Some of the visually oriented among us are turning to revising a particular corporate logo as a means of coming to grips with an immeasurable catastrophe. Greenpeace UK and others have re-design contests underway. Some of the entries are really quite good.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenpeaceuk/4682407000/in/set-72157623796911855/
http://www.logomyway.com/contestView.php?contestId=1746
Others, however, are touting the use of new treatments with environmental consequences unknown to clean up the mess. For example, one firm is suggesting that we dump nanotech chemicals (nanomaterials) to help clean up the oil. Some nanomaterials have been linked to health concerns such as pierced cellular walls and have “unique” physical features, the unknown risks of which pale in comparison to past “miracles” like asbestos.
"We can aerial spray it in the sea. We can put it in the boats and dump it out and the strength is so strong, it's about one gallon to every acre," Rodney Bath, Vice President of Government Sales, added.
Fortunately, the company still needs approval by the US EPA for this use. But, its a good example of the way in which the private sector often responds to problems – and the need to have rigorous environmental impact assessments for technologies, especially those that are new and unproven.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has recently held that environmental impact assessments are now such standard practice that they can be considered a “requirement under general international law.” Hopefully, the type of assessment they are speaking of is rigorous enough to avert future “solutions” that unjustly expose us all to their astronomical externalities. But, the meaning of this requirement under "general international law" depends upon national environmental regimes, so given the disaster in the gulf, it appears that there is still some work to be done on elevating the standard for environmental assessments.
Posted by: |