Mark Bernstein (who I do not know) went off on the blogosphere this weekend, complaining that bloggers (science bloggers, specifically) are not breaking down the oil spill story and writing on it in a coherent fashion. After ranting about how bloggers who are making a stab at explaining things aren’t doing a good enough job, he also makes sure we know he has a PhD in a physical science from Harvard.
I know nothing about oil drilling, but I have a Ph.D. in a physical science (from Harvard, forsooth) and I work in a technical profession and I have no idea what Heading Out is saying. And, damn it, this shouldn’t be that hard: we’ve got some pipes, some valves, a few fluids, and a reservoir under pressure. This is not rocket science, and it’s not quantum mechanics. Draw a diagram, show the flows, identify the forces.
Listen, Mr. Science PhD, we also have thousands of pages of federal regulations, the small problem of a breach 5,000 feet under the sea that is inaccessible by any human and must therefore be touched only by robotic hands, and a corporation at the helm that is less than cooperative about opening up its operations to anyone, much less a cadre of unpaid bloggers. Add gravitational, hydraulic and political forces to that and it’s an amazingly complex, difficult problem, one for which many, many PhDs have not found a clear solution.
The best service anyone can do for you and anyone else nostalgic for Apollo 13 and Mission control is to tell you this, as clearly as we can:
No one has a clear-cut solution to this problem. No one. It’s all guesswork, conjecture, and magical ideas. Deepwater oil drilling is a frontier, but the explorers did not plan adequately for all contingencies.
I am not a scientist. I’m a writer. I spend a lot of time researching difficult concepts and then writing them as clearly as I possibly can for anyone who might be interested. In this case, I have read well over 3,000 pages of filings, reports, regulations, and history around deepwater drilling. It took me two full weeks of research to write one post about whether a nuclear device would possibly be the answer to stopping the flow. Even then, my treatment of the topic was superficial. Why? Because…
See, Mr. Bernstein, your problem isn’t science bloggers; it’s the Culture of News.
The Culture of News dictates that all problems be explained and solved in five easy bullets with accompanying video and drawings simple enough for a third-grader to understand.
The Culture of News dictates that all problems must have simple solutions, broken down and illustrated with pretty pictures because we all know one picture is worth sixty zillion words.
The Culture of News dictates that when there is no pretty solution, someone must be blamed, preferably someone in the upper echelons of the United States government, even when there is no one to blame.
The Culture of News calls for some unemployed blogger with a bunch of free time to bubble up the stories that show up on your TV screen at 5pm, without any credit, of course.
The Culture of News labors under the false impression that those of us who care enough to spend the time researching do it for the love of the truth, and don’t have to eat or make house payments.
The Culture of News encourages superficial, manipulative reporting that causes emotions to rise in order to obfuscate reasonable thought and questions.
Bernstein cites the Katrina coverage as one example of excellent blogging:
Just five years ago, we had Katrina and no one knew what was happening, but I could point you to five blogs that were piecing together the picture, blogs that knew as much about what was going on as anyone, anywhere – including people on the scene.
Katrina was an example of a relatively simple problem with a deeply high, human cost. People who lived in New Orleans knew exactly what the issue was: the levees were never built or retrofitted to sustain the stress of a 100-year storm. Even laymen understand that the walls fall down when enough stress is put on them, water pours in, people drown. It’s a simple story with incredibly complex implications.
The Katrina story also had the added bonus of a narrative of government ennui. In this oil spill, we have government personnel notified, on the scene within hours overseeing the damage. Unfortunately, there’s very little the government overseers can do beyond making sure everything that can be done, is being done.
On the other hand, FEMA was not prepared for something they were specifically tasked to be prepared for during Hurricane Katrina. Unlike their response to Florida just weeks earlier, they weren’t staged anywhere near New Orleans, seemed to have no plan for how to get in there and rescue people, and worst of all, didn’t really seem to care if they did get in there and rescue people. The Katrina story was an easy one to tell because people in New Orleans were the ones most capable of telling it.
Let’s break down the oil spill story into component disasters for a minute. We have:
Those four components each hold numerous complexities of their own. They’re not easily explained in bullets and charts. There’s nuance. There are tradeoffs. Environmentalists and people like me who abhor what this spill is doing to the shore say “No more drilling offshore, period!!!” without considering the depth of the economic cost to such a draconian measure. Make no mistake, it would take a considerable national sacrifice to end all offshore drilling, and it wouldn’t happen overnight.
Just the use of dispersants was enough to send many reeling, but that’s because they didn’t realize that dispersants are the first best line of defense against a spill of this magnitude, and there actually IS available science showing that prompt use of dispersants can save the wetlands and marshes from certain oily death.
Bernstein asks “Where is mission control???”. Perhaps this will help him understand the answer to that question:
That is the flowchart overview from the BP Regional Oil Spill Response Plan, which is 582 pages long and has a plan for situations from the smallest spill to a gusher of 250,000 barrels per day. I’ve read all 582 pages, and have a simple report for you and Mr. Bernstein:
They’re following the plan, but the plan didn’t address how to repair a blown well 5,000 feet under the sea, because no one required them to consider such a thing.
Bernstein’s complaint is the same one we all have, but there are no easy answers and there is no avuncular Walter Cronkite to make us all feel better about what’s going on. In his absence, the press is opting for the shrill, blaming tone instead of one more honest and firm, to our all of our detriment. But then again, we get the press we ask for.
There. is. no. plan. There. are. no. easy. solutions. It’s time to accept this and start investing in some research and development for contingency planning, because what has happened here is symptomatic of what is happening everywhere. It is the product of national hubris. We either start putting our money where our hearts are, via education and research, or we accept the consequence.
In the meantime, don’t blame the bloggers. Why should we hand out freebies that put more money in the pockets of the likes of Rupert Murdoch and his gang? Do your own homework. Figure it out. It won’t take you too long to understand what I do: There is nothing to figure out. It’s a disaster that’s going to take a lot of duct tape and maybe even divine intervention to bring to an end.
The success of sound-bitten superficial news speaks more to those who consume it than those who report it. Clearly there is no demand for mission control or Walter Cronkite when the majority are content with the shrill, blame-ridden report about nothing.
You get what you pay for, after all.