A Sea in Flames - Carl Safina [119]
So how much oil are they saying is in the Gulf now? Well, let’s see: there’s the 24 percent that’s dispersed, the (up to) 26 percent that’s either on or near the surface or washed ashore or is buried, plus whatever is the “dissolved” part of the 25 percent that’s “evaporated or dissolved.” That means the pie chart is telling us that up to 75 percent of the oil is in the Gulf. And if more of it evaporated and we split the difference, it’s saying that perhaps two-thirds of the oil is still in the Gulf.
But so annoyed and upset are a lot of people—especially by the White House misstatements—that various independent scientists want a do-over. Louisiana State University oceanography professor Jim Cowan tosses the pie chart into NOAA’s face, saying, “It looks like a nice neat diagram, but I have no confidence in it whatsoever.” The Georgia Sea Grant program, itself part of an NOAA-sponsored university network of ocean and coastal researchers, releases an “alternative report” claiming that most of the oil that leaked into the Gulf is still present and estimating that between 70 percent and 79 percent of the oil remains in the Gulf ecosystem.
And yet, look: that’s not too far off from what the original pie chart says.
Some people don’t seem to care how much oil is where. Ronald J. Kendall, who directs Texas Tech University’s Institute of Environmental and Human Health, says, “Even if all the oil were gone tomorrow, the effects of the spill on species such as sea turtles, bluefin tuna and sperm whales may take years to understand.”
Trying to keep the message on point, the report’s lead author, NOAA chief Dr. Jane Lubchenco, notes, “No one is saying that it’s not a threat anymore. I think the view of most scientists is that the effects of this spill will likely linger for decades.” She observes, “There’s so much noise out there now saying the Gulf is dead or the Gulf will come back easily. The truth is in the middle.”
Despite her attempts to recenter the discussion, the media reports on this are all over the place. One leading newspaper says, “Roughly one-third of the oil that gushed from the wellhead is out of the system: recovered directly or eliminated by burning, skimming, or chemical dispersion operations.” Nope, wrong; dispersed oil is very much in the system.
The Associated Press, a stalwart of steady-as-she-goes reporting, publishes an article with this strikingly sarcastic (and inaccurate) headline: “Looking for the Oil? NOAA Says It’s Mostly Gone.”
The New York Times writes that federal officials are saying that only about 26 percent of the oil is still in the water or onshore. (No, see above.) Britain’s Independent says, “Only about one-quarter of the oil remains as a residue in the environment, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The other three-quarters no longer poses a significant threat to the environment, the NOAA scientists said.” The writer knows that the NOAA people said no such thing; in the same article he quotes Dr. Lubchenco as saying, “Dilute and out of sight does not necessarily mean benign, and we remain concerned about the long-time impacts both on the marshes and the wildlife but also beneath the surface.”
Another British newspaper, the Guardian, says that NOAA scientist Bill Lehr “appeared to contradict the official report that he wrote” by saying, “Most of the oil is still in the environment.” The paper goes on: “His statement is bound to deepen a sense of outrage in the scientific community that the White House is hiding data and spinning the science of the oil spill.” But the report says what he said: that most of the oil is still in the environment. It’s the media that’s getting it wrong and spinning it.
Independent and academic scientists label the report misleading. “The oil has not left the building,” says Ian MacDonald of