We’ve taken the liberty of lifting this post from Unspun, the blog of Ong Hock Chuan. The questions he asked are highly relevant in the ongoing saga of the Sidoarjo ooze.
As we wrote yesterday, once again, actions are being taken for short-term gain, mere Bandaid solutions for serious lesions.
Clik here to view.
I guess it is a case of if you live long enough you get to hear everything.
Greenpeace is not exactly known for favoring expediency over idealism. Yet in the papers it was reported to have said that it has no objection to the government’s plan to dump the muddy water from Lapindo’s botched well into the Porong river and the sea. It said this was a “very regrettable outcome arising from a very desperate situation.”
There are other strange mutterings bubbling up from this Lapindo mudflow issue. Greenpeace’s Executive Director for Southeast Asia, Emmy Hafild, at the same time told reporters that Greenpeace could not offer any solutions to the mudflow problem. “We can’t do anything about it. We’re not experts,” she was quoted as saying.
This mud slinging is a bit rich. Greenpeace, as an international activist group, does not have the resources and network to come up with a proposed solution? Where does all its money go to? Does it want to be perceived as only criticising without offering some constructive alternatives? If not, then maybe they should just shut up.
Their attitude notwithstanding, what they said about dumping the mud into the Porong and eventually into the sea may be a solution, if there is no substantial and lasting damage to humans and marine life.
The problem is that while everyone takes great delight in being shrill about Lapindo Brantas there are precious few facts for anyone to make a rational decision. There are some basic questions that need to be answered before there is any basis for further sound action. This is not an exhaustive list but if answered it would certainly clear up some misperceptions and misinformation about the Lapindo mudflow problem.
1. Is the mud really toxic? If so how toxic, what potential damage can it inflict on humans and marine life?
2. What are the usual methods of stopping or mitigating mudflows such as this? Why can’t they be used in this instance?
3. What are the ecological conditions in the Porong River and the sea nearby? Are they fragile and would they be damaged by a discharge of mud, or are they already so far gone with pollution, dynamite fishing and leaching that it doesn’t matter if a few tons of mud are dumped there?
4. Are there any underwater currents and thermoclines that can help contain or disperse the mud if it is discharged into the river and the sea?
Perhaps Greenpeace and the other activists might want to channel some of their energies into establishing such a body of facts and bring the discussion of what to do with Lapindo to a high level.
If they can do that then it would be great for all of us as we are getting tired of the communication of shrill and escalating blame and mudslinging.
As Ghandi once observed, “Those who take part in mudslinging often lose ground.”
