As energy demands increase and gas prices stay above $3 a gallon at the pump, Americans are pressuring the federal government to take action in the wake of the escalating energy crisis. Although the price of oil has seen a sizeable drop from its near $150 high to $75 per barrel due to recent economic troubles, (1) consumer confidence is at a record low (2) and the average citizen is still feeling the pinch in their pocketbook.
Senator Obama and Senator McCain outline very similar plans to address America’s growing energy demands in the name of the country’s economic and national security. Commendably, both candidates understand the necessity in pursuing and promoting research for alternative, renewable fuels in ultimately achieving long-term energy independence. However, commercialization of such technology does not come quickly and the markets are hungry now for more oil. As ideal as it would be to have the United States petroleum-independent within twenty years, Americans demand an immediate solution.
In response to these growing needs, both candidates have scrambled for a short-term resolution. And, in lieu of a viable answer, they’ve offered us offshore drilling.
While the plan seems good on paper- opening up a domestic supply of oil, creating more job openings for skilled labor, keeping more petrol dollars in the country, support from 57% of Americans (3)- the proposal costs us one thing we don’t have- time. Analysts say that the newly procured oil would take a decade to reach the consumer (4) and would not impact prices until 2030. (5) Definitely far from what one would call a short-term solution. Further, the Department of Energy estimates that by that time, the price impact to consumers would be relatively insignificant. (6) Not to mention the potential environmental impact on our coastlines and marine life.
So why would the candidates support a policy that would have no positive impact on the average American, but could result in 10,000 barrels spilling into the Gulf of Mexico every four years? (7) Senator Obama says that he would only agree to offshore drilling as part of a greater bipartisan negotiation for energy reform, stating that drilling alone is not the answer to our short or long-term needs. (8) Senator McCain, however, sets domestic drilling as its own initiative, (9) satisfying the American people with a cheap façade of swift, timely governmental action.
Simply to secure the votes of the American people, both candidates are willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of the coastal environment for a cheap, political gimmick by supporting offshore drilling. Perhaps it is deceitful. Perhaps neither candidate is intent to follow through with little more than their political ambitions. Regardless, both candidates will continue be pressured by 57% of American voters, “drill, baby, drill.”
1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/
2. http://www.gallup.com/poll/107827/Gallup-Daily-Consumer-Confidence.aspx
3, 4. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/20/new_offshore_drilling_not_a_quick_fix_analysts_say/
5. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92570077
6., 7. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-07-13-offshore-drilling_N.htm
8. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/02/campaign.wrap/
9. http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Nice post.
Though you make a persuasive argument that drilling would likely have little impact on consumer prices today, there is no pressing reason that this should have a bearing on starting to drill now. As you say, drilling would most likely not impact prices until the year 2030. Well, in 2030, it is likely that, although oil will play a smaller role in America's energy portfolio, it will still play a significant one. If more drilling had been done 22 years ago, in 1986, the American consumer would probably see lower fuel costs today. Similarly, though effects of drilling would most likely be only felt in the long term, it is wise to start now. Why delay?
Playdoh-
I don't agree with tapping our natural resources unless it is a real national security issue. The fact that the oil market is not working in favor of the American citizen doesn't justify, in my opinion, sacrificing environmental protection. It justifies greater fuel efficiencies, alternative resources, all of which will undoubtedly be developed in 10-20 years time when these oil hot spots are developed. Therefore, I don't see neither the necessity nor the justification for opening offshore drilling (especially sense the offset on fuel costs would be along the lines of mere cents up to $2/BARREL).
TR, though I understand why you are reluctant to risk immediate environmental harm for more oil far off in the future, I'm inclined to side with playdoh on this one.
Oil is going to remain an important resource for America. Given oil's importance, I think an outright ban on offshore drilling is nonsensical. Restrictions and oversight are critical, especially when it comes to protecting fisheries, but the economic benefits of drilling have come to outweigh the economic costs.
Post a Comment