On the 25th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, along with a review of the still ongoing longterm effects, it was asked: what did we learn from this accident? Not enough, apparently. Spills continue; the huge 2010 BP spill is still fresh in mind.
At what point do you begin to see these catastrophes not as accidents but as “cost of doing business” (CODB)? It’s not just a semantic quibble; you see the same event very differently depending on which you use.
In the usual sense of the word, an accident is an unintended consequence. (“Collateral damage” in warfare is a related infamous euphemism.) But if an accident keeps happening, you ought to start calling it a CODB.
That is, if you don’t want to go on kidding yourself. Or others. Large oil corporations profit from continuing to use “accident.” (Hey, we don’t want to create oil spills). Victims or those who identify with victims might want to call it a CODB.
“World Needs to Get Ready for Next Nuclear Power Plant Accident” read a recent headline for a Bloomberg News item about how unprepared Japan has been to cope with the still unfolding tragedy of Fukushima. When you start getting ready for an accident should you be calling it an accident?
An accident-waiting-to-happen is a CODB. And calling it by its right name gives you the right, as well as the responsibility, to start asking (as in fact many more worldwide are asking): is it a cost we are willing to pay?
No Comments