I had a very entertaining evening reading comments on USA Today regarding the President's off-shore drilling announcement. It was just so difficult for those Republican PAC members to try to be negative about the President's agenda when it was a topic they actually agreed with. I found it quite comical. So to be fair, let me do it.
This announcement was not a surprise to me as it was referenced even during the election. But I still can't agree with it. True, we are a nation dependent on a resource of which we have a very limited supply. This causes us to be in business with rouge nations and the complications of this dependency are a matter of our national security. But drilling for oil anywhere is a short term bandaid on a gaping wound. The worlds oil supply is finite. We must find another resource. This article, however, is not about the other options we should explore - and there are many. Let's just deal with oil for the moment.
My biggest issue with off shore drilling is the inevitable environmental impact. If my only choice were to drill off shore or drill in a protected wildlife sanctuary, I would choose the later. Accidents happen and there will be spills. At least on land, a spill can be somewhat controlled and the impact is minimal compared to the potential widespread distribution of spilled oil in water. Off shore oil rigs are hurricane magnets. A severe storm not only adds to the potential for environmental disaster, but also stopped production during the storm. This will affect prices as we have seen too often in the past. Those rigs floating out in the open ocean tethered to the ground with a fragile pipe perhaps miles deep are a recipe for environmental and financial disaster. It is irresponsible on many levels.
So if we must drill let's drill on land. But of course these are not our only options. Innovation will heal this wound. Innovation can be expensive, but so are wars. Let's spend the money in the right place - a topic for another article.
UPDATE: Well it didn't even take a hurricane to bring down an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico last week, and while they denied there was an oil spill at the time, we now learn that it may turn out to be one of the biggest spills in oil history. Wonderful. I'm usually a little thrilled when history proves my articles are on target but in this case I had hoped it wouldn't be proven. The vast environmental damage is already occurring - soon to be followed by more financial damage in lost tourism due to oil slicked beaches and increased fuel prices. I believe there are no coincidences - let's not push the snooze button on this wake up call.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
It amazes me how the people wanting to protect America from terrorist are usually the same people wanting to drill, dig and rape America of its resources. consume, consume, Consume!
Hey Thohea,
You said: "It amazes me how the people wanting to protect America from terrorist..."
I'm just curious; who exactly are the people who DON'T want to protect America from terrorists? You seem to be implying that anyone who is against oil drilling along our coasts ( which I am assuming includes yourself) are also against protecting America from terrorists.
Certainly, that is not what you meant?
One argument that is being made is that the more oil independent we can become, the less of our money will be funneled towards underwriting radical Islamic fundamentalism. It's not that the Arab oil producing nations won't have a market for their product (China alone is well on the way to becoming the world's largest consumer of crude), rather it is that the more that the U.S. contributes to the total world production the lower the international price of crude will be, thus denying some of the nastier, less human rights friendly nations of the world (Saudi Arabia, Putin's Russia, Chavez, etc.) from the huge profits that they would otherwise reap,while simultaneously weakening their ability to use oil as a political weapon against the Western Democracies. You may not find that argument completely persuasive, but it is a serious and thoughtful argument nevertheless. That it "amazes" you, strikes me as a very odd reaction, indeed.
There is also a very strong and compelling environmental argument in favor of increasing U.S. crude oil production and that is that U.S. oil producers are among the most technologically advanced, most heavily environmentally regulated, and most legally accountable oil producers in the world. We are going to produce and consume the same amount of oil whether it comes from domestic or foreign sources. The more that comes from less technologically advanced, less environmentally regulated , and far less legally accountable third world sources, then the more total world wide pollution and environmental damage will be inflicted upon the planet. I can think of no serious and persuasive rebuttal to that argument; if you have one I would love to hear it ( and to say that we should lessen our dependence on fossil fuels altogether is no rebutal at all because regardless of what percentage of our total energy needs is met by oil, now or in the future, the argument still holds that it would still be less damaging for the environment for as much of that that oil as possible to to be extracted by the U.S.A. than by most third world producers.)
So we dare not argue your point because you know you are right. Fine.
How about you address the topic of this post. The enhanced environmental dangers of OFF SHORE drilling. Wait - I forgot. Money trumps the environment. Nevermind.
???
"dare" not argue with me? Dude, I was inviting you to discuss these issues with me!
"...address the topic of this post"? That's exactly what I did!
I just reread my post and it seems quite clear that I was talking primarily about off-shore drilling ( I referenced it by name in the second paragraph...did you even read my response at all?).
I presented you with a number of rational arguments for you to consider and all you did was throw an insult at me. Gee, that's a really persuasive tactic! (what was particularly ironic was that you implied that I was not open to considering a rebuttal to the arguments, even after I explicitly requested that you provide me with some!)
I couldn't help but notice that you didn't answer a single question that I asked, or respond to a single argument that I put forward.. I can only assume that means you have no answers to them (am I wrong?).
I'm sorry, I thought you actually had an interest in exploring these issues in a thoughtful, intelligent way. I was obviously mistaken. Apparently you only post here to hear the sound of your own voice; well that's fine, it's your blog and it's a free country and you can do that if you want, but it seems like a rather silly and pointless, not to mention narcissistic, activity to me.
I'm going to resist the temptation to make some broad brush characterization like saying that this just proves that Liberals aren't serious about the issues...I know that there are plenty of thoughtful Liberals out there who can respond intelligently to rational arguments...I guess I'm just going to have to look elsewhere to find them because it seems quite clear that they are not to be found on this blog.
"Money trumps the environment" Wow..that's really profound. Keep thinking with that bumper sticker slogan mentality, and whatever you do, don't ever consider, even for a moment, that there might actually be other intelligent, evidence-based perspectives on issues that are worthy of your consideration and debate.
It occurs to me that, given your apparent inability to understand the clear meaning of my words in my last post, and at the risk of sounding like a totally patronizing jerk,nevertheless I should probably explain to you that the above paragraph is what is known as "sarcasm" (if you are unfamiliar with the meaning of that word you can look it up in the dictionary)
Thank you for yet again reminding me why I left Liberalism and became a Conservative.
To be clear: there may very well be additional environmental concerns associated with off-shore drilling as opposed to on-shore drilling
(are they significant? I don't know...I don't know much about it, but for the sake of argument let's grant that they are)...but the point is that these off-shore resources are going to be tapped, whether the United States participates in it or not, so for a whole host of reasons it is better for the U.S. to be involved than not.
I gave some of those reasons in the first my posts above...I'd just like to point out, given your "Money trumps environment" comment, that the reasons I gave; the reasons that I found most persuasive and compelling, were environmental, and geo-political, not money related.
Because I found them the least important, I never even considered the money reasons for off-shore drilling, but let's consider them for a moment: more jobs for Americans, more wealth poured into the economy, more tax revenue for a heavily indebted Federal government...what's not to like?
It seems like there are lots of reasons for off-shore drilling and very few against. Yes, there will be related pollution to be concerned about, but again, overall, world-wide there will be less total pollution with a large American involvement in offshore drilling, than without American involvement.
In a perfect world, would I like there to be no off-shore drilling? Yes, of course...but we don't live in a perfect world, and we never will. Every decision we make and every action we take involves weighing the costs versus the benefits. We need to do that as intelligently as possible and considering all the evidence available.
I'd like to get off fossil fuels altogether (oil and coal)through a massive increase in the use of nuclear power.
I've probably opened a huge can of worms now!
Again though, weighing the costs versus the benefits...nuclear is far more environmentally friendly than oil and coal.
Solar, hydro, wind, etc. all may have their roles to play(and their own associated problems and costs) but it is sheer fantasy to think that they (barring huge technological breakthroughs in photovoltaics , hydrogen fuels, etc.) can replace oil and coal in any substantial way...only nuclear can do that now and in the foreseeable future.
Discuss.
Andre, you need to investigate the difference between the words "condescending" and "sarcasm".
Regarding this part of your post "these off-shore resources are going to be tapped, whether the United States participates in it or not, so for a whole host of reasons it is better for the U.S. to be involved than not."
This is some serious backward logic. It reminds me of what my Mother used to say - "If Johny jumps off a bridge does that mean you have to jump too?" We do not need to risk our very fragile environment just because someone else is going to do it anyway. Let's get everyone to stop! Can we try that please? We do that by investing in alternatives rather than relying on what is easy. The internal combustion engine was invented over a century ago - have we no innovation left to discover?
But, back to the original post. I stand by my opinion that if we must drill, we should drill on land where it is easier to control.
And just for the record, I do not have the kind of time you apparently do to post lengthy rebuttals. (am I being condescending?) You will notice all of my blog posts are direct to the point. I'm a very busy dude!
Forgive me Andre, the thought I wanted to express didn't come out the way I meant in print, but then I wasn't expecting to get drawn into an endless debate with someone like you. Dennis humors you too much in my opinion.
Hi Dennis! Remember the good old days, you know, when someone could leave a comment on your blog without being terrorized? Aren't you dealing with enough of that in your everyday life right now?
;-)
I remember the good old days when nobody read it at all. LOL
Sorry, I guess I'm just used to Conservative blogs where people actually care about ideas and issues, and are passionate about debating all sides and perspectives,and where where a 7 or 8 paragraph post is more likely to be considered as barely scratching the surface of an issue, rather than "lengthy" or "endless". I guess it's just a different type of intellectual culture.
Oh well, to each his own.
I made the mistake of assuming that the same intellectual curiosity and concern for truth existed on this side of the fence.
My bad.
See?! You made your (condescending) point in under 3000 words. So it is possible.
Post a Comment