We are also honored to interview distinguished Professor George Gonzalez, specialised in Political Science and Environmental Policy (University of Miami, US) on the political and sociological ramifications behind the neglecting of safety prevention measures that the companies behind Deepwater Horizon were allowed to get away with.
1. MDM_ Professor, first of all, thank you very much for sharing your knowledge and expertise with our readers, especially those located in the areas of the Gulf coast of Mexico most affected by the oil spill. We truly appreciate it. Would you say that interests inherent to a profit-making system allow for these accidents to happen when they could have been prevented?
1. PROFESSOR_ From the public record it does appear that BP cut corners in inexcusable ways in an effort to prioritize profit-making from its oil operations in the Gulf.
2. MDM_ Disasters can always and have always been used for political blame and game. However, between policy that helps the environment (and ultimately the people that depend on that environment) and policy that helps and protects that environment, it seems obvious which one would be the best to apply. In your opinion, why are environmentalists so feared or even mocked by the general public?
2. PROFESSOR_ Environmentalists are always arguing that society is taking too many chances with the environment. Thus, they tell us that we should produce and consume less in order to avert risks – risks which may never come to fruition. Hence, environmentalists hold that we should sacrifice to prevent environmental disasters and degradation that may never occur. This is frequently not a popular or well-received position.
3. MDM_ In the game of the blame, rapid and effective solutions and especially the protection of the livelihood of the people and the wildlife affected by this disaster seemed to take a backstage position. Which are, in your opinion, the most urgent measures that should be taken in order to palliate the precarious economical and environmental future of the area? What policy should be created to apply these measures?
3. PROFESSOR_ It is likely that there is no way to fundamentally remedy the environmental and economic damage that has already occurred in the Gulf from the current oil spill. This is why environmentalists hold that humanity should be conservative (i.e., cautious) in its treatment of the environment, because once the damage is done it cannot in many, many cases be undone.
4. MDM_ Years of study and research avail your publications, which range from specialized articles and essays to critically acclaimed books such as: “Corporate Power and the Environment”, “The Politics of Air Pollution”, “Urban Sprawl, Global Warming, and the Empire of Capital”. You have also coedited “Flashpoints in Environmental Policymaking: Controversies in Achieving Sustainability". All of these books hold vast information about the reality of profit-making systems in relation to sustainability. From this vast information, would one be able to extract that sustainability can be achieved within the current economical and political systems or not?
4. PROFESSOR_ As I argue in my 2009 book, Urban Sprawl, Global Warming, and the Empire of Capital, a fundamental problem facing humanity is the role of U.S. urban sprawl in the global economic system. (The U.S. has the most sprawled urban zones in the world.) Urban sprawl in the U.S. has been used since the post-World War II era as a prime means of increasing demand for consumer durables (manufactured goods expected to last at least three years). The most obvious increase in demand created by urban sprawl is for automobiles, but it does not end there as the spacious houses characteristic of urban sprawl also greatly pushes up demand for furniture and appliances (used to fill the multi-room homes on the urban periphery).
While urban sprawl has substantially contributed to maintaining economic stability, it is predicated on consuming profligate amounts of fossil fuels (i.e., coal, petroleum, natural gas). This is for the huge amounts of automobile driving needed in sprawled urban landscapes, and to heat, cool the relatively large homes inherent in low-density urban development (i.e., urban sprawl), as well as to power the numerous appliances in these homes.
Therefore, urban sprawl has a twofold environmental liability. One, it serves to deplete finite fossil fuels. (For instance, while comprising less than 5 percent of the world's population, the U.S. consumes 20 to 25 percent of global oil production.) Two, it results in the massive emission of greenhouse gasses. (Among countries with populations over 45 million, the U.S. is by far the largest per capita, or per person, emitter of carbon dioxide, as well as emits about 20 percent of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.)
In spite of the obvious environmental and economic liabilities of urban sprawl, policymakers in the U.S. are seemingly unable to address it in order to help stabilize the biosphere and global energy markets. This is because U.S. urban sprawl simply plays too important a role in creating economic demand for the global economy. (Consumers in the U.S. [excluding government and businesses] purchase about 20 percent of total global economic output.)
Urban sprawl in the United States serves as the prime barrier to an effective global effort to abate greenhouse gas emissions. Because as long as the United States government insists that its residents can drive long commuting distances and live in large abodes (that consume large amounts of energy), it is seemingly impossible to negotiate a viable international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
5. MDM_ Renewable energy companies are the solution? If so, would governments be responsible for the helping, and maybe training into this new industry, of the personnel that would be laid off from the oil industry?
5. PROFESSOR_ It has been a common agenda item for environmentalists that the U.S. government should institute an environmental jobs programs, whereby the government pays to reconstitute the country's energy, transport, and housing infrastructures. This would expand employment and ecologically modernization the economy.
6. MDM_ Should a complete move to renewable energies take place within the next decade in order to save the planet and its inhabitants from complete destruction?
6. PROFESSOR_ The science of climate change does indicate that we are dangerously close to engaging tipping points (i.e., crossing thresholds) in the biosphere that could lead to what amounts to run away global warming. This makes it imperative that we substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions now, and not later. Renewable energy is part of the answer to abating climate change emissions, as, in my estimation, is nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy, however, should be instituted only under the tightest of regulations, and such regulations should be imposed through international regulatory institutions. This is the only way in my view that a large global expansion of nuclear energy can be properly undertaken. Relying on individual nation-states to oversee nuclear power production and waste management is simply too dangerous. Even now, China is greatly growing its nuclear power capacity, and there are concerns that these plants as not as safe as they should/could be.
I will quickly add that the safest and most assured way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is conservation. We must make every effort to reduce energy consumption. Thus, globally we should be driving less, and living in smaller abodes, which require less energy.
MDM: Thank you very much again Professor Gonzalez for your invaluable collaboration. |
