The company known as British Petroleum spent more money on public relations campaigns to promote their alleged commitment to environmentally friendly policies and their warm and fuzzy support for energy alternatives to oil then it did to secure an oil well in the Gulf of Mexico that's emitting 200,000 gallons of oil daily and now washing onshore in Louisiana and Mississippi, and possibly Alabama and Florida. Apparently it could have installed a mechanism in the well that would have prevented this nightmarish mess for a mere $500,000 - this a company that records profits in the millions - but chose not to because the United States does not require it. How many other countries allow oil companies to do without this mechanism in drilling off their shores? Zero!
President Obama continues to believe that oil exploration off our shores can still be done, but that it must be done responsibly and with greater efforts to protect the welfare of oil rig workers and the environment. While Obama's statement seems reasonable enough, it does not take into account that accidents can happen even under strict rules and regulations, and how such accidents can do damage that far outweighed the benefits of offshore oil exploration. Do we really need to risk and possibly ruin the economic and environmental well-being of the Gulf region - ruining the livelihoods of fishermen and destroying pristine wildlife areas as a result - so we can have cheap gasoline to fuel SUVs?
Jonathan Alter of Newsweek hit the nail on the head speaking on MSNBC earlier today, saying that this should serve as a wakeup call for Congress to develop a cleaner, greener energy policy that provides more incentives for wind and solar power. Instead much of the debate is focusing on assigning blame and figuring out how to continue including oil exploration in energy development.
Oh yeah, here's a question for Sarah Palin: How's that "Drill, baby, drill" thing workin' out for ya?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment