Printer-friendly version

Impasse on oil spill cooperation highlights divergent approaches

The BP oil spill has commanded the attention of the US public and media, but it has failed to become the centerpiece of interest in Europe. Naturally, this is partly due to geography. The disaster exploded on American shores, rather than an ocean away. Yet, this lack of interest and co-operation has deeper roots: they underscore EU-US cultural and institutional differences, which hinder the transatlantic partnership.

From a spectator's view, Europe's muted role was perplexing. The EU is America's biggest trading partner, a key ally, and it prides itself on being a leading protector of the environment. Thus, many expected that the oil spill would figure more prominently in the continental public discourse – that Europeans would empathize more actively.

Yet, the reason why the oil spill has seemingly failed to impress Europe may be cultural. Unlike their European counterparts, the American public has become versed in the 24-hour news cycle. This fast-paced style of journalism places a premium on sensationalist headlines, personal stories and opinions, which seek to captivate the largest possible audience. On the other hand, Europeans have retained the more traditional form of news reporting. Despite variation across borders, national television emissions and print aim to inform in a proportional and factual manner. Simply put, despite the gravity of the ecological disaster, the oil spill is just one of many world headlines.

In the US, the event has initiated debates on carbon taxes,¹ Obama's moratorium as an encroachment on private industry,² and lobbying as crippling regulatory oversight.³ European media has taken a more cautious approach by reporting the major headlines of the oil spill. The style of Euronews is representative. This pan-European multilingual news outlet has presented the disaster in 2-5 minute segments that focus on official statements and scientific reports and often read as encyclopedia entries.⁴ Concurrently, young Europeans have protested outside of Germany's economic ministry,⁵ BP's headquarters,⁶ and the British Museum.⁷ Hence, the ongoing catastrophe has impacted Euro-citizens on an emotional level, even though it failed to dominate their news outlets.

Similarly, effective transatlantic coordination was hampered by divergent institutional capacity and policies. When the oil disaster struck, Americans, unlike their Dutch colleagues, were unprepared to handle it swiftly and professionally.⁸ Three days after the disaster, the Netherlands offered its ships to the United States. Any of these had more cleanup power than the entire American fleet in operation at the time. What is more, the Dutch proposed to protect Louisiana's deltas and coastal areas by building sand barriers and dikes at the onset of the oil spill. The US declined the Dutch offer, as well as those of 12 other countries, most of whom had superior know-how and equipment.⁹

The refusal was even more puzzling, considering that the Dutch were experienced in such matters, BP had requested their aid and the Netherlands offered the equipment for free. The reason behind this impasse was institutional. The Dutch skimming equipment sucks up oiled water, separates most of the oil, and then recycles the remainder back into the sea. However, the EPA deemed that the Dutch standard was not a high enough benchmark. Its regulations demanded that 99.9985% of the returned water be oil-free. Although the experienced Dutch and their technology could have handled most of the disaster at the onset, the difference in institutional norms led to the initial EPA decline.

A month later, with the disaster spiraling out of control, the EPA relented and airlifted the Dutch equipment to the Gulf. Yet, rather than employ the technology immediately, the US retrofitted it to American vessels and postponed clean-up operations in order to train their crewmen on how to use the Dutch equipment. A similar waiver by the EPA was necessary to permit a massive Taiwanese oil-skimming ship to join the clean-up effort. What is more, the latter needed another waiver from the Jones Act, which prevents the use of specialized foreign ships with non-American crews.¹⁰

Unquestionably, divergent institutional procedures play an enormous role. European governments treat oil spills as national disasters to be tackled immediately. The Netherlands, for example, allows an oil company to resolve an oil spill by itself for 12 hours, but if it fails, it uses the national Dutch fleet at the company's expense. The U.S., on the other hand, has had trouble mobilizing its federal and state resources across different jurisdictions to mount a swift and coordinated response. As we can see, variation in organizational procedures prevents cooperation, even when the goal is the same, the resources readily available, and the disaster is looming.

In the official press release, the EU Commissioner Kristalina Georgieva, portrayed the joint effort as one without any impasses: "The swift reaction from European countries to the calls for equipment shows that Europe is determined to fight this ecological disaster alongside the US authorities. Our crisis response mechanism is working flat out to deliver the required assistance."¹¹ Indeed, in the end, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway and the European Maritime Safety Agency did provide help. Yet, popularizing, coordinating, and resolving the oil spill has reminded us anew that Europeans and Americans express themselves and act differently. Despite their likeness, transatlantic partners rely on social institutions whose unique constitution can hamper their communication and joint efforts.

1. Carolyn Lockhead, "Oil spill pushes carbon tax back into spotlight" San Francisco Chronicle (22 June 2010). Kenneth Rogoff, "Can good emerge from the BP oil spill?" Project Syndicate (02 June 2010)
2. Jon Basil Utley, "The Government's Catastrophic Response to the Oil Disaster" reason.com (9 July 2010)
3. Jennifer A. Dlouhy, "Oil lobbyists spill into halls in D.C." Chron: Business (30 July 2010)
4. Euronews. "Oil spill: a human, economic and environmental disaster"
5. NDTV, "Greenpeace stages oil drill protest" NDTV News (22 July 2010)
6. Press Association, "Activists scale BP building in oil spill protest" The Independent (20 May 2010)
7. Associated Press, "Anti-BP group has sticky protest at British Museum" MSNBC News (13 July 2010)
8. Lawrence Solomon, "Avertible [sic] catastrophe" Financial Post (26 June 2010)
9. Lawrence Solomon.
10. Jon Basil Utley.
11. Europa Press releases RAPID, "The EU offers oil containment equipment to contain spill in the Gulf of Mexico after a new US request" (11 June 2010)