EPA Calls for BP to Slash Dispersant Use

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


The Environmental Protection Agency is increasing the pressure on BP to ditch the dirty dispersant the company is using in the Gulf of Mexico—after the oil giant refused to observe its directive to switch to a less toxic chemical and disclose more information about its clean-up efforts.  

In a press conference with reporters Monday evening, EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson expressed disappointment with the company’s response, and said her agency will start its own environmental monitoring on the dispersants in the Gulf. The agency also called on the oil company to “scale back” its use of chemical dispersants by at least 50 percent. Responders in the Gulf, she said, are “approaching a world record” in the amount of dispersants used for a single spill.

Jackson said that she was “not satisfied” that BP has done “an extensive enough analysis of other dispersant options.” The agency, she added, would also begin its own tests to confirm whether BP’s assertion that Corexit is best dispersant option available “is accurate and supported by science.”

“We are still deeply concerned about the things we don’t know,” said Jackson. “We must make sure that the dispersants we use are as non-toxic as possible.”

Both Jackson and Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry stopped short of forcing BP to switch products, but said that the federal government reserves the ability to halt the use of dispersants altogether. Jackson said the decisions about dispersant use—and the resulting environmental trade-offs—have been among the toughest of her career. But she’s also said she’s reluctant to take them out of the toolbox, noting that “the number one enemy is the oil.”

“The BP spill has thrust upon us what could potentially be one of the greatest environmental challenges of our time,” said Jackson. “We live in a world where we’re making tough decisions based on little science.”

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest