I tend to shy away from political topics editorially because I know that there are opposing views, and I like to think that everyone has a right to his or her viewpoint — no matter how wrong it might be. However, I’ve had it with this topic of allowing offshore drilling. And seeing that President Bush has arbitrarily decided to lift the ban on offshore drilling has sent me into a tizzy.
Why do I call it an arbitrary decision? Because it makes no rational sense to open up offshore drilling to ease current oil prices. Lifting the ban now would potentially increase the amount of oil here in the U.S. years from now. And I say potentially because no one is really sure where this coastal oil is. President Bush’s decision simply means that all of these massive oil companies can now blindly poke around our nation’s waters hoping that they find oil. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure oil is there. But the time it takes to find it, get the rigs in place, refine it, and reduce the price of oil to the consumer is so far down the road that the current decision amounts to nothing more than political posturing and appeasement of local oil cartels.
What gets me are these ads I see all over TV regarding these oil companies and their attempts at providing alternative forms of energy. Really? Where are they? I hear all about this research and development, but don’t see it in practice. Hey, tons of money gets you the best PR companies in the world.
What I really don’t get about all of this is how people don’t see that investing heavily in alternative forms of energy could probably reduce our dependence on oil and create a lasting difference in the same amount of time as opposed to the short-term “fix” of drilling offshore.
Like I wrote earlier, I tend not to write about political topics, but felt I had to in this case. Some people might think I’m wrong. They’re entitled to their viewpoint. Hopefully, though, our elected officials in Congress won’t listen to them.
That would really annoy me.
DerrickTeal teald@bnpmedia.com Derrick Teal is the managing editor of Environmental Design + Construction and Sustainable Facility magazines.
Title: Drilling By: Dave Posted: October 1, 2008 9:21 AM
You're right Derrick. You should keep you're Liberal views to yourself. Are you not aware that your elected officials in Washington are the ones who caused this energy problem?
Title: Drilling By: Bob Keefe Posted: September 30, 2008 12:38 PM
I note Mr. Teal's remarks with all due respect. I must point out, however, that had we drilled in 1995 we would undoubtedly be reaping the benefits. I also wonder if he knows that proposals for windmills and solar energy panels have been generally disapproved for esthetic reasons by many of their own supporters, including the inimitable Ted Kennedy, despite the fact that they will generally cost more than present energy sources, barring nuclear energy. Japan has more nuclear plants than we have!
Title: Response to Rose By: Derrick Teal Posted: July 30, 2008 3:17 PM
Actually, opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), as suggested by Congressman Young in the video, is going to create the same problem. I don't deny that there's oil here in the U.S. I do, however, doubt that the amount of oil Congressman Young believes exists is there, although I'd have to do more reading.
That said, though, drilling isn't an answer to energy independence. It's nice to say, "We can drill and allocate profits to developing alternative forms of energy," but it's quite another to actually do it.
Oil companies have had years to develop this technology, and Congressman Young makes my point for me. As he says, President Clinton vetoed drilling in the ANWR in 1995 because the oil wouldn't do any immediate good since it would take 10 years to get to market. So, why has Congressman Young been trying to get ANWR opened for these past 10 years instead of vying for a more sustainable form of energy? If he had, wouldn't it be conceivable that we'd have a more stable energy infrastructure based on renewable resources?
The problem with oil producers and the proponents of oil is that oil is all they think about. Any mention of renewable energy is just double-talk for PR purposes. If it weren't, why would the good Alaskan congressman still be pining to drill in ANWR 13 years after the veto first occurred?
And even if the U.S. were to begin producing more fuel at home to offset its consumption of oil from other nations, who's to say that those other nations simply wouldn't reduce their output to ensure that the price of crude doesn't dip?
Anyway, here's some reading regarding drilling in the ANWR should you care to see the flip side: http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp
Title: a good video to watch By: Rose Posted: July 28, 2008 3:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlfmvwxxgHM
Did you enjoy this article? Click here to subscribe to the magazine.
By: Dave
Posted: October 1, 2008 9:21 AM
By: Bob Keefe
Posted: September 30, 2008 12:38 PM
By: Derrick Teal
Posted: July 30, 2008 3:17 PM
That said, though, drilling isn't an answer to energy independence. It's nice to say, "We can drill and allocate profits to developing alternative forms of energy," but it's quite another to actually do it.
Oil companies have had years to develop this technology, and Congressman Young makes my point for me. As he says, President Clinton vetoed drilling in the ANWR in 1995 because the oil wouldn't do any immediate good since it would take 10 years to get to market. So, why has Congressman Young been trying to get ANWR opened for these past 10 years instead of vying for a more sustainable form of energy? If he had, wouldn't it be conceivable that we'd have a more stable energy infrastructure based on renewable resources?
The problem with oil producers and the proponents of oil is that oil is all they think about. Any mention of renewable energy is just double-talk for PR purposes. If it weren't, why would the good Alaskan congressman still be pining to drill in ANWR 13 years after the veto first occurred?
And even if the U.S. were to begin producing more fuel at home to offset its consumption of oil from other nations, who's to say that those other nations simply wouldn't reduce their output to ensure that the price of crude doesn't dip?
Anyway, here's some reading regarding drilling in the ANWR should you care to see the flip side: http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp
By: Rose
Posted: July 28, 2008 3:30 PM