was the oil spill a fuss over not very much?

The BP spill may be going from being a "much worse" environmental disaster than everyone thought to the opposite: an over-hyped minor accident. Time's Michael Grunwald has been speaking to some marine scientists who paint a different picture to one we've read about so far:

The scientists I spoke with cite four basic reasons the initial eco-fears seem overblown. First, the Deepwater oil, unlike the black glop from the Valdez, is unusually light and degradable, which is why the slick in the Gulf is dissolving surprisingly rapidly now that the gusher has been capped. Second, the Gulf of Mexico, unlike Alaska's Prince William Sound, is very warm, which has helped bacteria break down the oil. Third, heavy flows of Mississippi River water have helped keep the oil away from the coast, where it can do much more damage. And finally, Mother Nature can be incredibly resilient. Van Heerden's assessment team showed me around Casse-tete Island in Timbalier Bay, where new shoots of Spartina grasses were sprouting in oiled marshes and new leaves were growing on the first black mangroves I've ever seen that were actually black. "It comes back fast, doesn't it?" van Heerden said.

As the report mentions, this needn't obscure the fact that the massive long-term damage that oil drilling has wreaked on the environment of coastal Louisiana.

Comments

[Ejoch]

Actually a number of US writers have been patiently pointing out for weeks that the 'disaster' cries were probably mistaken. Also that given the area's dependency on the oil industry, people emoting about the - by comparison tiny - fishing industry were barking up the wrong tree. As can now been seen from the regions's reaction to the new bill.