Copyright ShanePapaDiesel courtesy of Flickr.com I don't tend to like to get political on my blog but given the importance of this election year, please forgive me as I get on my soapbox.
Lately, I've been terribly irked to hear the following radio ad:
Times are changing. Volatile energy costs are hitting Americans hard. Yet, while global oil and natural gas demand is increasing, our government has kept much of America’s energy resources off limits. Americans say it’s time for that to change. Recent independent opinion polls show a growing majority of Americans support more production of U.S. oil and natural gas. Advanced technology means we can efficiently explore America’s abundant resources while protecting the environment. Our government estimates that these resources could provide enough oil to fuel more than 60 million cars for 60 years and enough natural gas to heat 160 million households for 60 years. It’s time for Congress to listen to the American people. We need to increase energy efficiency. We need more energy from all sources. And we need to develop America’s oil and natural gas resources for the benefit and security of America. (API 2008)
The ad is part of the American Petroleum Institute's $100 million marketing campaign to clean up its image with the public and lobby for domestic oil production. A large focus is on offshore drilling. Currently offshore areas account for about 20 percent of our domestic oil and gas production. API states that 50% of our undiscovered resources are offshore and in order to meet our demand, we must allow them to mine these federally restricted areas. And it maybe that these ads are falling on the receptive ears of Americans hurting from record prices at the gas pump.
This is particularly troubling because of the upcoming election. We have a Republican candidate who proposed striking down the federal moratorium banning offshore oil and gas drilling to help alleviate high gas prices and a Democratic candidate who has changed his former position against it. And the Republican VP candidate supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as well as exploiting Alaska's natural gas resources.
Who will protect the environment? Who will protect our seas? Is our selfish demands for more oil and gas production to fuel our lives more important than sustaining our environment? Even the API admits that these resources will only give us 60 more years. It is a short term fix with long term consequences.
The API states that "industry vigilance and stringent regulatory oversight combine to produce excellent environmental performance in the area of oil spill preparedness and prevention." But this fails to impress me. They claim that natural seepage that occurs is more than the oil spills they have had in recent years. This is not a statistic that relieves me. If we already have an issue of natural seepage, perhaps we should not add to it by the possibility of incurring more human error oil spills. Oil spills in our oceans destroys coral reefs, ruins our beaches and kills eco-systems. And the idea of even touching the Arctic Refuge makes me sick to my stomach. Yes let's irreparably damage the last pristine wilderness refuge for a few decades of oil. Who cares about caribou, bears, and moose? It's people first and foremost, right?
Is this really a risk we should take for a mere 60 years of energy.
I'll be perfectly frank, I'm scared for our environment and if every single person doesn't do whatever little they can to support our environment, we all will carry the burden of guilt for what we are doing to our world. Here is our chance to lobby our representatives that the environment is important and the energy crisis should be resolved by other alternatives. Yes we have an energy crisis but we also have a larger crisis of conscience and morality. We do not inhabit the world alone and none of us will live forever. Everyone of us must think of the consequences of our actions. Offshore drilling and drilling in our most precious wildlife reserves is not the answer. Alternative sources and conservation is. If everyone of us made an effort to conserve energy, we would make a small impact. If we lobbied our reps to demand more gas efficient vehicles, we could make an impact. If we support windfall profit taxation of the large oil conglomerates that would be used to fund alternative fuel sources, we are making a difference. Every little thing can help.
We must put pressure on our government to protect our world and not the pocketbooks of the large oil conglomerates. Remember, these smooth ad campaigns costing a $100 million to the oil companies are being paid out of their huge profit margins that everyone of us contributed to by paying $4 a gallon for gas this past summer. The oil companies have been reporting record breaking profits for the past financial quarters while most Americans have been struggling to fill their tank. Don't keep rewarding them. The times are changing, let's make it change for them too.
Posts
28 comments:
Very well said. I'll e-mail my senators and representatives. Glad you commented on the article by Gloria Steinem on my blog.
And even if we allowed the rape of the environment to happen, we'd have....60 years? Doesn't that tell you right there that the oil companies are being short sighted? We need to use technology to improve efficiency, certainly, but we need to explor alternative fuels that are cleaner and less damaging to the environment. We can't wreck the earth for 60 years worth of being able to be lazy.
This all comes down to how much Americans are willing to sacrifice in order to (a) protect the environment and (b) eliminate dependence on foreign oil in order to (c) reduce gas prices.
The Democrats are calling this a compromise that is being offered in the name of moving forward in the spirit of bipartisanship in order to pass a larger, comprehensive package that includes other eco-friendly alternatives.
I think the bait and switch here on the voting public that cares only about how much they're paying for gas now is that even if Congress approved offshore drilling, there wouldn't be oil or any kind of reduction in gas prices for years, if ever.
But clearly, based on the "drill baby drill" sentiments promoted at the RNC, those in favor of offshore drilling are appealing to the indifference to the environment and the greed of a lot of people.
I'm disappointed that Obama is willing to compromise on this package, but he continues to state his original position, which is that he's not in favor of it and doesn't anticipate that it will be of any real benefit to alleviate our immediate problems. On the other hand, if compromise is what it takes to move a comprehensive bill that includes real solutions forward, I can accept it. I wouldn't even be too sure that there aren't other impediments to this plan being implemented, even if Congress does pass it.
What we need to ask ourselves is whether we're willing to conserve energy and live with the high gas prices until environmentally safe solutions are available. I can make that sacrifice.
The good people of Easter Island built giant heads to appease the gods and rolled the heads into place on the trunks of trees.
Cutting down all those trees caused soil erosion and crop failures. Clearly, the gods were angry and more heads were needed. The process accelerated, and today Easter Island is a barren piece of rock barely able to support life.
Americans don't have big heads, but we do have Big Oil and the great gods of Comfort and Consumerism, whom we please with school bus-sized personal vehicles.
For an air-conditioned and comfortable ride to disaster, more drilling is required.
From my home right outside the Motor City: word.
Amen sister!
Hey! I'm collecting election pieces, articles, etc for the next few months here: No Coward Soul. I'm linking to this post!!
It's no coincidence to me that in 60 years all the people who are making these decisions will be dead and it will be someone else's mess to clean up (our children's).
Passing the buck, Washington-style.
The "Drill, baby, drill" mantra is obscene - it sickens me every time I read it/hear it. Who the h@#$ do these people think they are?
Amen to your post.
(Tinamarie from the blueboards)
The idea that drilling through pristine wilderness to reach finite oil reserves will solve our energy problems is so myopic, I can't fathom why Americans would even consider such a position. I know why the oil companies consider it; they don't think in terms of long-term benefit, they think in terms of quarterly dividends for stockholders.
But what about the common citizen? Where does he get the idea?
Certainly not from our own government! To accuse Bush and Cheney of putting their cronies ahead of their country is . . . well, it's unpatriotic! So is opposing the war! Move to Sweden if you don't like it, you bleeding heart liberals!
Northeastern Pennsylvania is one of the hottest new exploration areas for natural gas. It seems like a healthy balance between environmental protection and use of these resources is possible. Natural gas is likely to be a step between the older, dirtier fuels like coal to future, better sources of energy.
What Charles and you both said. I'm not sure that limited drilling is so bad, but I'm not exactly for it because I too do not trust that accidents or rape of environmental resources won't occur if a limited exposure is allowed. And if only 60 years is bought, I bet we'd have grown complacent all over again by doing this short-term solutiona nd not address the real problems which are bad policy and wrong thinking about man as rightfully deserving of anything he can grab.
absolutely, ell...
not usually a 'joiner', i do support
'defenders of wildlife', and alternative energy forums....
I saw a wonderful poster once, years ago, it said:
when all the fish has gone, when all the wildlife has vanished, when all the vegetation is dead, man finds out that one cannot eat money.
Hey, don't forget drilling in the FL gulf will trash our tourist industry. Droughts here caused by global warming have already affected the orange crops.
I think Friendman's book, HOT, FLAT AND CROWDED should be required reading for all the candiates.
Palin's welcome home speech last night was just a commercial for Alaska oil drilling, more like she's running for prez of an oil company, which is pretty much what it's about for Republicans.
We were having a conversation in my office the other day, and the one question we couldn't get past was this: Hydrogen based energy technology, whether used to power or heat your home or fuel your car, has been around for decades. All it ever needed was the research to make it viable. And still I'm ordering kerosene to heat my house, and filling my car with petrol. Does this trouble anyone else?
I'm with you all the way on this, Ello. There seems to be no limit to human greed, but there IS a limit to how much oil we can obtain from the earth. Whatever it costs to develop sustainable energy sources is bound to be worth it in the long run.
You may not like to, but I'm glad you did. Good post.
Super and provocative post. I've been mulling this stuff over myself and you said exactly what I've been pondering.
Found you via Cindy's blog and glad I wandered here. I'm up the road in greater Baltimore and a drug policy wonk myself. Peace, Linda
Yep...you are preaching to the choir.
I'm going to start riding my bike to work. At least I'm going to do it this weekend to try it out for next week, when the traffic will be intense. I'm hoping to make my own little difference. But Portland, Oregon is known for being the bikingest city in the country. So I'm not alone.
*APPLAUSE* You are singing to the choir Ello! Mr. and I both are on the boys all the time about recycling, cutting down on trash, not being wasteful, and not to drive unless it's needed. It is very important that we all do what we can.
Hear hear! I have thought these things too, but you've stated them so perfectly.
Why can't we try to conserve instead? Biking or walking to work, for example, would not only save energy, but would also increase health and lower our rates of obesity. It's a win-win for everyone.
I remember that ad, too, because I was shocked at their proposition, which (as Charles mentioned,) would leave the next generation right back where we started. I HATE these people, I REALLY HATE these people!
Here! Here!!
Excellent post, Ello, very well said. I hope many more will think and act as you do - for your sake, for all our sakes, right across the globe. We are no longer "one nation" - we are one humanity and the action of one impacts upon the other - and upon every other living thing.
It would do well for US representatives to read Jared Diamond's excellent book, "Collapse".
Way behind on my reading, Ellen... so I'm sorry that I didn't comment sooner.
Of course, you know how I feel. Drilling for oil is a crap shoot, and with the development time, and all the other factors involved, it would be more than 10 years before a drop of this oil flowed.
Imagine how many wind turbines and solar panels we would lay in the next 10 to 12 years!
Politically, Obama is supporting limited drilling in effort to get renewable energy credits extended, as they expire soon, and they're crucially important to the industry.
But here's the most telling fact. McCain's energy team is largely comprised of oil business execs and lobbyists, and his energy plan consists of more drilling, and building about 30 to 45 nuclear plants, plus a little into renewables.
Obama's campaign consists of a few lobbyists, but no one on the (15?) member team comes from big oil. Not one... they are all people who are working towards building a low-carbon economy.
And that's why Obama's energy plan is nothing short of brilliant — thorough, nuanced, comprehensive, visionary.
Oh... and I forgot to mention...
If your readers don't want any expansion of drilling, they should also ask their politicians to not support the use of unconventional oil — like the oil that comes from the Alberta Tar Sands
Canada is expanding production there. The downside?
That oil contains three to five times the greenhouse gases as conventional oil; the tar sands are a toxic dump the size of England; enough natural gas to heat 3,000,000 homes is used everyday (and I could go on!)
It's the world's worst environmental disaster. And its expanding — perhaps tripling in size — because some American states want more of it.
Post a Comment