President Barack Obama proposed a few changes to the nation’s energy plan March 31. The most controversial of his proposals were his changes to offshore drilling practices.
Obama’s proposal would lift the bans on the areas of exploration in Alaska, the eastern region of the Gulf of Mexico and shore areas spanning from Delaware to Florida.
This plan sounds interesting because Texas benefits enormously from oil businesses and the oil industry overall. But the important question to think about, whether we get oil from our own country or from foreign nations, is will these solutions truly alleviate the problem at all?
When debating the issues of offshore drilling and oil exploration, it’s important to focus on long-term productivity and growth, not quick fixes.
Offshore drilling in the nation’s coasts would have little benefit; the process is anything but quick.
To begin mining underwater oil, a very daunting and challenging legal process must be hurdled.
Environmentalists will always be against drilling from coastal areas because of the consequences it has to the marine ecosystem.
Proponents who fear the possibility of accidental pollution and the defilement of nature would also need to be dealt with. This group has a legitimate concern, as offshore drilling has had negative effects on the ecosystem in the past.
Hurricanes, which are prone to hit in the areas where drilling is proposed, make things even more problematic. Furthermore, even if the legal issues weren’t a problem, oil isn’t extracted and immediately converted to fuel. The finished product — or at least what is turned into to fuel — takes time to produce after drilling has begun.
Starting to drill now would not solve America’s rising energy costs. The money spent on oil research and exploration would be better invested in new technology.
Oil is a limited natural resource. It would make sense to invest in and build an industry around something that will lead the U.S. far into the future and establish it as the front-runner in energy industries.
Government policy should aggressively seek alternative sources of energy, as the ultimate solution should be to switch from oil to something renewable.
The U.S. should still pursue its own underwater natural resources and constantly improve safety methods for doing so, but drilling with the goal of domestic use is not a good enough solution.
Many have said Obama is using the proposal as bait for Republican cooperation. If this truly is the president’s goal, he is being incredibly naive.
Republicans have been nothing but intransigent toward Obama’s policies; trying to please them by caving in on an issue is no way to solve the problem.
Compromise is healthy, but this is about more than funding the energy industry — it’s about establishing the country in the future world market.
Any decision needs to focus on the future and developing new sustainable technology, not on collusion or backroom deals. Elected officials need to show the people that their plans provide clear proof of sustainability.
This would ensure further debate about technology and encourage education, which are the ultimate solutions.
Andrew Taylor is an economics senior and may be reached at [email protected]
I’m looking forward to the summer. Why? Because so many UH seniors will understand the consequences of the socialist policies they have been supporting throughout their undergrad years. And more importantly, those seniors will officially be unemployed in an Obama economy.
..
No company in their right mind will be hiring anyone until they figure out what government is planning to do to them in the future. One key to a growing economy is affordable energy, which allows for reduced shipping cost, with results in the lower cost of goods, which allows those purchasing goods to save money, but at the same time support a growing economy.
.
Fossil fuels, thanks to developing technologies, can now be burned cleaner than ever, but liberals are not listening. This ain’t the 1970s, but the weakminded have bought the Socialist Democrat rhetoric that we no chance when it comes to fossil fuels, and yet they support alternative ways of fueling our society which are totally unproven and unsustainable without government subsidizes.
.
If alternative technologies are so “great” then entrepreneurs would have been on them like white on rice trying to make a buck. Who knows, one day the technology may be there to compete with the economic viability of fossil fuels, but until the market makes that choice, we will be in trouble.
.
Look, Andrew Taylor will be an old man before alternative fuels are developed to the point where they can be can compete with fossil fuels. The current policy is ridiculous. Of course we should be researching, but not forcing implementation of alternative technologies so quickly that it harms the economy, which is happening right now. That’s like promoting a 3rd grader to the head of the graduating UH Class of 2010. It’s doesn’t make sense.
Taylor I understand that you are very open to new technology and making the world greener, but if you do want to “solve America’s rising energy costs”. You are never going to get it. Drilling is not going to solve our energy issues, but it will greatly improve these issues. Our country is already depended on international oil, and offshore drilling is a great way to improve our economy. I don’t believe that this is a “quick fix,” and alternative energy resources will be created no matter what.
You said that “even if the legal issues weren’t a problem, oil isn’t extracted and immediately converted to fuel. The finished product — or at least what is turned into to fuel — takes time to produce after drilling has begun.” What are you talking about?!? How is this even an issue? Now you are saying that it isn’t a quick fix? I’m a chemical engineer major, and this is great opportunity for me to make that oil into fuel. It’s my pleasure to have this done! It’s going to take awhile to change that oil into fuel, and because of that, it’s going to create a lot of jobs, too. Also, if you think American’s drilling offshore is going to ruin the marine ecosystem, and we should leave it to foreign countries who have little environmental regulations to drill and produce oil.
The best way to solve the energy crisis, is to have a large range of different types of resources. We can only decrease our need for oil with incentives for new technology, and let’s not forget that you can’t change our need for oil in the next few years. The transition to cleaner energy is going to take many years. We will have to change the country’s infrastructure to get less dependent on oil. I do believe that we will create new technology, and a new infrastructure, but until then, we are going to need oil because we have no choice.
Mr. hello is right, in the sense of having a range of different resources to draw upon. Of course, I don’t see why tons of money can’t be put into making our use of fossil fuels that we already have far more efficient. Mandating that all cars get 35 mpg by 2020 or whatnot is a good start but not enough. Why not get it to 40, or 45? Why not help America wake-up to the fact that the era of enormous land yachts is over and the time for smaller cars has arrived? With the birth-rate being what it is, people don’t really NEED cars that can seat six people if they only have at most four people in the family. Let smaller, more innovative cars share the road with bigger ones, without requiring that the former add a load of extra bulk just for safety reasons (within reason).
America’s infrastructure was built on oil. It will take a very loooong time to build an infrastructure that can handle variable electricity from wind power, not get fried when a block of Electric Vehicles are charged overnight (if transformers don’t cool down overnight, they literally melt), and can store extra electricity (whether in huge lithium batteries or via hydropower) so that solar power isn’t a bust (when the panels stop generating electricity).
Don’t let Bojangles get you down, I’m sure that when you graduate Obama will be waiting to give you a job in his administration, seems like you have just the contempt for the free-market he is looking for.
Bo Bojangles! How did you know I just finished third grade? You must have some public data service, or access to my school records! Unfortunately, you did not support any of the views in your comment with facts or examples of facts. Therefore I do not even know what you are trying to prove.
Hello785- You say that you do not believe that drilling is a quick fix, well neither do I so at least you got something from the article. The legal obstacle reference was just one example of how it is NOT a quick fix. Also you then admit yourself that oil takes along time to convert to fuel, great your degree is working. I think you have a valid point in that we need a lot of options but oil is no more of a cure than undeveloped technology. The future’s technology is however, what will continue into the future long after oil goes dry.
Mr. Cutbirth- I love the free market more than anyone, however not every market is completely free. In regards to your comments, you do not cite where I show contempt for the free market.