Registered? Please log in below.
New? Please register.
Here are some reasons why.
That's the headline on this week's Scripps-Howard column by Joel and yours truly, in which we tackle the Obama administration's announcement this week of plans to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling -- with some crucial caveats, of course.
My take, briefly:
Fact is, the United States is going to be a petroleum-based economy for some time to come. Rather than rely on volatile supplies from increasingly hostile regimes, Obama should open the Outer Continental Shelf -- and Alaska and California, for that matter -- for American firms to explore and use until better, cleaner and greener technologies are ready to for the market.
Joel's take, briefly:
Politics aside, there's a real danger here: Nobody believes that the world oil supply will last forever. Offshore drilling can be useful only if we intentionally use it as a bridge to our low-carbon alternative-energy future. It should only proceed on that basis. Otherwise, Obama might just be the next in a long line of presidents who deepened our unsustainable addiction to oil, even while deploring it all the way.
Why not read the whole thing and share your take?
Comments
Nice summary of the debate, guys
But (surprise!) Ben gets the better of the argument.
He's right -- this new policy is a retreat from Bush's proposal to allow extensive fossil fuel development from offshore sources. And, as with Bush's earlier proposal, Congress could continue to renew the moratorium. Under W's plan, states would have maintained the ability to veto drilling off their coasts if they so desired.
So the latest ploy is more press release material than any genuine change in policy. Then again, the president is particularly keen on making grandiose announcements and hitting the road campaigning for them, isn't he?