Off Shore Drilling
By *Stacy Jelke
As discussed in the blog below, much of the information regarding the two presidential candidates views on global warming is becoming a little repetitive. As brought up in one of the presentations in class, McCain is an advocate for off shore drilling. This interested me and will produce definite changes in global warming so I decided to further my research and find out just what McCain's plan is with drilling off shore.
"McCain advocates offshore drilling not as a complete energy solution, but as one component of an “all of the above” strategy that would include increased conservation, alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and biofuels, and more traditional sources such as coal and nuclear energy."
The article I read stated that the move to drill off shore is aimed at easing voter anger over rising energy prices by freeing states to open vast stretches of the country's coastline to oil exploration. "In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly 80 percent said soaring prices at the pump are causing them financial hardship, the highest in surveys this decade. " McCain goes on to say there are 21 billion untapped barrels of oil in the United States and that its time for the ban on off shore drilling to be lifted. Many environmentalists are getting upset over McCain's ideas about drilling off shore and they are afraid the wild life will be tremendously disturbed. While McCain has traditionally sided with environmentalists on climate change, he has a mixed voting record on oil drilling and support for renewable energy.
This was a tough research topic for me because I do side with McCain on many of his ideas, however, this one I am stuck on. It just doesnt seem logical and like we'll be getting enough out of it in the end to justify the sacrifices made on the environment and wild life. I do understand using the oil offshore along with foreign oil, so that we wont have to rely on and buy as much foreign oil, although, like I said before, I'm not 100% condifent the environmental/wildlife issues at stake are worth risking.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602731_2.html?sid=ST2008061700079&s_pos=
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The amount of oil we would actually get from off-shore drilling is pretty much nill compared to our consumption rates. It seems a lot more logical to not bother (and thus not destroy the environment and wildlife) and instead invest the time and money into reducing our dependence on oil as a whole.
Post a Comment