All lifting this ban will do is kill off species, destroy nature, contribute to economic decline, and further encourage American dependence on oil. While our nation may experience a decline in oil prices, this comfort period would only be temporary. Oil is a non-renewable resource, and we will eventually be left in a rut when it all runs out. In addition to the risk of encouraging oil dependency, the wildlife and natural world would be at stake. According to environment.about.com, numerous species of fish reside in the offshore regions where Bush wants to allow drilling. Not only would this destroy the fish species but it would also lead to the demise of polar bears. Is it really worth drilling into these fragile waters so our gas prices will temporarily go down a few cents? What will the world turn into as a result of this degradation of our environment? Oil drilling can cause series of chain reactions, slowly destroying different species which depend on each other for survival.
Maybe this struggle with oil is a sign that America needs to explore more forms of alternative energy. Solar, wind, hydrogen and nuclear power are just a few examples of renewable resources which are compatible with the environment. While it is true that these forms of energy require research, they aren't impossible to implement within a span of a few years. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Energy, nuclear energy constitutes a significant portion of the energy of France; the case is similar with wind energy in Spain. Argentina is another nation which makes it a point to utilize natural gases. Alternative fuel sources would be more economically and environmentally feasible for the United States as well.
Moreover, instead of looking to lifting bans on oil drilling, it is imperative that the American government should seize this crisis as an opportunity to learn how to reduce dependency on oil. After all, it is our world and it is vital that we take care of it.
2 comments:
I think you have written an informed editorial and I agree with your opinion. While oil may be an essential part of our society right now, it WILL eventually run out and we will be left to depend on our alternative energy sources. If they are not strong enough, we will face a staggering blow. It will be difficult to power our cities and lead our lives as we’ve grown accustom, but the solution is not to destroy certain areas of wildlife for x number of oil barrels. That would only provide relief for a small amount of time. Furthermore, President Bush has asked Congress to “face a hard reality” because “unless members are willing to accept gas prices at today’s painful levels, or even higher, our nation must produce more oil.” The fact is that the United States only has 3% of the entire world’s oil, yet we consume around 25% of it. Drilling for every drop of oil that lies within the United States’ territories won’t fix our energy problems because we will still consume much more than we produce. The only reasonable solution then is to transfer the effort from finding new oil to researching and developing alternative energy sources. Less funding for oil production and more for alternative energy research and production would give us a long-term solution rather than short-term. It seems as though these proposals made by President Bush are ones of yet another political agenda. John McCain already discussed lifting the ban on oil drilling in ocean waters with oil executives from large, profitable oil companies. While this may be profitable for some, it could prove dangerous, not only to wildlife, but also to American citizens. In 1969, there was a dramatic oil spill in California when offshore drilling took place that none want to relive. This problem with offshore drilling could also be an issue in Florida. This “solution” proposed by President Bush would harm wildlife, the future of our world, and us today, offering nothing more than a few cents less at the gas pump. I’m glad that you brought this issue to our attention.
What you said about the destruction of "our world" by getting rid of the oil bans is true, and what you have put forth as a solution is very reasonable. The way nature works with its different complex chains is set up so that if an animal is killed, the rest of the chain is corrupted, and the farther down on the chain you go, the more animals it affects. Now I'm not an animal expert, but I can definitely say that oil drillings in the places where Bush has suggested will affect many, and may even kill some animal species. Greed is no reason to kill uncountable amounts of animals. The U.S. today is way too dependent on oil, and if that dependency doesn't disappear, the U.S. will most certainly encounter difficult times soon. Alternative ways of creating energy should be a top priority for this country right now, not killing helpless animals just so we can have an extra quarter in our pocket. Its not only wrong, its immoral and absurd. I completely agree with you, Bush's proposal to lift oil ban should not even be considered.
Post a Comment