Philip Zimbardo, reflecting on his childhood illness

Zimbardo and his fellow patients were willfully blind: denying truths that were too painful, too frightening to confront. It’s something we all do, even when we have grown up. The problem arises when we use the same mechanism to deny uncomfortable truths that cry out for acknowledgement, debate, action, and change. Many, perhaps even most, of the greatest crimes have been committed not in the dark, hidden where no one could see them, but in full view of so many people who simply chose not to look and not to question.

Excerpt from “Willful Blindness: Why We Ignore the Obvious at Our Peril”, by Margaret Heffernan.

Whether choose to engage in development of public decisions or policy, a social justice issue, environmental issue or any other kind of community issue depends firstly on whether we choose to even make ourselves aware of it. How easy it has become to “distract” ourselves with entertainment, games and living vicariously through our favourite television show. If we don’t allow reality to even be on the radar screen, we will continue to be blissfully ignorant and undisturbed by events we find “unpleasant”. But we are far from innocent. What are the consequences of not knowing about the realities of our world or striving for a better understanding? We have significantly reduced our capacity to adapt, to create any change that may be needed, but also we have reduced our capacity to react to change imposed upon us. Our ignorance also makes us vulnerable to manipulation by others.

And then there is the situation of denying reality as described by Heffernan. We have the opportunity for knowledge, and a responsibility to be informed, but we refuse to take it. She explains, “We can’t notice and know everything: the cognitive limits of our brains simply won’t let us. That means we have to filter or edit what we take in. So what we choose to let through and to leave out is critical. We mostly admit the information that makes us feel great about ourselves, while conveniently filtering whatever unsettles our fragile egos and most vital beliefs. Fear of conflict, fear of change keeps us that way.”

Willful blindness allows us to “disengage” from community and society. We may think being blind makes us safer, but it is only when we confront facts and fears, we achieve real power and unleash our capacity for change.

Amy writes in her report: “As the night progressed, the irony of finding Huxley’s book grew. He wrote it in 1958, almost 30 years after his famous dystopian novel, “Brave New World.” The original work described society in the future where people had been stratified into haves and have-nots. The “Brave New World” denizens were plied with pleasure, distraction, advertisement and intoxicating drugs to lull them into complacency, a world of perfect consumerism, with lower classes doing all the work for an elite.”
“Brave New World Revisited” was Huxley’s nonfiction response to the speed with which he saw modern society careening to that bleak future. It seemed relevant, as the encampment, motivated in large part by the opposition to the supremacy of commerce and globalization, was being destroyed.”
Huxley wrote in the book: “Big Business, made possible by advancing technology and the consequent ruin of Little Business, is controlled by the State—that is to say, by a small group of party leaders and the soldiers, policemen and civil servants who carry out their orders. In a capitalist democracy, such as the United States, it is controlled by what Professor C. Wright Mills has called the Power Elite.” Huxley goes on to write, “This Power Elite directly employs several millions of the country’s working force in its factories, offices and stores, controls many millions more by lending them the money to buy its products, and, through its ownership of the media of mass communication, influences the thoughts, the feelings and the actions of virtually everybody.”
Arundhati Roy was born and lives in India. She has worked as a film designer, actor, and screenplay writer, and is the author of numerous books. She speaks about the desire of many to embrace the “American way of life”.
“Today, we know that the “American way of life” – the model that the rest of the world is meant to aspire towards – has resulted in 400 people owning the wealth of half of the population of the United States. It has meant thousands of people being turned out of their homes and jobs while the US government bailed out banks and corporations – American International Group (AIG) alone was given $182bn.
The Indian government worships US economic policy. As a result of 20 years of the free market economy, today, 100 of India’s richest people own assets worth one-fourth of the country’s GDP while more than 80% of the people live on less than 50 cents a day; 250,000 farmers, driven into a spiral of death, have committed suicide. We call this progress, and now think of ourselves as a superpower. Like you, we are well-qualified: we have nuclear bombs and obscene inequality.”
Roy sees the Occupy Movement as a “re-awakening” of our imagination and a way to imagine a system that includes:
• “An end to cross-ownership in businesses. For example, weapons manufacturers cannot own TV stations; mining corporations cannot run newspapers; business houses cannot fund universities; drug companies cannot control public health funds.
• Natural resources and essential infrastructure – water supply, electricity, health, and education – cannot be privatized.
• Everybody must have the right to shelter, education and healthcare.
• The children of the rich cannot inherit their parents’ wealth.”
Firman DaBrander is Chair of Humanistic Studies and Associate Professor of Philosophy at the Maryland Institute College of Art. In a recent article on commondreams.org, he spoke of the philosophy and influence of Ayn Rand, the mother of extreme elitism, individualism and capitalism. She has had a great influence on politics and economic policy through her followers, particularly in the United States.
He notes, “In a 1967 article entitled “Requiem for Man,” Rand issues a scathing rebuttal to Pope Paul VI who dared suggest that capitalists must be mindful of global wealth disparity and the sufferings of the poor, and recognize a social obligation to help the unfortunate (the Vatican has notably issued similar remarks in a recent statement on the global financial crisis). Rand slams the Pope for urging us to show brotherly love to poor third world “savages.” To the contrary, she declares, when civilized man “discovers entire populations rotting alive in such conditions” he should not feel pity, but “a burning stab of pride” for “the achievements of his nations and his culture…” Amazingly, Rand fails to acknowledge how much the civilized nations have prospered at the expense of the global poor thanks to imperialism. “
He concludes by saying, “I’ve long wondered why—or how—Rand’s disciples conveniently, miraculously, ignored her heinous conclusions. It’s time Rand was seen for what is is—no glossing over it. Clearly, it’s not acceptable for our political leaders to be associated with her thought.”
So when we see protests around the world and wonder, what is going on?

Naomi Klein, is an award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist and author of the New York Times and #1 international bestseller, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Naomi spoke to Occupy Wall Street on October 7, 2011.

“We all know, or at least sense, that the world is upside down: we act as if there is no end to what is actually finite — fossil fuels and the atmospheric space to absorb their emissions. And we act as if there are strict and immovable limits to what is actually bountiful — the financial resources to build the kind of society we need.

The task of our time is to turn this around: to challenge this false scarcity. To insist that we can afford to build a decent, inclusive society — while at the same time, respect the real limits to what the earth can take.”
This is a massive global movement calling for justice of all kinds – environmental, economic and social justice.

 
From “Indignez-vous!”(Time for Outrage) by Stéphane Hessel; 93 years old; former French Resistance fighter against the Nazi occupation of France; French Ambassador to the UN; part of the team that developed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 
Why are people currently camped out, marching and rallying in over 1500 cities in over eighty countries? What do they want? Why are they willing to sit and sleep in the cold or face persecution? Just as the Resistance fought against the occupation of France by the Nazis in World War II, part of teh story of this “Occupy” movement is a response to another kind of “occupation”. The occupation, by large corporations, of the territory we call – “DEMOCRACY”. But that isn’t the whole story.

As we watch the news or see the tents in our own city, we are in awe of and perhaps confused about this global movement – a leaderless, massive, peaceful effort that is drawing people by the thousands to a common place. We may think this movement is just about the crimes and injustice perpetuated by Wall Street, several US banks, and the US Government. If it was just that, the movement would have only happened in the United States. Why in Canada? Why in Europe? Why in Japan, Brazil? Have the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya influenced action elsewhere? Are people thinking that if they can fight against a dangerous and corrupt dictatorship, they too can make known the needs of the ordinary citizen within a democratic system? Have these distant rebellions provided a platform for many people in the western world – those who are discounted, ignored or systemically discriminated against – to make their voice heard?

Has the disconnect between governments and their people finally come to a head? Is there a belief that real change happens not at the political level, but the grassroots community level? Are people tired of corrupt governments and corporate greed in this age of austerity, as Amy Goodman notes in her broadcast on the Global Day of Rage? http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/17/global_day_of_rage_hundreds_of

Are people tired of the hypocrisy? http://videosift.com/video/I-Am-Not-Moving-Occupy-Wall-Street

“From the Arab Spring to India’s anti-corruption crusades; from the mass unrest in Europe to Occupy Wall Street, 2011 has been a year of foment. Across the world, citizens in societies both strong and fragile have demanded ‘we want in!’” says Satya Das (Cambridge Strategies) in his policy brief. http://www.cambridgestrategies.com/Our-Work/51-POLICY-BRIEFS/View-category.html?ascdesc=DESC&orderby=dmdate_published

Why do these “Occupy” people want to bring the conversations about social, economic and environment justice to the forefront? Are these conversations currently missing? Maybe the conversations aren’t missing, but missing in some critical arenas – political and corporate arenas. Perhaps what is missing is the power of citizens to have a say in what kind of society they desire rather than having those decisions made by others who may only see one part of the story of progress – the economic story.

Many are questioning why corporations have such a powerful voice in deciding what our country will be and look like in the future? Their influence on government impacts many decisions that only focus on the economic aspect of progress.  But, if you don’t have vast amounts of money to lobby and pour into our political system to ensure high levels of influence over government policy and legislation like big business, what could you do? Create your own space? Some may call this movement “anti-business”, but it is not anti-business.(Premier Redford in her State of Alberta Address, October 24, 2011). http://alberta.ca/home/. It is a plea to reexamine the policies and practices that negatively impact the sustainablity of our future.

Everyone appreciates that the private sector is an important part of society. But it should not be the only driver of society . The economy is a subset of society, not the other way around. Perhaps, it is the balance of power and how wealth is distributed that is the problem. History has shown us that this disparity is not sustainable. We have many rebellions to learn from.

In an Abacus Data survey conducted by The Sun in late October 2011, more than half the people asked, believe the gap between the rich and poor is too large in Canada, and also think the rich should pay more taxes. http://www.edmontonsun.com/2011/10/26/more-favour-occupy-protests-than-oppose

Many in the Occupy movement feel a Robin Hood tax could help create more equity – a tax that would require banks to give back a small percentage of their profits to programs that benefit the people from whom they profit. http://occupyedmonton.org/robin-hood-tax-call-to-action/

According to research by Imagine Canada, companies with annual revenues over $25 million donated only 0.6% of their pre-tax profits back to the community. http://library.imaginecanada.ca/sector_research/statistics/business_contributions

In a democracy, the people, all people need to have equitable influence on the decisions and priorities that impact them. Much like it takes an ecology of life forms to make up an ecosystem, it takes an ecology of authority and influence to make up a democratic country. It means inviting diversity into the decision space. When those invitations are not extended, a space will be claimed and created, ergo, the Occupy Movement.

However, not everyone appreciates this movement. Esra Levant notes that the movement is simply a bunch of dirty hippies in a war against hygiene and challenges them to “get an occupation”. http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/18/occupy-protest-stinks

Many of the news reports don’t dig deeper into the movement and focus on how many bylaws the protestors are violating. History has shown that we are byline readers and somewhat susceptible to those kind of distractions. There has also been criticism that protestors are unfairly comparing the US situation with Canada. University of Alberta professor Andrew Leach said he suspected some Canadian protesters might not have investigated the Canadian economic situation closely enough. http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Occupy+Calgary+protesters+continue+occupy+Olympic+Plaza/5559175/story.html

If the Occupy Movement is anything, it is diverse. The tendency to think that it is about one issue is misleading. The “Occupy” Movement seems to be about transforming those parts of our society that are not working. It is about continuing to strive for a healthy and inclusive democracy. It is about reclaiming the commons when so much is privatized. It is about reclaiming our humanity as resourceful human beings – not human resources who are looked upon as a commodity. It is about paying attention to basic human needs. It is about reducing ignorance and error in our thinking and action, reducing waste, suffering and injustice. It is asking, “Are we on the right path? Is this the path that will lead to a place where my children and grandchildren can live and flourish?” And, “Can we talk more about that?”

“There are unbearable things all around us. You have to look for them; search carefully. Open your eyes and you will see. This is what I tell young people: If you spend a little time searching, you will find your reasons to engage. The worst attitude is indifference.”            Stéphane Hessel

Ask yourself, is it time for you to look around, and carefully examine what is really going on in order to ensure a just and healthy world? Take a look deeper into what has created the conditions that have lead to this movement and this time for outrage?

The voice you probably listen to most is the one inside your head. Your personal voice can be enabling or constraining. It can help you make sense out of a situation and push you to seek truth or it can bias information you are receiving and perpetuate deception (in yourself or in situations). The important thing to understand about our personal voice is how it is formed. How have your upbringing, experience, culture, worldviews and beliefs influenced your personal voice? Does this prevent you from hearing other important voices?

Voices we tend to easily listen to are voices that confirm what the norm in society believes is right—the voices of convention and habit. These voices affirm mainstream society’s current way of thinking, learning and acting in the world. Examples include : “This is the policy and this is the way we have always done it”, “The marketplace will take care of all people”, “Our religion is the right religion,” and “Your wash (and your house) should smell like lavender.” How do we know when to listen and when not to?

We find ourselves listening to voices of authority, rules and laws. “Experts say that there will be little damage due to the spill”, “We need to address childhood obesity”, “You were going 80 in a 50 km/hr zone”. How do we know when to listen and when not to?

The voices that are often harder to hear are the voices of the future events. These are the voices that create cognitive dissonance in us–a discomfort for us. They create dissonance because they may bring into question our thinking, our beliefs and our way of life. Some of these voices include discussions on the consequences of climate change and how we need to change to reduce the impact. Some of these may be the voices that make us aware of food security issues: globalization of food; corporate ownership of seeds and water; genetic modification; toxins and chemicals in foods we think are safe. It’s just too scary to think about, so let’s not pay attention to these voices!!

We don’t often want to listen to voices of the opposition. “Why should we? We’re right and they’re wrong!” The voice of opposition is there because what may seemingly be good for you, may not be good for others. It provides checks and balances to hold each other accountable. Take for example Gadhafi”s response to the revolution in his country (serious cognitive dissonance!). When faced with the voice of the opposition, we may ask ourselves, “How could I possibly listen to someone who is questioning my competence, or my priorities?”

It is also very difficult to listen to the voices of underlying causal systems or error. Why? Because it takes a lot of hard work and exploration to find our what is really causing the problem. It can be embarrassing to admit our mistakes and too costly to fix them. Furthermore, we like dealing with the easy, quick fix, the symptoms of a problem that everyone can see. Listening to the voices of the underlying causes might force us to actually work at a systemic level to create significant change.

IN TORONTO: A 66-year-old woman with Alzheimer’s disease froze to death after she collapsed on a driveway near her home Monday. Her husband had reported her missing earlier that night. When officers arrived at the scene where the woman was found they discovered finger marks in the dirt on a car indicating she’d tried to pull herself up. There were also scratch marks on the screen door of the home. The woman had called out for help and neighbours heard her, yet no one came outside to assist her or even to call 911.

Empathy and compassion create a just society— not fear, not apathy , not egocentrism, not laziness. We need to do much better at caring and quit assuming someone else will step up and help others in need.

Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09 http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA http://www.journalism.org Michael Martinez, CNN, January 10, 2011, http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/toxic2democracy/
View This Poll

The water for his sprinkler comes from an overly stressed aquifer. This aquifer provides this the community’s drinking and household water. I look down the street and see the edge of a sign that says “low water warning”. This sign is put out when water supply is very low and there won’t be enough water to put out a fire if someone’s house goes up in flames.

I see my neighbour looking out his window. He shakes his head in disgust. He is a fair weather person and really gets upset when the sun isn’t shining. I see him walk away, thinking he may be going to turn off his sprinkler. I wait. Holy cow, he really is a fair weather person, choosing to go watch his tv rather than get his hair wet in the rain!

The rain is letting up and the sun is coming out. I look at the thick tangle of trees in my front yard. They seem to be refreshed by the rainwater. I see the nest of robins and another nest of goldfinches. I see scores purple martins swooping and skillfully catching their dinner in midair. I am comfortable with the decision I made to keep the wilderness in my front yard.

A friend of mine dug up her grass and planted potatoes and squash. Her neighbour dug up her lawn and planted carrots, onions and beans. Another neighbour followed suit and planted tomatoes, lettuce and peas in her front yard. Between them they provide fresh vegetables not only for their families, but others on the block. Sounds like a heck of a good idea to me.

I read an article once that said that 78 million pounds of pesticides and herbicides a year are applied to lawns to kill weeds (which are also a nice colour of green when cut short). Maintaining non-native plants, like the kind of grass we use for lawns, requires 10,000 gallons of water per year per lawn, over and above rainwater. Sounds like lawns are incredibly inefficient and wasteful. Gardens might be a better way to go. Leaving natural plants and trees is another option.

The sun is fully out now and with the heat, things are drying up quickly. I see my neighbour open his shed and drive out his lawn mower. It stalls. Looks like it’s out of gas. He swears. He grabs his gas can and slowly fills the tank.  He’s ready.  Cutting his lawn usually takes him about 2 hours. Me… I’m going kayaking.

Profound question… What are we as human beings training for in life? At a superficial level one might think that training for life means “training” for a school exam, job training or training for a marathon. But at an existential level, this question takes us beyond our own personal wants to examine how we might contribute to human progress.

So what ARE we training for and how do we structure our learning that allows us to engage the best of our imagination, conscience and meaning-making capacities? We may not know exactly what the future will look like but we do know that people in the future will need adaptive capacity on several fronts.

How we design and structure our learning, not just in formal situations like school, but in our homes as parents and in our community, will have an impact on our ability to think wisely.

In the future, our children will need to have the ability to awaken to what it truly means to be alive and human in the larger context of all life systems on the planet. They will need to have a collective, deep understanding of the many systems and how they inter-relate. They will need the ability to make decisions about what real progress is or isn’t in this larger context. They will need to make decisions about whether to pursue a specialized area of advancement which may in turn cause serious harm to another life-system. You don’t get this kind of understanding and capacity from a half hour sit-com.

Our children will need to learn what it takes to think and act in a way that contributes to life sustaining progress. They will need the kind of thinking that avoids hubris and carelessness so we don’t end up with the kind of devastating situation that is occurring in the Gulf of Mexico. You don’t get this without thoughtful, comprehensive inquiry and study. You don’t get this from a reality show.

To avoid becoming intellectual garbage bears, our children will need to have compassion and a level of caring that extends beyond their own group, community and species. What does it really mean to be a global citizen in terms of peace and sustainability? You don’t get this from a fashion magazine.

Our children will need to have the capacity to construct a learning portfolio so they are continuously in a state of “becoming”. This requires seeking out television shows, magazines and books that engage us at an existential level. Resources that allow us to broaden our thinking, create a deeper understanding about our world that is a more accurate representation of what life is really like. This may require studying and exploring topics across cultures, time and fields of endeavour. The range of resources accessed should include all subjects that have contributed to human and social development–history, political science, sociology, technology, anthropology, health, psychology, environment, economics, human rights, education. Once you start to dig into these kinds of resources, your adaptive thinking capacities are enhanced and you reduce your vulnerability and increase your ability to survive and thrive.

It is not just schools that need to take responsibility for constructing quality and relevant learning. We all have responsibility. We spend all sorts of time developing our investment portfolio. We need to spend significant time constructing a learning portfolio to access the best of our social and cultural assets, not our “garbage”.

Individuals in the group have re‐stated the same thing for the last twenty minutes (and for hours in many previous meetings). How can so many people say the same thing in so many different ways? They are not listening to what was already said. It’s as if they weren’t present at the meeting. (Perhaps they too are daydreaming!) This group, myself included, struggles with what I would call “purposeful and productive” listening, re‐hashing old ideas, old solutions and never replacing them with new ones. We need to change this somehow.

Otto Scharmer in his book Theory U identifies four basic types of listening.

1) Downloading: This listening is about reconfirming habitual judgments.You find yourself thinking “Yeah, know that already.” When we download, we are deaf to other people’s stories; we only hear that which confirms our own story and worldview. This is the kind of non‐listening exhibited by fundamentalists, dictators, “experts” and people who are arrogant or angry.

2) Factual Listening: “Ooh, look at that!” This is listening by paying attention to facts and novel or disconfirming data focusing on what differs from what you already know. You switch from attending to your “inner voice of judgment” to attending to data right in front of you. This listening is the basic mode of good science. You ask questions and carefully observe the responses that nature (data) gives you. This kind of listening requires an open mind.

3) Empathic Listening: “Oh yes, I know how you feel”. The third deeper level of listening happens when you are really engaged in a dialogue and you become aware of a profound shift from cognitive listening to listening with an open heart. You connect with the other person, forgetting about your own agenda and seeing how the world unfolds through their eyes. “This is a skill that can be cultivated and developed, just like any other human relations skill. It’s a skill that requires us to activate s different source of intelligence: the intelligence of the heart.”

4) Generative Dialogue: “I can’t express what I experience in words. My whole being has slowed down. I feel more quiet and present and more my real self. I am connected to something larger than myself.” We listen not only from within ourselves or from within others but from the whole of the system. This type of listening requires us to connect to possibility and the emerging field of the future. You realize you are no longer the same person that you were when you started the conversation. This kind of listening requires you have an open will.

In the book Presence, collaboratively written by Peter Senge, Otto Scharmer and others, they explore the implications of downloading. When we download we limit our potential to learn by engaging only in reactive learning. “We are learning how best to react to circumstances we see ourselves having no hand in creating. We discount interpretations and options for action that are different from those we know and trust. We act to defend our interests. At best, we get better at what we have always done. We remain secure in a cocoon of our own worldview, isolated from the larger world.”

Presence suggests a type of learning that could lead to the creation of a world not governed primarily by habit. “All learning integrates thinking and doing. All learning is about how we interact in the world and the types of capacities that develop from our interaction. What differs is the depth of the awareness…” If our awareness and understanding go beyond the superficial level and beyond current circumstances, we begin to see the larger wholes that generate “what is” and our connection to this wholeness. We begin to act in service to what is emerging so that new intuitions and insights create new realities.

Presence is more than being conscious and aware in the moment. It is deep listening, being open beyond one’s preconceptions and historical ways of making sense. As Senge puts it so well, “We came to see the importance of letting go of old identities and the need to control and of making choices to serve the evolution of life.”

So back to my meeting…I think to myself, “What if we could learn more about the kind of listening and engagement needed to move away from our unproductive “thinking and doing” habits? What kinds of questions might we ask to help us get out of our “box” and “open our heart”, as Scharmer puts it, to explore “different”? Perhaps we could come up with some new ideas to move from the conventional agenda type meetings to something more “generative”, more inspiring, more imaginative—something that allows us to create a deeper understanding and better sense of our situation and our options in a more comprehensive way. Maybe we should build in a part of the meeting where all we do is ask questions and then spend time researching and exploring potential and emerging answers.

I walk off the beach, clean the sand out my ears and lean forward in that all too uncomfortable chair. I’m back in the meeting.

“Work begun on country’s deepest underwater oil well” reads a byline in Metro today.  “Chevron Canada Ltd, has begun work on the deepest oil well yet drilled in Canadian waters.  The drill ship Stena Carron started sinking the well Sunday night 430 kilometers northeast of St.John’s.  The company is promising to be careful in the wake of the current oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.”   Metro News Services, Tuesday, May 11, 2010

It wasn’t long ago that BP stated that an incident like this was “impossible”, (CBC News, May 9, 2010) so what exactly does a promise to be careful look like?  Should we be rethinking some of the decisions being made about energy production?  Should we be wary when claims of safety are absolute?  Should we be putting more of our energy into reducing consumption on a massive scale to meet our needs, not our wants?  When should we seriously start to adjust our consumption patterns?

Even if you are unsure of human impact on climate change, shouldn’t we be questioning whether exploration of oil to fulfill our “wants”, is worth the cost to life?

With the scale of the disaster in the Gulf, one would think that there would be a greater outrage and outcry.  Perhaps, we as consumers feel guilty because it is our lifestyle that demands more oil and continued practices that pit our wants over our concern for the environment—clean water, sustainability of marine life.

In an article by Mark Floegel, he states that as BP is “cleaning up” the mess in the Gulf, using a dispersant that goes by the trade name “Corexit.” Marine conservationists often call it “Hidez-It” because its purpose is not to correct but to deceive.

“Oil is toxic to marine life. Dispersant is toxic to marine life. Together, their toxicity exceeds the sum of their parts. The people running the spill response for BP are geologists, but what needs protection in the gulf is not geology, it’s biology,” Mark Floegel writes. “One active ingredient in Corexit is 2-butoxyethanol, which in laboratory tests has been shown to reduce fertility, increase embryo deaths and increase birth defects in animals. Animals are the primary marine inhabitants of the Gulf of Mexico.”

“In all, Corexit acts like a surfactant, the same thing that’s in your dish or laundry soap,” Floegel explains. “The oil is more attracted to the surfactant than to the water it’s floating in. The oil forms globules and sinks to the bottom. This is a boon for BP, because it creates less of a photogenic oil slick on the surface of the gulf to be filmed by television news crews.”

In the two decades since the Exxon Valdez spill, oil that sinks to the bottom tends to be re-suspended in the water column by storms and eventually makes it way back to the surface and shore. “People ask me,” says Floegel, ‘Is BP doing enough?’ My answer is that there is no ‘enough.’ The tools we have to respond to oil spills are orders of magnitude too small to combat the damage they do. We can’t fix oil spills, we can only prevent them.” 

For the complete article go to: www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/11-12

As we continuously talk of the need for wise leadership, environmental stewardship and sustainability, is it time yet to rethink what we are doing both in terms of consumption and production? Is it time, as citizens, to fully engage in this discussion and decision-making?