There
was an episode of "The Munsters" where Grandpa invented a pill for
turning water into gas. He also accidentally put insomniac Marilyn into an
enchanted sleep, so it was fortunate that the representative from the petroleum
company was a handsome young man with the last name Prince.
One
of the plot twists was that the company wanted to pay Grandpa to keep the pill
off the market. They had no intention of stopping their petroleum production,
and they didn't want the competition that the pill would provide. Does that
sound far-fetched?
Extracting
oil from tar sands releases three times the CO2 as regular oil production. It
involves strip mining and is also water-intensive, requiring as many as five
barrels of water for each barrel of oil produced. A large project is slated in
the Amazon Rainforest Basin, which makes the CO2
production especially unfortunate.
The
process has some similarities to hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking".
Fracking is also very water intensive, but instead of releasing extra CO2 into
the air, it is more likely to contaminate the groundwater. It release
carcinogens into the environment, largely because there are so many chemical in
the fracking fluid. Of the up to 600 chemicals involved, ingredients can
include lead, uranium, mercury, ethylene glycol, radium, methanol, hydrochloric
acid, and formaldehyde.
Those
sound pretty awful. With record-breaking high temperatures, increased release
of CO2 sounds really irresponsible. With drought spreading, processes that
require intensive water use should be weighed very carefully.
Do
we need to pursue oil quite this rigorously? Probably not. Currently oil
inventory is increasing, because production exceeds consumption.
You
could really stimulate the economy (as well as help the planet) developing
green technologies, but the oil companies don't want to do that, because oil is
what they do. That's what they're used to. They don't want to change.
Remember
13 In The Hole? http://www.cultureunplugged.com/documentary/watch-online/play/12686/13-In-The-Hole
(Incidentally,
one of the polluters there is an oil recycling plant.)
One
of the scenes that stayed with me is a woman talking about her mother investing
in that home. She bought it and improved it and hung on to it because she
wanted there to be somewhere for her family to go. That is a heartwarming
sentiment, and home ownership is economically responsible, but that home is not
a safe place now. Every home in that neighborhood has someone who has died of
cancer.
That
is a lot of human suffering. There is illness and death, discomfort from the
smell, and economic hardship involved. The water is unsafe, but has still been
subject to manipulation by the water company.
The
Supreme Court just ruled that regulators have to consider the financial impact
on a business when they are regulating it. Were these companies required to
consider the health impact of their polluting? The economic impact of making
these homes - the primary assets of the residents - unsalable?
So
my question is why do we keep putting the needs of companies ahead of people?
It's not because they are morally superior, or a force for good. You can call them
job creators, but are these good jobs? Would they provide better jobs if they
weren't allowed to wreak havoc?
It
shows up over and over again. It's not always obvious, but when you drill down
into human suffering, there is usually someone making a profit on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment