On March 31, President Obama removed bans on offshore drilling in the waters off the coast of Virginia and expanded the opportunity for exploration of oil and gas reserves off the Atlantic coast. Furthermore, he abolished exploration in Alaska’s Bristol Bay but opened up Alaska’s Cook Inlet to prospective finds. The move claims to be an attempt to diversify the nation’s energy sources and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Drill, baby, drill!
What Obama is drilling for is not black gold.
In the short-term, offshore drilling looks good: decreased dependence on foreign oil, less money going to terrorist training grounds and remaining in the good old U.S., increased jobs. But the problem with offshore drilling is that it takes a long time to realize any potential benefits, and even then, it isn’t clear that it will actually help.
The U.S. imports about 4.7 billion barrels of oil every year, placing our overall consumption at about 75 percent foreign. Simply allowing for offshore drilling will not drastically change that number because the market for oil is a global one. Just because oil is extracted in the U.S. does not mean it will go to U.S. gas pumps. There is a lot of oil in the regions Obama has opened up for exploration, somewhere between 80 and 130 billion barrels. But offshore drilling requires massive amounts of resources and time. Most believe it will take a decade before any of the possible benefits of offshore drilling are realized. Instead of devoting time and resources with the hopes of limiting our dependence on foreign oil, we should instead spend that time working to limiting our dependence on oil itself.
Clean energy alternatives are out there — solar, wind and water. The best thing about these sources is that they are infinite. Unlike oil, coal and natural gas, which will someday run out, an investment in clean energy is an investment in not only the future, but also in resources that will never disappear (until the sun fizzles out in roughly 4 to 5 billion years). Obama has received some praise from the right for this move, namely for the jobs the offshore drilling plan will create. But why should the jobs come in sectors that are, in the long term, only temporary? Why not place resources and time on sectors of the economy that will be here in the long term?
The answer is politics.
Though Republicans largely believe that not enough was done, they still hold that it was at least a modest step in the right direction. Offshore drilling is also fairly popular among citizens — about 63 percent believe in seeking offshore drilling to help provide domestic energy. Because of some of the flak Obama and Democrats in Congress have been taking due to the passage of health care reform, the move can really only be seen as attempting to shore up support for Democrats in the coming mid-term elections.
Ironically (or perhaps not), the short term advantages offshore drilling might provide are very similar to the short-term advantages President Obama is seeking.
The problem is that the White House should not be concerned with short-term goals. Offshore drilling does not help the nation or the economy in the long haul. It is at best a temporary boost in employment and possible reduction on foreign oil. At worst, it is a complete waste of time and resources that could be better spent on developing clean energy. When the oil runs out in the oceans, we will be right back to square one, instead of looking at a clean energy industry that could provide jobs for generations to come.
Obama has said, “If you govern by pundits and polls you lose sight of why you got into public service in the first place. My job wasn’t to husband my popularity, make sure I wasn’t making waves. It’s how a lot of folks govern. It’s easy.”
He’s making waves all right. The waves on the oceans caused by barges and drilling platforms to extract a resource that will run out while we are left to scramble to develop clean energy. All in order to save the Democratic majority in Congress. Though Palin called to “Drill, baby, drill!” for oil, Obama’s cry is for votes.
Obama should not let the unpopularity of his health care reform force him to seek a temporary boost in his ratings and those of incumbent Democratic congressmen. Though politicians should have the long-term goals of the country in mind, they often become blinded by the fact that their own tenure in office has the possibility of being a short-lived thing. As a result, they often forsake policy moves for the long-term and instead focus on policies that provide short-term benefits, regardless of what that means for the future. It takes a strong leader to resist these pressures, and though Obama talks a good game, this recent move appears to be in contrast to his own words.
[email protected]
Obama’s agenda: votes come first
Daily Emerald
April 6, 2010
0
More to Discover