What Next?: Gulf oil spill legacy signals need for new energy paradigm

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is the unwanted gift that keeps on giving. I awoke this morning to televised news reports of tar balls being found in the Florida Keys. While not totally unique to this area, these tar balls will be sent to labs for analysis to determine whether they are from the current Gulf oil spill. If so, it represents evidence of the oil reaching the Loop Current that could ultimately deposit oil as far away as the Atlantic Ocean coastline off the Carolinas.

Several scientific and tracking organizations, like SkyTruth, have reported that the oil spill will enter the Loop Current - which runs from the mid-Gulf, around Florida and up the east coast - if not now, then eventually. This current not only adds another later of complexity to the catastrophe in the Gulf, but it also reminds us of the consequences of our age-old attitude regarding the oceans: that it is a vast open resource - a source of limitless bounty and capable of handling endless abuse. Such thinking is total folly.

To the media and much of the general public, the biggest concern is what we can see: oil splashing up on the shore, oozing into the marshlands, and coating shorebirds - these are the visible signs that something has invaded our backyard. Unfortunately, if these events do not occur, or at least not in great magnitude, then we have a tendency to think we dodged the bullet.

Initially, weather played a role in delaying or keeping the oil at bay, far offshore. And the interplay of the onshore/offshore winds even got some people to wonder where the oil was or whether the spill was as disastrous as claimed. But there is close to 6 million gallons of oil (a conservative figure; other estimates run into the hundreds of thousands) that has leaked into the Gulf and it has to be somewhere.

I have to admit, when I first heard about the Loop Current, I imagined a current hugging the coastline around the eastern Gulf of Mexico. As it turns out, the current starts in the middle of the Gulf - behind, or south, of the site of the spill - then proceeds towards the tip of Florida, where it whips around the tip then stays close to the east coast shoreline. So, if we breathe a sigh of relief that the oil has, to a large extant, stayed offshore, it's ironic that any movement away from shore means it is heading directly into the current to spread an even wider and unexpected path of pollution.

There have been some reports of a large swath of oil moving below the surface, relatively undetected. These reports have been questioned by some government agencies and so further investigation continues, but it would not surprise me if there is a political media person somewhere saying that the longer the oil goes missing, the better. Again, out of sight, out of mind.

But there's no escaping the fact that we are talking about millions of gallons of oil.

• Oil that has settled on the bottom? That would be disastrous for marine life as the oil would work its way into the fundamental base food chain that impacts a variety of shellfish and other bottom feeders.
• Oil that has dissipated or spread itself into a thin micro-globular layer? There it can be ingested by plankton, spread across sensitive coral, or enter the atmosphere through evaporation.
• Or how about broken down by hundreds of thousands of gallons of dispersant (a toxic brew unto itself) to be eaten by hungry microbes which, in turn, would consume oxygen in the process, thereby degrading water quality.

There is no getting around it - whether we can see it or not, oil and water (in this case, sea water) don't mix.

My growing concern and question is: What will the decision-makers learn from this? What will the oil companies? And perhaps most importantly, what will we learn from this?

If anything, the Gulf oil spill highlights the complexity and multi-disastrous impact such an event can have on marine ecosystems near and far. What will it take to finally make definitive steps away from fossil fuel - our national, in fact global, addiction? As a society we are definitely in the throes of an addiction. We know that it is bad for us, we know that it harms the environment, we know that it produces lopsided economic dependencies - but we do nothing of any lasting consequence. That's textbook addiction.

Hopefully, British Petroleum will contain and stop the oil leak soon. We will have to live with degraded marine environments throughout the Gulf and perhaps along the southeast coast. And seafood commercial fisheries will be cut off from the stocks that they have plundered for years to meet demand. Tourism will suffer and seafood prices will rise. Gasoline prices too, perhaps.

But what will we do next? It has been said that the drug addict, regardless of his or her past bad experiences, must decide that they have now hit rock bottom before they can change their lives. Are we there yet?

Shifting Baselines: what is the appropriate measurement of a healthy ocean?

When we examine a marine ecosystem or the population of a particular species and observe that "it's not what it once was," we are, in simple terms, observing a shifting baseline. The use of shifting baselines, or what has sometimes been called Shifting Baseline Syndrome (SBS), has become a common but controversial tool in evaluating fishery management, species population, and general ocean vitality. In fact, it has been used as the basis of study for a variety of scientific and societal conditions - from ocean conservation to Hollywood entertainment.

One of the challenges in using SBS is in determining what the fundamental baseline is - what is the baseline that represents a fully healthy, functioning marine ecosystem or species population? Is it what it was 10 years ago? A century? Or before the arrival of mankind? To determine such an ultimate starting point, scientists often have to take a variety of empirical and anecdotal data and work backwards. Sometimes this works, sometimes not.

As an example, one study in the late 1990's determined that the appropriate baseline population for green sea turtles in the Caribbean was 660 million, based on an extrapolation of the extent of a particular sea grass that figured prominently in the turtle's diet. Several years later, based on a reevaluation of the sea grass growth, that number was scaled back to 16 to 33 million - quite a reduction but still, given today's population of less than 200,000, what can we realistically expect as a conservation goal?

In other situations, SBS gets oversimplified in its application regarding policy. When research determined that over-fishing was the primary cause of a drop in Canadian cod fisheries, a moratorium was put in place in the early 90's. However, the cod population has failed to recover and the moratorium remains in place. What may have been missed is some unforeseen cascade effect, some other component to a healthy cod population that is missing or altered, perhaps triggered by the over-fishing, perhaps not.

Many scientists see value in using SBS but there are some who feel that it must be utilized in a more comprehensive fashion that also incorporates other theoretical approaches including resilience and social-ecological systems (SES) which introduce variables of human involvement or impact while trying to determine an appropriate future baseline.

In the end, it can be a vexing question: as we consider the health of marine species or ecosystems, what is the ideal goal that we can truly expect to strive for, regardless of how things were in the past? Can science accurately and reliably make that determination? Hopefully, it can but it will require a broad spectrum of scientific approaches to do so.

Click here for a proponent web site that explains shifting baselines.
Click here to read a scientific paper on SBS weaknesses and solutions.