http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-kurlansky/bp-oil-spill-anniversary_b_851304.html
This blog post from the Huffington Post was written on the one year anniversary of the BP oil spill by Mark Kurlansky. The author compares the BP oil spill to the nuclear disaster in Fukushima. He discusses how quickly the general public forgets about one disaster and moves on to the next. He exemplifies this point with the idea that the nuclear power plant was spewing radiation into the atmosphere long before it the contaminated fluids were dumped into the ocean. He goes on to discuss that even though the oil spill appears to be cleaned up on the surface, it is still uncertain what long term effects that disaster will have on the ocean. Kurlansky then blames companies such as the ones responsible for building nuclear power plants and offshore drilling for the damages they are causing. They are taking these risks without having a realistic plan to respond to these accidents/disasters. He then turns his focus on people’s greed of energy. He states that, “people would rather energy wantonly than assure their own safety and the preservation of the planet.” With this being said, do you think the author is suggesting these changes need to start with the general population changing their way of life or by creating legislation that will restrict the risks that energy companies can take, thus adversely affecting the way people live their lives?
It is in my opinion that it is a little bit of both. However, change in public opinion, specifically want or even simply acceptance of a little change is a good place to start. For some reason it seems to be people don't want to fix a problem until it is really big. A simple change such as being conscious of where you are placing your trash and filtering out what can be recycled can act as a catalyst for being mindful of the earth and development of good habits. After that I think it will be easy for political activism to happen.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting blog since my paper for this class is focus on the BP oil spill as well so I have done lots of research about the subject. First by answering the question in the blog, the oil drilling companies know about the consequence of drilling offshore and they do have several protection and solution to handle most of the possible situation. They know they are taking the risk by drilling the oil, but base on the research that had been done, the rate of ocean pollution due to the oil spill is very low, and that’s why they are taking the risk. Another reason for them to do it is because there is no another safer, more environment friendly energy to use, solar and wind energies are too unstable as a main source of energy. However, if everyone can change his or her life style by not suing as much energy, then we don’t need that many energy companies. I think the only way to solve it is for everyone to reduce their energy used so companies like BP might stop drilling that many energy.
ReplyDeleteSince i notice there is a frequent use of the the pronoun "I"/"we"/"our" in the featured blog, there comes up with a series of relevant questions. What those appeals to the audience suggest about who the writer believes the audience is; what they believe the audience values, or what the relationship between the writer/audience seems to be (for example, does the writer ask for the audience's opinion or position herself as an authority, or something else entirely?). For more details, you can refer to Suggested Prompts #5.
ReplyDeleteAs suggested by others, some may have thought it was a mixture of both, a problem with the general public, or just legislative issues. In my opinion I believe that it is a legislative issue. I think this because if there is a bill or an act passed the individuals that own the refineries are now subject to change even before a big problem arises again. By having a legislative change you are also chanign the general publics actions and thoughts.
ReplyDeleteMy final paper is in the nuclear disaster in japan, also somewhat similar to this article. My thesis explains an idea that the idea of news reporting is not always necessarily to report info to the public but to push the author's onto its readers. So of course I believe that Mark Kurlansky is "suggesting changes need to start," as you guys have put it. However I disagree with his motives for a number of reasons. Firstly I believe a huge amount of the world is uneducated about nuclear power, for example, our own president, George W. Bush could not correctly pronounce the word "nuclear." On that note authors are highlighting the negatives on nuclear power but over looking their pros. Yes they cause pollution, but your computer causes pollution. Everything nowadays causes pollution. I completely agree however that the BP accident did cause massive pollution and that was due to stupid and unorganized protocol. I believe oil is a leading cause of pollution in the world, but again its pro's are being overlooked. Oil can be used in a "cleaner" manor before alternate energy sources are created.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting claim that the author makes is that society moves from one disaster to the next, forgetting about past disasters. The author uses the example of the the nuclear accident in Japan and how the disaster has been forgotten about as the anniversary of the BP spill approaches. Based on what I've read from the Huffington post news stories, (although I have not read many of the blogs)I feel it is safe to say that the writers and audience are likely more liberal than the writers and audience on other media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal. My theory is that because of the writers and audience of the Huffington Post are generally more politically liberal, the overall attitude towards disaster places the blame on corporations, such as BP or Japan's nuclear industry, where as sites that tend to be more conservative might have the attitude that disasters are more of fluke accidents which cannot be prevented very easily.
ReplyDeleteActually I think creating a legislation is a most direct way but may be not the most efficient way for dealing with these kind of problems. In other words, it is better to start with changing people's mind first. For the two case in the blog, in fact both of the companies consider the profit first rather than the safety or healthy of the publics. That's why they chose to build the nuclear plant or the oil drilling plate in a comparatively dangerous place. Creating a relative law can be temperary steps. However, it is more important to affect humans' thoughs or judgement for solving the problem permantly; although it may be very difficult and take a very long time.
ReplyDeleteFor the author to say that we shouldn't have offshore drilling and nuclear power is ignorant. The world we live in requires power. Oil and nuclear energy produce high amounts of energy. Yes, they are risky but without risk there is no reward. You have to understand that we will deplete the oil under mainland; thus, offshore drilling is a must. Nuclear power is easy and produces little bi-products. We need these sources of energy to keep the Earth's resources from being completely gone to quickly.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the author wants both to be done for the fact that he does put fault upon the people for there excessive greed of energy, and he puts fault upon the government for 'coddling' the oil energy companies and thereby allowing the energy companies to carry on such practices that are not only dangerous for the environment but also directly dangerous to the people as well. However, the author does mention that the government does this on the basis that the people are so greedy for energy, but there are also other motives the government can have for this, therefor that statement does not necessarily hold true all the time. In my opinion the best way to handle the situation though is to educate the people upon the destructive habits of energy production and then educate the people upon alternative methods that are less destructive towards the environment. Ultimately the people should be educated so that society can further progress in developing new and better ways to produce energy so that the environment is not damaged even further than it already is.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though the author is aiming toward creating legislation, because his tone in the article is more directed toward how the companies are letting this happen, not the general population. People are going to live how they live, there's no avoiding or changing that, but like the author said, building a nuclear power plant on the coast of the ocean without any precautions in a tsunami-prone area is inexcusable. I agree with the author here in that it is on these companies to promote a safer environment, and not put not only people, but oceanic life in danger.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Marcus that the author is slightly favoring that the creating legislation is the answer to the problem. I agree that legislation is probably the best first step, because it is the role of the government to protect us, and it is apparent we need protection. Legislation would ultimately have a trickle down effect the companies and the overall population. As well, i do think there needs to be a companied effort by all involved including the general population to be careful and aware of how they are effecting the environment. This article ultimately wants the audience, to take a step back and reflect on how they are effecting the environment. I agree with this, and agree with the author when he makes the point that placing nuclear power plants on the coast is inexcusable (in my opinion it is a pretty ignorant move).
ReplyDeletee states that, “people would rather energy wantonly than assure their own safety and the preservation of the planet.” With this being said, do you think the author is suggesting these changes need to start with the general population changing their way of life or by creating legislation that will restrict the risks that energy companies can take, thus adversely affecting the way people live their lives?