Back in February we attended the clean energy forum hosted by Focus The Nation at the University of Portland, where we got a hold of a bunch of literature related to “transforming our energy future.” Included was a pamphlet from the Northwest Earth Institute (NWEI), a national leader in the development of innovative programs that empower individuals and organizations to transform culture toward a sustainable and enriching future. NWEI is excited to introduce their newest discussion guide: Just Below the Surface: Perspectives on the Gulf Coast Oil Spill.
Just Below the Surface is a one session discussion guide that explores the connections between Deepwater Horizon, energy policies and our lifestyles. The course offers an opportunity to reflect further on this historical event and the lessons it holds for us moving forward—individually and collectively. The intent is not to assign blame, but rather to take responsibility—as conscious consumers and concerned, active citizens.
Here is an article that we wanted to share written by Anna Berardi titled:
From Reaction To Intentionality
by Anna Berardi
All humans are hard-wired to respond to danger. When we sense a threat to our safety, we instantly know whether to defend ourselves (fight), run because if we don’t, we won’t survive (flight), or play dead because we’re probably done no matter what (freeze). The beauty of our built-in sensors is that they are highly efficient when an immediate danger is upon us. The downside is that our stress-response system is reactionary and cannot discern when a more intentional choice is needed, as in the case or the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster.
These responses were evident in the stories I heard from the Gulf Coast residents I met last summer. As a psychotherapist trained in trauma response, I was most interested in learning how this most recent disaster impacted those most socially and emotionally vulnerable, particularly the working-class communities reliant on local industries of fishing, oil, or tourism. These communities live at the center of the impact zone and cannot flee from the problem, and will respond differently than their more advantaged neighbors. Two coastal residents I met, Luke and Gus, illustrate differing, yet typical, stress-responses of local residents, and to a certain degree, the emotional responses of those watching the events unfold from a distance.
Luke, a life-long resident of the Gulf Coast community, takes great pride in personally knowing hundreds of families impacted by the spill. Like many Gulf Coast residents, his livelihood is dependent upon the oil industry. Luke subcontracts with BP, processing the lost wage claims due to the oil spill. He expressed a genuine compassion for those hardest hit by the spill and patriotic determination to ensure that “America fights to the death” to protect its access to oil, whether in local waters or abroad. “Outsiders” and anyone who disagreed with this belief were suspect. Luke’s response to the disaster was to deny key parts of the story: that our dependence on fossil fuels is undermining the environment, health, and security, not only of his own community, but of our entire planet.
Gus, a 30-something man who makes a living as a “Jack of all trades”, shared Luke’s distrust of anyone who criticized the region’s economic dependence on oil. At the time, he was employed as an independent contractor for BP and the US military, running boat tours for scientists and reporters monitoring clean-up efforts. He made it clear he could lose his job if his employers knew he was talking to me. Yet, Gus also conveyed a deep sense of attachment to the landscape and anger at the destruction wrought by neighboring states who use its tributaries as an agricultural sewer system and oil companies who caved out marshes and fishing grounds to make way for pipelines. “I’ve traveled every inch of this coast and I see how it is being destroyed, and now we want to act as if BP is the one who ruined it.”
And then he added, “Our need for oil will probably destroy life as we know it, but what can any of us do?” Unlike Luke, Gus saw the whole picture – our country’s dependence on a finite resource and how money, power, and bureaucracy were undermining viable alternatives. Yet, given his options, Gus felt powerless, and hence his view was fatalistic.
While residents of the Gulf Coast like Luke and Gus experienced the trauma and stress of the disaster most acutely, many following the developments from afar may have experienced similar responses. Consciously and unconsciously traumatized by the images of a burning inferno and oil soaked wildlife, we, like Luke, may have distanced ourselves from any personal responsibility, or slipped into avoidance of the matter altogether. Others, who recognize how systemic the problem is, may feel some of Gus’ sense of resignation and despair.
Fear, denial, fatalism, and inertia are givens; we can’t avoid these reactions. But responding from (rather than being informed by) any of these places will not solve the problem. Ultimately, change requires an intentional shift in our collective conscience and individual behaviors. I believe that shift is most life-producing when grounded in genuine care for the welfare of persons, communities, and the environment, hope in our capacity individually and collectively to create new solutions, and a sense of responsibility to work towards those solutions.
Where do we start? First, by sharing stories from the Gulf, we can move beyond blame, judgment or guilt. The Deepwater Horizon disaster provides an opportunity for all of us to look at our own uneasy alliances with oil and the comfortable lifestyles it fuels.
Next, we can make daily adjustments in how much we consume, not just at the pump, but also at the grocery store, when we choose food that was produced locally or opt for less packaging. As we begin to make lifestyle changes, we also need to network with like-minded persons for the encouragement and support.
And finally, we need to support alternatives. Gus needs more options. The hundreds of families known by Luke need more options. Behavior change requires viable alternatives to choose from before an old behavior can be completely let go. To only see the magnitude of the problem without providing a vision for change just sends us back to fear, fatalism and inertia. And this is where things get tough.
The paradigm shift this type of change requires isn’t merely internal, but global. It doesn’t just require each person to change, but systems world-wide. And most of the personal choices you and I might long to make are highly dependent on broader systems that resist change. This is where many of us cycle back to Gus’ fatalism.
What we must remember is that systemic change starts with the individual. And deep inside each of us, we know that change is possible and the only option for healing the past and ensuring a future. To stand in solidarity with Gulf residents means transitioning from our natural fight-flight-freeze reactions that reflect our anger, fear, or inertia, to intentional actions reflecting hope, care, and responsibility.