The philosophy, morals, and vision of the oil spill

To be honest, and a bit shamefacedly, I haven't delved too deeply into the Gulf oil spill crisis outside of the initial news outbreak and then headlines since then.  I suspect that there's some part of me inside that is in denial.  Even though I play a part in the spill every day when I drive to work, when I use plastic, and probably other unconscious habits, I don't want to think about the ramifications of my actions and lifestyle and would rather live in blissful denial.

I read two articles today in response to President Obama's speech.  In "Oil spill: Do we need another hero?", the writer tries to comment on the cultural and philosophical aspects of the crisis and its impact on the US.  Some quotes:

"The trouble Obama faces now is that this becomes a crisis with no real heroes -- people America not only can but should fall in love with. That is depressing. And the spectacle of a presidency sold on the basis of America's self-love struggling in that oily morass would make for the biggest depression of all.

... This crisis needs a narrative, but is inherently resistant to it. It's got villains, but no heroes. It's useful to think about why that is. The reason is that this is apparently not a crisis that can be dealt with via heroic action -- either heroic intellectual effort (think Apollo 13) or heroic bravery and application of force. We seem to have met a crisis that cannot be "solved," only endured. This is very hard for us Americans to deal with. We are used to being able to flood the zone with know-how, with money, and/or with force, and getting the job done. The BP oil spill crisis resists that.

... This crisis is not at its heart about solving a technical problem. It's about: What's happening to us? How is it we're now to be? We look to the president to frame the crisis like this for us."

The barrels of oil still gushing into the Gulf act as a mirror to us as a nation, a people, a culture.  How is it we're now to be?

Brian McLaren takes a stab at defining what we could be down the line in this article about a potential vision, requiring some bold commitments, that could ultimately lead to a more sustainable stewardship of the world.

The vision is outlined in the first 3 points, with some ideas for implementation in the last 3 - ideas that I am not at all equipped to evaluate as to how realistic or how good they are.  But the vision is interesting:

"1. We have to envision a new and better way of life. We have to imagine that 30 years from now, virtually every roof of every home and building will be an energy-producing station. We have to imagine every window and every wall being replaced or upgraded for improved efficiency. We have to imagine new generations of transport, heating, air-conditioning, and lighting technologies. This will mean we will retool our manufacturing and home-building industries so they contribute to this new green economy. Doing so will stimulate the economy in the right way — creating needed jobs and making a lot of good money (as opposed to dirty money) for wise entrepreneurs and investors. I believe that it will prove more profitable in the long run (in the best sense of the word “profit” — not measured in dollars alone) to be the planet’s wise stewards than to continue on as its reckless, short-sighted, and greedy plunderers.

2. We need to divert creativity, entrepreneurial energy and money away from building new oil rigs and coal mines and from fighting wars in oil-producing areas. We need to decrease expenditures on weapons — which are non-productive assets. And why invest in nuclear plants — which take decades to build and are ripe for their own kinds of disasters — when that money could produce better and longer-term results when invested in the research and development of solar, wind, tidal, and biofuel (algae- and grass-based, not corn-based) technology?

3. We need to direct creativity and money and education toward a new solar-based economy. It will take an innovative government-business partnership (the kind the Japanese and Koreans pioneered in jump-starting their auto industries) to turn this thing around. We have to imagine a different America — a new American economy. To get us there, again, we need to make an unprecedented investment in research and development, and we need to open-source the most promising breakthroughs so as many companies as possible can work with them."

Found this thought-provoking.  What does everyone else think?