When my daughter knocks over a cup of milk at dinner, that’s a spill. When I let the gasoline can leak on my lawn mower, that’s a spill. When I get knocked over roller skating, that’s a spill too.
But when an offshore rig explodes and millions of barrels of oil flow into the Gulf of Mexico for more than three months, that is NOT a spill. That’s a catastrophe. That’s a nightmare. That’s a disaster. So why do are we still referring to what’s happening as a spill?
Maybe it is because BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward continued to refer to the catastrophe/nightmare/disaster as a spill when he went before Congress on June 17: “The explosion and fire aboard the Deepwater Horizon and the resulting oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico never should have happened─ and I am deeply sorry that they did.”
He later referred to it as an “incident.” It was more than an incident too. But to be fair to Hayward, there were points in his Congressional testimony where he did call it a “disaster” and then referred to the explosion and deaths of the workers involved as “tragic events.”
Even President Barack Obama in his speech to the nation on June 15 referred to it as the spill at least seven times. He said, “Tonight, I've returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast to speak with you about the battle we're waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens.” He certainly could have opened his speech by using disaster/catastrophe or nightmare.
Obama also called it a leak at least two times. When my tire runs low on air, that’s a leak. When the bathroom pipes drip onto the floor, that’s a leak. This is not a leak either. But in fairness to the president, he also referred to it as a disaster, catastrophe and an epedmic at least once each in his address.
When BP decided it needed someone other than Hayward to be the face of the company, native Louisaian Daryll Willis was recruited to do the job. The serious looking executive promises viewers in recent TV commercials to make it right. Yet he barely refers to what happened, and only once refers to the oil at all, again calling it a spill.
The point is that using the word spill or leak or incident is a way of downplaying its significance. It is a way of minimizing the event. So here today I am officially suggesting the nation come up with a new term. One contender: How about the Gulf Oil Dump?
To dump something indicates a general willfullness on someone’s part. If I dump trash along the road, it indicates that I am doing it intentionally and that it is not being done in a very careful manner. A dump is a place where people throw away trash, not a place where we dispose of trash in an environmentally friendly manner. Reasonsible people take their trash to a landfill.
Another contender: How about Gulf Oil Disaster? This is a good one. A disaster is a event that has far reaching consequences. A disaster is something unplanned, unexpected yet it does not condone it was a random act. Someone can cause a disaster and someone can avoid a disaster. In this case, the oil in the gulf certainly could have been avoided.
Another option: Gulf Oil Catastrophe? A catastrophe is a sudden or widespread disaster. It is bigger than a disaster, but it also connotes some finality. We do not know how this one will end. Will it end up in catastrophe? Or will we recover? Only time will tell on that one.
So for the record, I say the nation stops calling it a spill and settles on Gulf Oil Disaster. In time we may know it as the Gulf Oil Catastrophe, but it is a bit too soon for that. Gulf Oil Dump just seems a tad too crude - pardon the pun.
I know there is some history with word spill. After all, we still refer to the Exxon Valdez in 1989 as an oil spill. But as we now know, this will end up being a bigger event than that.
The Gulf Oil Disaster. Let’s hear Hayward say it. Let’s hear Obama say it. Let’s hear BP executives, public officials and citizens call it what it is. It is a disaster.
No comments:
Post a Comment