Since 1981, a moratorium against offshore oil drilling has been renewed by every Congress. There has been almost constant debate and concern over the moratorium in recent years as direct result of rising gas (petroleum) prices and political pressure by (mostly) Republican politicians from oil-rich states. Proponents often argue that offshore drilling is an important element of the potential economic health and national security of the United States and can be accomplished with minimal environmental impact. Those in favor of maintaining the moratorium argue that offshore drilling ignores more fundamental problems such as unsustainable levels and growth of American energy consumption, rising gas prices or decreasing energy-independence and is most importantly not worth the environmental risk.
In March 2010, the debate intensified when President Obama agreed that allowing some offshore drilling could be part of his administration’s energy bill. This was a compromise to gain votes for a cap-and-trade mechanism that would limit greenhouse gas emissions. Before the energy bill ever came to a vote in the Senate, an explosion in April 2010 caused a massive oil leak from a BP-operated deep-water oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. For four months innumerable gallons of oil leaked into the Gulf. It inflicted massive environmental damage and economic harm upon U.S. Gulf states.
Members of the Princeton community fall out on both sides of this issue, in very meaningful ways. Princeton students including Eleanor Elbert ’12 have been working to spread the message of offshore drilling’s negative impacts. Elbert spent her time researching the environmental, legal and economic impacts of offshore drilling. She led a team of nongovernmental organizations to Belize to “raise awareness of the issue and call on the government to ban offshore drilling.” On the other end of the spectrum, Robert Saltiel ’85 was appointed president and chief operating officer of the international offshore drilling contractor — Atwood Oceanics — and took the reins on Dec. 15, 2009. These very different efforts remind us that Princeton has a tremendous ability to impact the world and its events.
There are very poignant arguments that have caused me to question the viability of lifting the offshore drilling moratorium. The Energy Information Administration claims that offshore drilling could, in time, supply 18 billion barrels of crude oil. This increased production could lower gas prices for American consumers. On the other hand, oil prices are largely set by worldwide supply and demand; recent rises in prices reflect increasing energy use in rapidly growing economies such as China. The oil generated from offshore drilling in the United States may not impact world oil markets in any significant way. Furthermore, oil exploration and rig construction take years to complete — according to the EIA, offshore drilling would not produce any change in oil prices until 2030.
But the debate is not confined either to issues environmental protection or the economy — national security is pertinent as well. Currently, the United States must buy much of its oil from authoritarian and often unfriendly states such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Iran, or from unstable places like Nigeria. The oil estimated to exist in untapped offshore reserves could help distance America from anti-democratic regimes by decreasing their importance to the U.S. economy. However, as America only has 3 percent of the globe’s oil reserves and it consumes 25 percent of the international oil supply, the United States will have to continue buying oil from hostile nations.
The cost of oil is placing a serious strain on the American economy and on household budgets, and available methods should be used to combat the problem. Perhaps offshore drilling is a small, necessary part of a broader energy strategy, including energy-usage consciousness and greater usage of renewable energy sources. However, offshore drilling is a “Band-Aid” solution: Opening America’s coastal waters to offshore drilling does not address the underlying problems of underutilization of greener resources and general overconsumption.
Also, the environmental consequences of offshore drilling may not be worth the potential financial gain. The Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010 showed, and continues to show, how devastating a massive oil leak can be. Fish, marine mammals and seabirds were killed in droves by a slick extending across hundreds of square miles. As the oil reached the shore it destroyed valuable coastal wetlands and beaches, harming the animals that rely on these habitats. Even without catastrophic failure, oil rigs release toxic chemicals into the surrounding waters, transporting oil from these rigs is harmful, seismic waves disorientate sea-animals; and installing rigs erodes the ocean floor, which worsens the impact of hurricanes and tropical storms.
Apart from the terrible environmental damage caused by the Gulf spill, the economic costs have also been grievous. Fishing and tourism are the economic mainstays of coastal communities and both can be damaged by a major oil spill, causing considerable unemployment. BP has promised to compensate those directly affected by the loss of coastal jobs in this instance, but what if BP, or a future polluter, were unable to pay? Shutting down coastal industries has effects on suppliers, retailers, transport firms, etc., which damages the wider economy.
Regulation might never be able to remove the risk from the dangerous enterprise of offshore drilling. The only path to true energy independence and greater national security is to decrease American energy consumption and to invest in homegrown renewable energy.
Aaron Applbaum is a sophomore from Oakland, Calif. He can be reached at applbaum@princeton.edu.
Read More
On encampments, free speech, and ‘time, place, and manner’ rules on university campuses
Christopher L. EisgruberPresident Christopher Eisgruber ’83 comments on encampments, free speech, and “time, place, and manner” rules.
President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 comments on encampments, free speech, and “time, place, and manner” rules.
Princeton needs to be a climate justice leader — emphasis on the ‘climate,’ emphasis on the ‘justice’
Alex Norbrook and Eleanor Clemans-Cope“Princeton must not only withdraw its support from injustices, but also positively re-invest in sustainable and community-informed initiatives.”
“Princeton must not only withdraw its support from injustices, but also positively re-invest in sustainable and community-informed initiatives.”
Princeton must move towards a world-changing curriculum
Luqmaan Bamba“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
