It is possible that the need for immediate and PR-friendly action to limit damage caused by the Gulf oil disaster will lead to more long-lasting and ultimately more damaging environmental damage

Not Over Yet

Any clean-up operation was going to face a certain amount of sacrifice, and the need for difficult decisions to be made. But even though the need for immediate action to prevent the Gulf’s marshland coastline being contaminated is undeniable, the trade-off in effects may not be justifiable.

Justified?

Dispersants are one of the most often-used techniques for dealing with oil spills, but while their effectiveness in preventing immediate damage is undeniable, so is their potential for more long-term damage.

From a PR point of view, dispersants provide an excellent short-term solution. It chemically binds to the oil and causes it to drop from the surface of the ocean, instead falling to the ocean floor. This prevents the slick from reaching the shore and with it the accompanying newspaper-friendly photos of oil-covered birds, or beaches blackened by the spill.

But rather than solving the problem, the dispersants may just be conveniently moving it out of view. As the oil is not removed, all that happens is that a different ecosystem is affected.

Damage

Birds and terrestrial species will be saved the effects of the spill, and the delicate marshland ecosystems should largely remain uncontaminated.

But the cost of this is that sea-floor ecosystems could be decimated and fish will similarly be affected.

The actual cost of this damage could far outreach that of any marshland clean-up operation. Whereas cleaning of the coastline would be costly and time-consuming, it would at least be possible, whereas cleaning the ocean floor of the damage caused by the oil would be near-impossible.

Similarly, even though the Gulf tourist industry relies on the pristine coastline for much of its revenue, there are many other industries that will be affected for years to come as a result of mussels, oysters and fish being contaminated by the spill.

The desire to protect the birds and beasts of the coastline by moving the spill to the ocean floor may be similarly misguided, as the build-up of the oil’s poisonous effects in the food chain is likely to meant that those animals who live on the coastline are affected anyway as the food that they prey on is either no longer there, or poisons them when they do eat it.

Difficult Decision

Despite all of these concerns over the clean-up operation, the extent of spill means that no matter what techniques are used to try to prevent damage being done in the Gulf, there will still be considerable, most likely historic levels of harm caused.

So while preventative measures being taken could mean that it appears large-scale damage is being avoided, the true tale may just be hidden at the bottom of the ocean.

For that reason, those involved in the clean-up operation will need all the help they can get. So by joining the WWF today, you will be helping to ensure that resources are available to help the Gulf’s animals recover from this disaster.