Is President Obama not the leader of the Democratic Party? Did he not campaign wholeheartedly about “change,” and about taking giant steps toward a sustainable future for America? Last I checked, he was indeed the leader of the Party and he was all about a sustainable future. However, recent conservative proposals raise questions about where his loyalties lie. During his campaign, Obama discussed incorporating some conservative approaches into a larger energy policy that would direct America toward a more sustainable future. Recent proposals, such as nuclear advances and offshore drilling, have not come as a complete surprise. However, so far we have seen little of the promised move toward sustainability and renewable energy.
On March 31, President Obama announced his latest in controversial proposals regarding energy. Now, on top of plans to open the first new nuclear power plant in the U.S. in over 30 years, the President is proposing a tremendous amount of offshore drilling that will not only put the environment in danger, but will continue to feed our reliance on oil and put off much-needed investments in renewable energy.
The proposal would open vast amounts of water to oil and natural gas drilling, which would take place along the Atlantic coastline, the Gulf of Mexico, and Northern Alaska. Some areas would be protected, such as the Pacific Coast from Mexico to the Canadian border, and Alaska’s environmentally sensitive Bristol Bay. Nonetheless, nearly 300 million acres of pure ocean would be opened for drilling, leaving them vulnerable to toxic oil spills and hazardous conditions for marine life.
There are no doubt two sides to this debate. On one hand, the drilling does promise a few benefits, however small they may be. These drilling sites could provide thousands of jobs across the country during a time when employment is scarce. There is also the obvious benefit of a slight boost in domestic oil supply. Advocates of the drilling also argue that although this may not be the most environmentally conscious decision for America, it is completely necessary given current economic circumstances. They argue that the high demand for, and low domestic supply of, oil is resulting in skyrocketing gas prices that Americans simply cannot afford.
The extent of the pro-drilling logic pretty much stops there. The truth is that these few potential benefits are in no way worth the immeasurable costs that the country would have to deal with for many years to come. These burdens go far beyond the potentially deadly oil spills and the destruction of healthy marine environments, which are both hefty arguments on their own. Most importantly, if Congress passes this proposal, America would be potentially delaying any chance at the necessary sustainable energy that our current system lacks by reinforcing our dependence on oil. Further, even with legislation running smoothly, it will take years to have the drilling up to full speed and for America to see the resulting oil on the market. If, however, we were to invest an equal amount of time, money, manpower and other resources into renewable and sustainable energy systems, we could potentially put ourselves in a drastically more sustainable place given five or 10 years’ time.
Before any of these proposals are put into action, citizens and government leaders need to put money and profit aside and be smart about these decisions. We need to be thinking about the pros and cons, the risks and benefits. These proposals are just a few of many pivotal topics on the agenda for America’s future, and we’re either going to sink or swim as a result of how some of these proposals are or are not implemented.
In the words of the President: “We have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. We consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil. Drilling alone can’t come close to meeting our long term energy needs.” It is evident from this statement that, for the vast amount of resources that would be spent on this drilling and the high amount of risk involved, the positive impact on American energy resources would be minimal and hardly worth the risk. Instead of these potentially disastrous offshore drills, what if the same resources were invested in technology that would advance our infrastructure and increase benefits while drastically reducing the risks? Instead of drilling, we could implement, for instance, offshore wind turbines or solar panels on houses.
So far, Obama’s energy plans have veered too far from sustainability and pose too great a risk to be worth the minimal benefits. They hold up the corporate side of the deal and do not stay true to the promise of renewable resources. At a pivotal point in America’s future, these are crucial decisions that will need to be made in a way that will make us more sustainable, rather than forcing us to take a step backward by reinforcing our dependence on oil, domestic or not.
Katlyn Grinwis ([email protected]) is a sophomore intending to major in journalism.
