The wetlands were emerald colored, snow-white egrets flew against the lush green and a bald eagle flew by as we skimmed across the Delta heading for the open water. Wildlife abounded: one island was covered with brown pelicans, a nesting area for thousands. 

Yet evidence of the industry marred the natural landscape everywhere: jack boats, well heads, helicopter pads, and service boats heading further out. We saw channels dredged for pipelines and oil tanks sitting on higher ground.

And down below, we watched the latest industrial scars in the water, seeing variations in the color and texture and mixing of oily tendrils flowing with the currents further and further to the west. We were tracking a NOAA map of where some of the oil had floated west of the accident site, nearly 100 miles west. 

This oil had traveled far and was still moving, mixing into the water column, dispersing into the air, on a journey with unpredictable consequences to coastal and marine life and those whose livelihoods depend on it.  

Our flyover revealed the scale of the spill and the immense area now at risk. The damage here is likely to be severe, and the full extent remains unknown. What we do know is that within this expanse we’re looking down upon – many people's livelihoods are at-risk. It’s for this reason that everyone here is worried. That much is clear the moment you touch down in the region.

And we know many species here are in danger. NRDC's marine and wildlife experts have described the threatened species in their blogs: the birds, turtles and marine mammals, the fish including the bluefin tuna that spawn here. Noted fisheries biologist Daniel Pauly has a new audio slideshow at OnEarth reminding us that the phytoplankton and zooplankton--the food chain itself--is also at risk from the oil.  

After our flight, we headed over to the Coast Guard Command Center to meet with Admiral Mary Landry and representatives from NOAA, MMS and BP.  Although we didn't meet with the EPA, Administrator Jackson is on the ground this week, as citizens share their concerns about the impact of dispersants, air quality issues, and what health risks go along with massive amounts of petroleum being released into the environment.

This oil spill is massive, and so is the response effort. It is designed to do three things.

1. Secure the source.  As everyone watching the news knows, this is an ongoing effort--and not yet successful. Doug Suttles, BP’s chief operating officer for exploration and production, described to us the containment efforts, ranging from the vessel they tried to place over the weekend to the smaller "top hat" with a pipe attached that they are attempting to place now, to a "junk shot" where they try to stop the flow by plugging the well, to the relief well that will take up to 90 days to complete. All these efforts will happen concurrently. 

2. Contain the oil.  What was clear from these conversations is that everyone involved in the cleanup effort is doing a lot of on-the-ground learning. The scale, depth, and distance of this spill make it unique. Placing 1 million feet of booms, burning the oil, using dispersants, and skimming are all efforts to reduce the damage.  The guiding principal is to protect resources at greatest risk.  One action may benefit one resource while harming another.  Dispersants may be the best hope to prevent oil from reaching shore and coating critical wetlands habitat and wildlife species. But what could be happening in the water column itself is another matter, one little understood.  NOAA provides its scientific expertise and judgment to the Coast Guard, MMS and BP as each action is taken.  It's a balancing act--that much was clear. 

3. Foster recovery. A separate division at NOAA is already beginning to plan that effort. 

In between our flight and the conversations with officials, I have been placing calls to Washington, working to ensure that clean energy and climate legislation is just that--a new energy pathway that ensures we will not again experience anything like the Deepwater Horizon blow out.

Photos taken by NRDC, click for captions and more photos

I want to hear what Louisianans have to say about this disaster, because they and their Gulf Coast neighbors are paying a very steep price for America’s failed energy policies.

In the days since the spill, some lawmakers have given Americans a false choice. They claim we must either drill for more oil offshore or import more oil from foreign regimes.

They refuse to talk about the other option: fuel efficiency.

We don’t have to risk American lives--either on dangerous offshore rigs at home or on frontlines in the Middle East--to power our cars and trucks. Making engines run farther on less fuel is the cheapest, safest, and cleanest choice we have.

Earlier this spring, President Obama announced cleaner car standards that will increase the fuel efficiency of America’s vehicles. By 2030, those standards will save 10.2 billion barrels of oil--that’s more oil than is included in the entire offshore area President Obama opened to drilling in March.

If we passed more comprehensive efficiency standards--including heavy-duty trucks, airplanes, and home-heating oil--by 2030 we could save approximately 26.5 billion barrels of oil more than the new offshore drilling areas contain.

We could even take a more efficient approach to domestic oil wells. Enhanced oil recovery from existing fields could supply more than 10 times the amount of oil that could be produced by drilling in our oceans over the same period.

These are some of the facts I will share with people I meet in Louisiana, because they are the ones suffering the consequences of America’s limited view of energy resources.

We don’t have to accept this disaster or believe it is the price we pay for filling up our gas tanks. We can demand our lawmakers pass clean energy and climate legislation that will make fuel-efficient engines and plug-in hybrids commonplace and slash our reliance on oil.

A new, clean energy policy is the best choice we have for protecting the Gulf of Mexico and all other coastal communities around our nation.

On April 5, a massive accident at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia killed 29 people and injured 2 others.

On April 20, the explosion at the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 people and continues to send 20,000 gallons of oil into the Gulf every day.

The mine collapse and oil explosion follow on the heels of the third catastrophe, the massive coal ash spill when a dam near a Tennessee Valley Authority power plant in Kingston, Tennessee burst in December, 2008, spreading coal waste ash and sludge into nearby homes and farmlands.

These tragic incidents illustrate in vivid detail the tremendous, usually hidden cost of our addiction to dirty carbon energy sources and why Congress must adopt comprehensive climate and energy legislation. Such legislation will unleash clean energy, encourage energy efficiency and reduce our dependence on coal and oil.

Cleaner technologies already exist that can free us from the hazards of America’s energy policy. Because the most alarming thing about April’s fossil fuel disasters is that they are not unique. There is a pattern here.

The Santa Barbara and Exxon Valdez oil spills are well known, but there are plenty of recent incidents as well. In the fall of 2009, a massive oil spill occurred off the coast of Australia at a supposedly state-of-the-art facility. The spill ultimately dumped tens of thousands of gallons of oil, covering over 20,000 square miles of sea, and taking 10 weeks to bring under control.

In September 2008, Hurricane Ike destroyed oil platforms, tanks, and pipelines throughout the Gulf of Mexico, releasing at least a half million gallons of crude oil. Previously, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused 125 spills from platforms, rigs, and pipelines in the OCS, releasing almost 685,000 gallons of petroleum products.

The impacts of such spills are long-term. According to the National Academy of Sciences, current cleanup methods can only remove a small fraction of the oil spilled into the ocean, leaving the remaining oil to continue affecting ocean ecosystems over time.

Coal mining casts a similarly long shadow over Appalachia. While mining fatalities have declined to a yearly average of 30 deaths, the culture of lax safety regulation and environmental enforcement has put miners’ lives and mining communities at risk.

Mining companies are clear cutting thousands of acres of some of the world's most biologically diverse forests. They're filling local rivers and streams with blasted debris, polluting drinking water with toxic waste. MTR coal mining sites, which can exceed 10 square miles, have already leveled more than 470 summits so far.

And these are just the visible hazards of fossil fuel extraction. As Paul Krugman recently pointed out in the New York Times, the one we can’t see may be the most dangerous: the global warming pollution released when we burn oil and coal. This pollution will lead not only to extreme and costly weather events, but also greater civil unrest and forced migration around the globe, according to the Pentagon and CIA.

We don’t have to sacrifice the Gulf of Mexico, the mountains of Appalachia, or the well-being of fellow human beings in order to power our economy.

More fuel-efficient cars and plug-in hybrids, better rail and public transit can slash our need for oil, while more energy efficient buildings and renewable power can reduce our need for coal plants.

These are the technologies that will put Americans to work, protect our coastal fishing and tourism industries, and preserve marine life and mountains from fossil fuel extraction.

I have just sent a letter to President Obama outlining NRDC’s recommendations for how we can protect marine life and coastal communities from similar spills in the Gulf or elsewhere. 

TAKE ACTION: Tell President Obama to Impose a Moratorium on New Offshore Drilling

The best protection we have against offshore accidents is to end our dependence on oil. We simply don’t have to jeopardize our oceans, fishing industry, tourism business, and rich coastal ecosystems in order to fuel our cars and trucks. We can pass clean energy and climate legislation--legislation that will slash our oil reliance by spurring innovation in cleaner solutions--things like more efficient cars and plug-in hybrids.

But even as we begin the shift to clean energy, America’s oil exploration policy must be thoroughly reviewed and reconsidered in light of the startling new facts on the ground.  

Here are there steps the Obama Administration can take right now in order to protect marine life and coastal communities from future offshore oil disasters.

1. Impose a moratorium on all new offshore oil drilling activities.  Existing plans to move ahead with offshore drilling were based on the assumption that the likelihood of a serious spill was virtually too remote to contemplate.  The catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico has shattered that assumption.

America should halt new offshore leasing, exploratory drilling, and seismic exploration, including the exploratory drilling that is scheduled to begin in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas in Alaska this summer. The moratorium should remain in effect until the causes of the current spill and their ramifications are fully understood.  

2. Ensure rules for future drilling reflect the lessons of Deepwater Horizon.  Obama administration should immediately suspend the processes for opening up new offshore areas to drilling. The processes now underway will set the ground rules for future drilling. For those ground rules to make any sense, they would have to be designed to prevent a spill like the one in the Gulf of Mexico from recurring.  But no one yet knows how to do that. 

Before comments are due and decisions are made on how to proceed, the American people--and the administration--should have a full understanding of the causes and impacts of the Gulf of Mexico spill. The planning process could resume when the ground rules for future drilling could reflect what is learned from the current tragedy.

3. Initiate an independent investigation. In order to fully understand the demise of the Deepwater Horizon, the ensuing spill and its ramifications, the administration must launch an independent investigation staffed by experts who do not work for the government or the oil industry. It should assess the causes of the current spill, how such spills can be avoided in the future, the adequacy of containment and clean-up measures for spills generally, and the implications of these findings for drilling in or near sensitive or ecologically important areas. 

The experts should issue recommendations on how to strengthen regulations to prevent spills and to protect sensitive and ecologically important areas.  They should also propose criteria to determine whether areas should be excluded from leasing.  The moratorium and suspensions called for above should not be lifted before the investigation has been completed. 

These three steps would help ensure that the lessons of this disaster can be used to reform drilling policy.  While the situation remains fluid, it is already clear that the status quo cannot adequately protect the public.  Simply continuing along based on assumptions that have now been disproven should not be an option.

Say no to offshore drilling. Take action and Tell President Obama to Impose a Moratorium on New Offshore Drilling

But as I spoke to business leaders on the trip, I was struck by yet another reason to preserve the world's oceans from the damage of climate change: economic sustainability.

In the United States alone, ocean-related tourism, recreation and fishing are responsible for over 2 million jobs. In 2000, the U.S. ocean economy created two and a half times the economic output as the agricultural sector, and by 2004, it had contributed more than $230 billion to GDP.

Yet even though these numbers are impressive, they are on the decline. The long-term vitality of these industries rests entirely on the vitality of the oceans, and right now, they are threatened by something called ocean acidification--a force that in addition to pollution and overfishing could tear apart the wide net of marine-based commerce, from tourism to dining.

A new film being premiered today on Discovery Planet Green powerfully illustrates just what acidification is doing to our oceans. Called ACID TEST, the film was co-directed by NRDC's Daniel Hinerfeld and is narrated by my college roommate and dear friend Sigourney Weaver. It also draws on the expertise of NRDC's Dr. Lisa Suatoni to explain what has recently emerged as a very serious threat.

You see the main cause of global warming - carbon dioxide - is also changing the chemistry of the world's oceans. Excess carbon dioxide is making marine waters more acidic, which causes a drop in carbonate--the key component in shells. When carbonate levels fall, it is more difficult for organisms to make their shells, which become thinner and more brittle.

This will harm not only seafood favorites such as lobster (the U.S. lobster industry brings in about $375 million annually), but also smaller organisms that form the base of the ocean food chain.

Corals, home to abundant marine life, will be especially hard hit. One of the scientists featured in ACID TEST believes we could be facing the loss of most coral reefs in the next 50 years. Such a loss would deliver a major blow to fishing and diving industries.

ACID TEST makes it clear that we do not have to accept this fate. Solutions exist that can help us revise the oceans and sustain the industries and jobs they support. But we need to put some smart policies in place to do so.

Here is how you can help:

Click Here to Tell Your Lawmakers to Pass a Strong Climate Bill: This fall, the Senate will be considering a clean energy bill that will reduce the global warming pollution falling into our oceans.

Click Here to Tell Your Lawmakers to Pass a National Healthy Oceans Act: This bill would be like a Clean Air Act for our oceans--a comprehensive approach to sustaining our marine resources.

Click Here to Learn More By Watching ACID TEST: You can find local show times and more information.

Watch this ACID TEST Out Take:

As I mentioned in my last post, I just traveled to Canada for a meeting of the Aspen Institute's Commission on Arctic Climate Change. Although we met in Winnipeg, the actual changes occurring in the Arctic were brought powerfully home to us by our fellow commissioners from the First Nations, Patricia Cochran from Alaska and Sheila Watt-Cloutier from Canada.

Both women described how changes in climate have created challenges in daily life and have added significant risk and danger to hunting and fishing traditions. As the ice thins, (see these remarkable military-satellite-photo comparisons of summer ice melt) for instance, the number of people drowning or dying in hunting accidents has risen each year. (Just this week, NPR's Morning Edition ran a story about how warming temperatures are impacting people who herd reindeer and caribou.)

We discussed at length the human consequences of climate change and the challenges to future generations as the traditional life ways, passed down through the generations by elders, now face considerable uncertainty.

Here is just one example. These First Nations have developed centuries-old traditions that are finely attuned to the natural world and seasonal changes. But now, as a result of global warming, community members can no longer safely predict when the seasons will shift.

Loss of culture and lifestyle translates to a basic loss of human rights for these age-old cultures.  The recognition and respect that the First Nations have fought so hard to wrest from modern governments over the last century could now be lost, not due to legal challenges, but to changes in the climate brought by our undiminished use of fossil fuels. 

The changes in the Arctic will not only affect the First Nations--and the eight Arctic nations who confer through the Arctic Council. These changes will ripple around the planet. The concerns of people of low-lying Pacific Island nations who watch as sea level rise threatens the very existence of their entire countries are closely linked with the First Nations' concerns. If global warming continues unchecked, more and more of the world's population will share those same concerns.

Our discussions about global warming and the First Nations were juxtaposed by new information that the Russians launched two ICBMs into their airspace from ships in the Arctic just two weeks ago.

Both the ancient and modern uses of the Arctic are thrown into uncertainty by the fast-paced changes of global warming.

And that is what the Aspen Commission is trying to address. We are exploring how this fragile region--the world's last, largely undeveloped ocean--can be best managed in the years ahead.

We focused on what new governing approaches would be needed for the Arctic, not only to handle the race to exploit the region's oil, gas, and fisheries that is expected to kickoff shortly, but also to preserve the rich biological resources and to support the communities being hit hard by an altered climate.

We adopted ten principles of governance that we will use as the basis of different approaches of governance that the Commission will explore.

One idea we are exploring is creating a science reserve in the Arctic high seas, the international water surrounding the North Pole. We would set aside this science reserve for 30 years, so scientists could study and understand the significance of the changes to this fragile region--the region that affords a cooling mechanism for the entire planet--before exploration and development take over.

The science-reserve approach to understanding the Arctic is an emerging idea, and we welcome your comments about it. But one thing is certain: the more we can learn about what global warming is doing to the Arctic, the more we will comprehend what the future holds for the rest of the globe.