HMMMMMM. Nope. Try harder, NYT. Try harder, US government and BP. This headline alone is ridiculous. “Little additional risk”? What does that even mean? “We’ve virtually destroyed this area of the ocean for decades to come, but beyond that, there is little additional risk of us destroying it further.” What?
And even if it’s true that “about 26 percent” of the oil released could be in enormous blobs in the ocean or about to wash up onshore (and no one in the article seems to know if that stat is even accurate, so it’s weird that I’m not more confident that they’re not just making things up at the point), that’s still 26 percent of at least FIVE MILLION BARRELS OF OIL, right? I’m no mathlete, but that is still a FUCKLOAD of OIL in the OCEAN.
Additionally, BP and US government, hold off on all the back-patting about the stat that 41 percent of the oil has apparently evaporated, dissolved, or dispersed. You still realize that is TERRIBLE, right? NYT gives the metaphor of oil “dissolving” into the ocean as sugar dissolves into tea. That is AWFUL. Why is that being talked about like it’s okay? Great, the ocean is now liberally flavoured with sugar oil. Why would any citizen be concerned about the oil-soaked ocean? WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE WRONG WITH THAT SCENARIO?
Thousands of birds and other animals are known to have been damaged or killed by the spill, a relatively modest toll given the scale of some other oil disasters that killed millions of animals.
NOT SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF. “Well, we certainly didn’t unnecessarily kill as many animals as we unnecessarily killed that other time, so that’s something! Make sure to include that in the article!” ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
I find it really hard to believe that only 26 percent of the oil is still in the ocean when it’s been gushing since APRIL. I’m not an oil scientist, but this whole article is gross and so obviously misleading that is it totally beyond me how anyone could believe it or think that it somehow makes anything about this situation better. Do better, everyone.