TL: FEATURE ARTICLE ON THE SHETLANDS TANKER ACCIDENT
SO: by Stewart Boyle, Director of Energy Policy, Greenpeace (GP)
DT: January 14, 1993
Keywords: oil tankers accidents scotland uk europe spills gp
greenpeace wildlife effects oceans /
 
 
In less than two months the skies will be darkened around
Shetland by returning birds. Razorbills, kittiwakes, fulmars and
storm petrels are now out at sea on their long yearly journeys from
even harsher climes. Some of the islands' twelve thousand
guillemots have already begun to arrive. For the inquisitive, there
will be a few new landmarks. Pieces of twisted metal wedged between
rocks on shore, some stones spattered with a persistent black
rubbery coating, perhaps even some personal possession belonging to
one of the thirty four crew members winched off the stricken tanker
'Braer' which leaked a record eighty four
thousand tonnes of light North Sea crude oil into the sea.
 
More than twice as much oil was spilt around this pristine
coastline as poured from the stricken tanker Exxon Valdez which ran
aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska in March 1989. The eleven
million gallons of crude spilled here killed more wildlife than any
other spill in history.
 
It will be cold comfort to the creatures of Shetland that North Sea
crude is a light crude and therefore disperses more quickly.
'Light' means fewer impurities, but it also means more chemically
volatile hydrocarbons. In other words, it is probably even more
toxic. The visible effects of the spill - the familiar slick -may
soon disappear, leaving only a light sheen on the surface. But the
severe winds aided by the action of sprayed dispersants are mixing
the oil into the water column. These are the currents moving up and
down from the sea floor. It all adds up to fouling up the
environment for plankton and fish. Hydrocarbons in oil like
benzene, toluene and naphthalene are toxic in tiny
concentrations. Even more toxic are so called PAH's, more complex
hydrocarbons known to cause cancer in fish. Which brings us back to
the guillemots, their friends, and their competition at the dinner
table, the otters and seals. Ultimately, poisonous and persistent
chemicals pass up the food chain to us.
 
Yet the 'Braer' spill represents only a tiny fraction - less than
one hundredth of a per cent of all oil released into the
environment every year during production and negligence, and only
a few thousandths of a per cent of the amount we actually burn. All
the crude on the 'Braer' would have kept the US going for 55
minutes, Britain for eight hours. Remarkable enough, but still only
a drop in the fuel tank. With all the warnings from
scientists about cooking the planet's atmosphere to danger levels
if we continue using fossil fuels, do we really need this 'black
gold'? Greenpeace reckons in the long run, no. 
 
Greenpeace has just published a study commissioned from the
Stockholm Environment Institute. The institute has worked for more
than a dozen governments and a clutch of UN agencies.
'Energy Without Oil', as the study is known, concludes that in
forty years it would be possible to reduce by half the amount of
oil we use. Over the following hundred years we could ditch all our
fossil fuels; oil, coal and gas without any discernible effect on
official predictions of economic growth over the same period. of
course this requires a paradigm shift in official thinking, but
also a healthy dose of common sense. Governments would have to
demand an increase in the efficiency of cars for example, so that
in OECD countries the average fuel usage of 8.7 km per litre (24.5
miles per gallon) would rise to 34 km miles per litre by 2030
(almost 100 miles per gallon). It also means few or no cars in city
centres, more public transport and the doubling of power station
efficiencies. Perfectly possible, says the study if all of us,
governments, industry and consumers simply make use of the high
efficiency technologies already available.
 
At the same time, oil companies would have to hand over
technologies they have already developed to an advanced stage but
are an insignificant part of their business. If, for example,  they
began to promote solar energy to the same extent as
exploring new oil fields, it would quickly become a multi billion
dollar industry. The Stockholm report claims that other renewable
technologies like wind, small scale hydroelectric units and bio-
fuels are close to economic break-through. These technologies could
be competitive early next century if governments find the courage
to increase research and development and impose on oil companies
taxes which fairly represent the true costs of cleaning up major
spills and atmospheric pollution. In fact the study predicts oil
prices would double.
 
This is no green pipe dream. The cost of doing nothing would equal
or, more likely, exceed the cost of implementing the oil phase out
plan. Every ten years that we delay putting the plan into action
means almost a half a degree rise in temperature. The cost of
building sea defences, of moving populations and of unpredictable
weather patterns would be astronomical. Not to speak of widespread
panic in the insurance community. Insurance companies have suffered
unprecedented losses from Hurricanes Hugo and Andrew and the
cyclones Iniki and Mireille. After counting the cost of hurricane
Andrew in Florida - 7 billion dollars plus, eight insurance
companies went to the wall. Forget trying to insure your wooden
dream beach house for the time being. In  November 1990, the
General Manager of one of the largest re-insurance companies in the
world Swiss Re said "If the feared climate change is confirmed, it
will obviously stretch the
insurance industry to its limits. We must marshall our talents for
innovation." 
 
Real change will come about when the most powerful conclude it is
time to innovate. The US only added its signature to the Climate
Convention last June in Rio de Janeiro under the
condition it was watered down so much as to be virtually
meaningless. No innovation here. The failure radically to curb
carbon dioxide emissions was a dangerous signal to be sending the
trillion dollar a year fossil fuel industry. Their quest is for
gold and there is a lot of gold still in the ground.
 
We have burned less than 700 billion barrels of oil to date. There
are 1000 billion in proven reserves, and if surveys are correct,
almost certainly more than another 700 billion yet to find.
 
Measuring the 'Braer' spill against this broader canvas will make
calls for double-hulled vessels or for improved shipping
practices seem faintly ridiculous. After the Exxon Valdez
disaster, an Exxon spokesman described the spill as "the price we
pay for civilisation". The 'Energy Without Oil' study shows that
civilisation can do without oil. The technology is already
available, and the change will not bankrupt us. What is needed now
is the political will to make it happen.
=end=