In the U.S., Economy Always Trumps Ecology

Will the United States change its environmental policy in light of the oil spill affecting its coasts? It is not so sure.

One must hope that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will change the United States’ behavior with regard to ecology.

Many remember the melancholy phrase the elder Bush let slip one day: “Are we doomed to be the fattest people?” he asked sadly. But Bush Junior, George “Dubya,” barely in office, had an even more unfortunate phrase: “The American way of life is not negotiable.” It accompanied the Senate’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol. It was out of the question that Americans would reduce their standard of living, founded largely on the automobile. All the oilmen surrounding George “Dubya” had applauded — British Petroleum more vigorously than the others.

And the next thing you know, oil can be nothing but good…

Of course, oil is at the heart of the American standard of living, founded on extensive housing and the intensive use of cars. But the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico puts President Obama, who has returned from Louisiana for the third time, in the spotlight, and public opinion blames him for not having been active enough.

One must say that it appears, in the light of day, as if the oil spill has only begun. Already, it spreads over 320 kilometers around the main leak and has divided into thousands of smaller sheets. Consequently, beyond poor Louisiana, it is rich Florida that could bear the brunt of the oil. Florida is the “sunshine state.” Its tourism industry is worth $57 billion. And the first oil pellets have just arrived on the magnificent white sand beaches of Pensacola. As for the fishers, they are now affected by a restricted zone the size of France.

But British Petroleum is going to pay…

BP will give some money, and it is even possible that its leaders will be strongly punished, that they will go to prison — who knows? — for having lied, hidden the severity of the damage, and underestimated the risk of drilling in the high seas as well as the reality of their means of responding. But to say “BP is going to pay” implies that the damage is reparable and that the phenomenon is reversible.

And yet, some damage is irreversible.

Some damage is irreversible, such as the disappearance of some species in Louisiana. It is because of this idea of reversibility and irreversibility that economy and ecology are forever incompatible. For the economy, everything is reversible: Growth can come from depression, jobs from unemployment, lower prices from higher ones, etc., etc. The arrow of time does not exist for the economist. The ecologist, on the contrary, is situated in irreversible time, which is also the time of history. A virgin forest that has destroyed or burned has disappeared for good, even if it is one day replaced by eucalyptus. A species that disappears has disappeared forever. The ecologist is about caution and stability; the economist is about growth and short-sightedness. This is how Americans, who inhabited the continent of infinite expanse, are discovering caution and stability.