Heather Manes
Staff Writer
Gas prices are all the rage these days — literally. Tempers are about as turbulent as the price per barrel, so any attempt at an answer to the gas crisis is readily seized, despite the quality of the solution.
On Sept. 16, the United States House of Representatives passed a flawed and weak solution to lift the current ban on offshore drilling. It has since been forwarded to the Senate for deliberation.
Offshore drilling is a particularly controversial topic, resultant of the decades of political debate attributed to the dilemma. Now, as the gas prices are climbing to an unprecedented level of mayhem, the debate has arisen yet again.
On one hand, offshore drilling will allow for a greater supply of domestic oil, but, on the other hand, offshore drilling poses serious risks to the environment and may only offer illusory economic benefits. This brings to question whether our economic benefit outweighs the numerous potential harms that will befall the environment and economy.
Whether it is a faulty pipeline or an accident within an oil tanker, oils spills, in either circumstance, will result in devastating effects to the environment.
In 1969, California experienced the effects of a large oil spill in Santa Barbara spanning more than 35 miles of coastline, covering 800 square miles. Thousands of sea mammals and over 3,500 birds died in that accident alone, and it took months (as well as millions of dollars) to clean up the entirety of the spill.
In addition, building the offshore oil facilities would be a huge financial burden. Billions of dollars are invested in building the offshore sites and maintaining them, and even more money is spent removing them as the oil site is depleted. How much money, then, is truly saved from producing oil domestically? And, how much of that money saved does the consumer actually benefit from after it trickles down the tangled web of oil corporations?
In fact, the offshore drilling initiative is so muddled that we must also question the motives of our congressional and presidential representatives. Do our representatives truly believe the offshore drilling bill introduced in Congress is the best way to solve America’s problem of high gas prices, or is this bill just another feeble attempt to extract votes for helping to psychologically lower gas prices?
The claim, “I tried to lower gas prices,” is an effective campaign strategy for many congresspersons, but the unfortunate paradox is that voting for this bill will most likely have little to no effect on gas prices.
This bill also contains indistinct measures regarding the advancement of other forms of energy, as well as a potential clause allowing for states to decide whether or not to drill offshore, in order to make the bill a little more appealing to voters and much harder for congresspersons to deny.
The point of this bill, though (disregarding the insignificant clauses stapled to it), is futile. This bill is a ploy by oil companies to cheapen the price of barrels, but at the same time keep the gas prices roughly the same so that the common citizen, as usual, will reap few benefits.
Next month, the bill will most likely pass the Senate, because voting against this bill would be like voting against the Patriot Act. In America, patriotism is just as important as low gas prices, but behind the political façade of American values is a lack of effort to truly solve the oil crisis.
09-25-2008