as we watch the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico unfold, a disaster likely to exceed the Exxon Valdez debacle in consequence and cost.
Questions are being raised: Who is to blame? Did BP react too slowly? Did the federal government mobilize fast enough? Yes, BP reacted too slowly. But we as consumers too must accelerate our shift away from filthy oil and coal, the antiquated fossil products still hawked by firms like BP and Massey, acquired from ecologically irreplaceable regions, turning our atmosphere and oceans alike into sewers, demeaning and killing life of all kinds, from pelicans to people.
There is no one single cause of the ecological crisis we confront today. It is not caused only by China, or only by the USA or only by General Motors. No, the ninety million tons of global warming pollution emitted into the atmosphere each and every day, the tens of millions of acres of forest destroyed each year, are the result of billions of ecologically unsound decisions made by billions of consumers and millions of firms. All of us are culpable.
If we want to stop destroying our planet, if we want to stop destroying the organism that gives us air to breathe and water to drink, billions of ecologically smarter decisions are going to have to be made. No law can stop us from undermining the functional integrity of the biosphere. More must be done. We must save ourselves. And no effort is too small.
Which leads me to the greening of the White House Correspondents’ Association annual dinner.
How do I justify focusing on small efforts like greening a dinner, however famous it might be, when giant catastrophes characterize our ecological era? My view is that no effort is too small to carry out given the problems we face. After all, minor progress is all that most of us can achieve. So, for this WHCA annual dinner we did what every event planner should do. Among my favorite initiatives is this: For the first time, we offset the carbon emissions caused by the Presidential motorcade. I hope it won’t be the last time this is done. The Presidential motorcade includes:
- 2 limousines (Estimated 15 MPG - the true MPG of the Presidential limo is not pubic)
- 4 SUVs (Average 17.6 MPG)
- 3 medium vans (Average 23.5 MPG)
- 2 police cars (Average 25.6 MPG)
- 1 ambulance (Estimated 15 MPG)
- 20 police motorcycles (Average 50 MPG)
The carbon emissions of Jay Leno’s Lear Jet was also offset (LA to DC = 23.78 metric tons of CO2.)
Why would NRDC get involved in this? It is not merely to offset 50 tons of carbon from the presidential motorcade and Leno’s jet. It’s because offsetting the presidential motorcade holds the poential to send a message to executives throughout our nation that their daily travel also needs to be environmentally conscious. Surely, if we can offset the emissions of the 32 vehicles traveling with the President, more ordinary businesses can arrange to offset the carbon emissions associated with their own limousine use. I hope that all executives follow the WHCA's lead and offset their own limousine travel.
Acquiring local food for the WHCA dinner was given preference, and the programs, the tickets, and the bathroom tissue are made from recycled sources, uneaten food will be donated to charity, and no plastic water bottles will be distributed.
All in all, these smart efforts might result in some minor ecological progress, and minor progress is all that most of us can achieve on a daily basis. But with enough minor progress, day after day, month after month, year after year, larger shifts will occur. After all, given the state of our atmosphere, our oceans and our forests, Everything needs to be done.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
kathryn dobrinic — May 1 2010 09:56 PM
we have only recently joined the nrdc but i have believed in your mission for my whole life. i am devastated by what happened in the gulf. the media coverage of this ecological disaster is mind-boggling -- trite. which leads me to your comments about the whc dinner. i sincerely congratulate you on your "greening" of the dinner of all the opinion leaders. unfortunately the food chain ( for all species) in the delta is going down, and tonite our leaders will all be congratulating one another on the fact they are using recycled paper napkins. i am outraged by bp and by our governments response. i remember watching our goverments response to katrina and wondering how they missed the weather channel in crawford texas. i now get to wonder what part of leaking oil, currents and wetlands the obama administration doesnt get; " you're doing a heck of job, browner." after the events of the last 12 days we will be supporting groups that "confront, baby, confront." i am not saying that in a hateful way, but in a realistic way. oil and coal should be dead and gone, but instead we will witness the end of species because of this event; and with all do respect -- who stood up or is standing up in the current administration? thanks for letting me rant.
Jim Bullis, Miastrada Co. — May 2 2010 03:18 AM
For those of us who would actually want to solve the CO2 problem a better grip on reality would be a good starting point.
The first thing to note is that we built an industrial civilization on fossil fuels. They are a lot cleaner now than they were in years past. The actual alternative to "dirty fossil fuels" would be for us to all return to the farm and learn how to drive oxen. Note of course, that alternative is probably not possible with the present world population.
The next thing to note is that there have been some useful things accomplished. Compact fluorescent light bulbs and efficiency requirements for appliances have been quantitatively significant. Some day it might be different, but wind and solar are mostly empty talk, and would barely exist at all without subsidies. Note, that subsidies are not possible when the scale gets meaningful.
At this point it becomes necessary to actually start thinking about energy in a quantitative way. Perhaps the biggest enemy of progress is the wild claims for poorly thought out actions.
Certain engineering facts need to be understood. The main such fact is that electric power plants are horribly inefficient, and though natural gas is not as bad as coal, it is still not an efficient way to produce useable energy. Then we need to understand economic processes, which dictate that when electricity is used, the consequence is the burning of coal. Those who would like to pretend otherwise need to think through how economic decisions are made and how markets for fuel react. No, the status quo mix of sources is not the same mix as the reaction mix when a new load is placed on the electric grid. Even folks who have their own solar arrays, courtesy of the rest of us, can not logically defend that as a proof that they are not using coal when they put on a new load, such as an electric car for example. Rather than plugging in a car, they should sell their surplus back to the grid, and suppress the use of coal. Then buy a good hybrid. Yes, a good hybrid car is a better way to reduce CO2 than an electric plug-in car.
The next big fact is that there is nothing more foolish than the way we build automobiles; no, it is not just the engines, which can be a lot better. The dumber thing is the shape that automobile designers call a "bluff body" which is fundamentally contrary to low drag aerodynamic principles. And dumber yet is the fact that we greatly increase the drag by operating these close to the ground. Fixing these things is a little tricky, but possible.
Before we do something hard, we might try a simple, large scale action that might help a lot. This is a plan for widespread conversion of home appliances that use significant heat, such as clothes dryers and cooking appliances, from electricity to natural gas. That would accomplish about 85% reduction in the CO2 now attributable to use of the electric versions. The fact that this is not a major campaign tells us that there is no solid technical thinking leading our decisions.
I only surmise that the clamor from greenish promoters is drowning out simple but actually important suggestions. And I have to say, the idea that all kinds of small things will get the job done is a path to complacency; it only engenders a sense of satisfaction which is unwarranted.
So no, everything does not need to be done. Do important things, and then mop up with less important things. Skip the silly stuff.
Zoidie — May 2 2010 04:46 AM
I am sad, tired, upset and depressed by the devastating "accident" in the gulf. The WHC dinner appeared surreal and ghastly .. in light of the ecological armageddon unraveling along the south eastern coast of our nation.
Your piece, while sincere (no doubt) reads like an apology... I'd say your first instinct was the right one.
Humans will keep fiddling while Rome burns..
Who grieves, really grieves for the earth, for its array of unmatched splendor, irrevocably marred by human need, human greed and human incompetence.. Obama continues to speak of civility and compromise, and perhaps therein lies the root of the problem. There are somethings worth being furious about, somethings not worth compromising for ..and the earth is one.
I worked hard, really hard for the election of this President. If I continue to do so for the 2010 mid terms and beyond, it'll only be because he represents the lesser of the evils.
Rod Adams — May 2 2010 04:56 AM
First of all, I am a bit surprised by your mileage estimates. I would be shocked to find that the large, armored SUV's that accompany motorcades in DC get better mileage in around town driving than my 2002 Isuzu Rodeo.
Secondly, I find no mention in the original post or in the comments of the cleanest source of reliable electricity and heat that humans have discovered - atomic fission. We would already have eliminated coal combustion from the US economy if we had simply continued building nuclear energy facilities at the pace we achieved for more than 20 years - between 1963 and 1983. Todays operating nuclear plants in the US displace the need to burn about 400 million tons of coal each year, but we could have displaced an additional 1.1 billion tons with a continued effort.
Nuclear energy also has proven itself to be a safe and reliable source of motive power on board ships - fully 6% of the world's oil is burned on ocean going ships that could be powered with nuclear energy. Instead of using an emission free power source that costs the equivalent of buying oil at $2.90 per barrel, commercial ships burn distillate fuel that costs more than $100 per barrel.
Part of the reason for this strange situation is that groups like the NRDC have worked diligently for many years to spread misinformation about nuclear energy.
What I want to know is when will the NRDC leaders be ready to engage in a real conversation about the energy alternatives that includes facts, not mythology, about nuclear energy and its ability to REPLACE fossil fuel combustion in a number of important applications that will NEVER be served by any other fossil fuel alternative?
Note - if you have questions about nuclear energy, you might be interested in watching the May 1, 2010 edition of Science Saturday on Bloggingheads.tv.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/27837
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Dorothee in Germany — May 2 2010 05:06 AM
Writing from Germany:
I am trying to find out more about the business and supervision reasons for the disaster: makers, owners,leasing company (BP)and licencing & control agencies - apparently this masks the complex responsibility and gives little hope for
preventing the next catastrophy before this mess can be "cleaned up" within 2 decades.
Topics for the dinner?
Rod Adams — May 2 2010 05:11 AM
Sorry - I forgot to mention another reason why nuclear energy is an important part of a conversation about offshore exploration - the platform that exploded and sank was most likely an oil AND GAS production rig. Nearly all oil wells also produce natural gas in some proportion. Many deepwater facilities will have to be drilled if the US persists in its current path of replacing coal combustion with methane instead of with new nuclear power plants.
There is gas in deep water and using it is most likely to be better than burning coal or importing gas and oil from overseas, but surely it would be better for the environment and for the American economy if we used nuclear energy for electricity production. We could then use a smaller quantity of gas that could be supplied without resorting to the very challenging deep water for those applications where nuclear cannot supply the necessary chemicals or local source of heat.
Oops - that suggestion might not make ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Devon, Anadarko, Chesapeake, and other gas suppliers very happy.
Carly Corday — May 2 2010 11:00 AM
Mankind's "humanity" hasn't progressed by a hair since Caligula.
Thank you to the commenter who used the words "surreal and ghastly" to describe the Ruling Class dinner last night. It should have been cancelled, but why bother? Nobody out here in the country minds a bit. They can do anything they want to. They will. They do. And it will ALWAYS be thus. One merry monarch after another after another. Obama, like Bush, only worse (by definition), spends his time grinning and straightening his crown, oh yeah, and wagging his finger at us, but only because we love it.
Where is the Dem (and I am a far lefty) outrage we saw all over the internet when Rove boogied at that correspondents' event a few years ago while Rome burned?? All that matters is what letter, R or D, comes after the perp's name? Good, that's just the way they want it. Great gorvernment of and by the people, y'all. Decade after decade, century after century.
"It's very, very exciting to be here!"
--Young lovely at Correspondent's Dinner,
May 1, 2010
Carly Corday — May 2 2010 02:45 PM
"I worked hard, really hard for the election of this President. If I continue to do so for the 2010 mid terms and beyond, it'll only be because he represents the lesser of the evils."
You wouldn't.
OK, looks like you WOULD. So how will "re-election as the lesser of two evils" change Obama? At'll show 'im, all right!
Don't grieve for the earth. Kick some giant a** FIGHTING for the earth, or I say, the right to "grieve" for it is revoked.
Jim Bullis, Miastrada Co. — May 2 2010 03:19 PM
Rod Adams - - I was reminded that President Carter banned breeder reactors and that President Reagan concurred later with this ban on the grounds that it created a threat of nuclear proliferation. Maybe there would have been a better way to prevent proliferation, and we might be well positioned with nuclear power like France is now.
I had a friend who was part of a group that quit GE in San Jose in protest of what they saw as inadequate safety in the reactor design. That was about 1975 or so. These were knowledgeable folks who felt there was a problem, but of course, there were many others who did not agree - - or at least were not willing to put their careers on the line. I say this with the present unforeseen failure in big equipment in the Gulf in our present sight.
We also seem to want to ignore cost considerations. Early planning put nuclear power at a manageable cost, but various oversight actions and their costs as well as the normal cost over-runs due to optimistic estimates of unknowable costs and schedule problems pushed the cost that became no longer acceptable as an investment.
Power companies settled on coal as the only viable answer, and set out to make it reasonably clean. Yes, low sulphur coal was found and the infrastructure to use it has been built and is still growing.
The main problem is CO2 which is dirty like pure water is dirty. Either substance can be a problem if it comes in too large a quantity.
But it sort of looks like people would prefer offer grandiose, but unworkable solutions, or to rant about the evil corporations rather than discuss significant actions that might be undertaken by ourselves as well as our government, and yes, unless we can figure out things that corporations will go for, we will rant our way forward into a lot of trouble.
I can suggest a variety of possible solutions, but even such a simple but very important solution as converting from electricity to natural gas where it can be practically accomplished, raises not a murmur from the zealous environmental world.
Do not get me wrong. I am as concerned about the environment as anyone. And I favor doing some real work to get the problems fixed.
This reminds me of the definition of work in physics. Work requires both force and movement. Screaming and ranting makes for a lot of force, but where there is no prospect for progress, that does not amount to useful work.
Yes, we have to look for workable solutions.
Rod Adams — May 2 2010 08:22 PM
@Jim Bulis - so you know one of the infamous GE three? I am familiar with the story - out of the thousands of nuclear engineers there were three who worked for GE who thought that they recognized safety issues that few others saw.
As a guy who has a different way to look at the world than most others, I never discount the minority, but history has proven that the rest of the engineers were more right than wrong. The 104 plants operating today run at an average capacity factor of greater than 90%, meaning that they generate about 90% of the electricity that they could possibly produce if running at rated capacity - pedal to the metal - for all 8760 hours available each year.
BTW - Jimmy Carter knew very little about nuclear energy. He was home farming peanuts by October of 1953; the very first nuclear powered submarine did not go to sea under nuclear power until January 17, 1955. There is NO WAY that Carter ever operated a nuclear power plant in the Navy. He was a coal fan with lots of coal industry support for his campaign. I believe that they portrayed him as a nuclear engineer to give him credibility when he took actions - like destroying the nascent nuclear fuel recycling industry - that made coal a seemingly better choice.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Jim Bullis, Miastrada Co. — May 2 2010 10:50 PM
The GE story was a little more complicated than you suggest. And I remember there were five not three. I had a conversation with a person there that did not quit, and he was not as sure but also not as able to forego a job. But so what, the point still stands. Things like this are too big to fail. And the same is true of oil rigs. Oil rigs also have had a fairly good safety record.
Jimmy Carter huh? I thought he was one of Rickover's hand picked nuclear guys. Is memory failing here?
Anyway, if he was a coal fan during his presidency that can not be held against him. We, at least I, did not get uneasy about CO2 until quite recently. SO2 was being worked on rather successfully (With the help of goading from environmentalists --yaa. Checks and balances sometimes work out fairly well.)
I am all for nuclear power and carbon capture as well. If it were not for the waste problem, I would get more interested in nuclear. I would be happy if carbon capture turned out to be something better than nonsense. As it is, I believe there is a path to solving global warming involving using a lot less energy that should be seriously persued.
Paul — May 3 2010 03:08 PM
Love your work, but for the motorcade, dividing you numbers by 3 or 4 would be more like it for city traffic and all the idlimg that has to be associated with motorcades and police work.