Offshore Drilling: A Bad, Neccesary Idea?

Offshore drilling is like pregnancy – there is no halfway. So, it is more than a little surprising that President Barack Obama, who campaigned against off-shore drilling along the Eastern seaboard, has now decided to embrace it as part of his effort to pass a climate change bill. The Post’s headline this morning – "In drilling decision, a political maneuver" – is not helpful to a President who aspires to appear principled.

I am reluctant to question the political savvy of the man who got health care reform through Congress. And, Obama’s promise to be a transformative politician certainly does not preclude actually doing politics. Horse trading is part of politics. If allowing offshore drilling scurries up enough votes to pass the already slightly bipartisan climate change bill, it may be a fair trade. But, why make such a large concession in advance of negotiations?

Advertisement

The protestations from the environmental community are significant for two reasons. First, most environmental advocates have been telling the rest of us that climate change is a real, significant threat, and so it is. Sen. Inhofe doesn’t think so, and rightwing cranks have cited his criticisms of the science that undergirds the concern, but that is a bit like citing a Holocaust denier on the subject of genocide. Will the environmentalists agree to a deal that involves a genuine sacrifice of a different, less global, concern to achieve legislation that addressed the catastrophic potential of climate change? Will they let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

Second, the President’s decision, and the environmentalists’ criticisms, illustrate the most vexing political problem for the President, really for almost any President, namely, while they campaign using vague, contentless nouns like "change," different voters place upon them their own hopes, some of which are going to get dashed when the political rubber hits the policy road. I think most Democrats are concerned about the environment and tend to favor legislation that protects it, but for some Democrats, environmental protection is the defining and decisive issue. With most on the Left, the passage of health care, and the draw down in forces in Iraq which continues apace even if it is rarely commented upon in the media, is sufficient to ensure their support for the President’s re-election. But, midterms are about motivating voters, and environmentalists are highly motivated on their issues. In the wake of yesterday’s decision, many of them may choose to sit out November’s elections.

The President’s decision will surely burnish another campaign goal of Obama’s, his pledge to work in a bipartisan fashion and transcend the narrow partisanship that too often impedes congressional action. As mentioned, the climate change bill already has the support of Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), so it had some claim to the bipartisan label. Obama’s move also helps shore up support from conservative Democratic Senators in Virginia and Alaska. But, after watching the bruising battle for health care, it is hard not to conclude that seeking bipartisanship, especially in an election year, is something of a fool’s errand.

On the merits, candidate Obama seemed closer to the truth than President Obama. The potential increase in domestic oil and gas production, marginal if not insignificant, does not seem to outweigh the risk of environmental damage, with the consequent damage to key economic sectors such as fisheries and travel. No one wants to go to the Outer Banks if those banks are soaked with petroleum. The President’s announcement came from political, not policy, necessity.

Criticizing a politician for being a politician is ridiculous. But, I doubt the environmental community will see it that way.

Michael Sean Winters

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
7 years 8 months ago
I can't quite tell what your opinion of the decision is from this post (although I was up late so my brain is a bit slow).  From a Republican standpoint, however, I applaud the move.  First, its SMART politics.  When Bush first proposed this, a majority of Americans polled supported the move for good reasons.  It helps conservative Dems like Mary Landrieu & Charlie Melancon in my state, who are the people who really need help (not safe liberal Dems who tend to be the most environmentally-nutty).  Second, it makes total sense from a policy standpoint.  Despite the usual sturm und drag from the environmentalists (such as the Outer Banks being covered in petroleum), offshore drilling is extremely safe &, of course, highly regulated.  Finally, and most importantly, it creates JOBS for people and keeps people working.  All in all, on this one, I tip my hat to Obama (although I still highly doubt he'll get his climate change bill.
 
PS- Your characterization of the climate change doubters is typical straw man argumentation.  You realize, however, that one of the "cranks" is a Nobel-prize winning biologist.  
James Lindsay
7 years 8 months ago
Climate change is real, but I am not sure it is a threat - given that when we started throwing excess carbon in the air we were in the "Little Ice Age." I would rather not go back to the famines that had my ancestors flee Europe for greener pastures. As for danger to coastlines, this may or may not be likely, given that the current often goes out to sea, not toward shore, on the Atlantic coast. The Gulf drilling may be more of a problem.

Drilling offshore buys a bit of time until we convert to non-fossil fuel intensive energy sources, like Helium-3 fusion. That is far enough off to make more exploration necessary.
john fitzmorris
7 years 8 months ago
I was once involved in offshore drilling from the legal end of the business.The drilling itself can be and is quite often done in an environmentally sound fashion. The company I worked for strived to do so and often achieve that goal.Of course that is only one part of the problem. The real problem is that drilling brings to the surface crude oil and gas that will become green house gases that exacerbates the global climate change problem.

I think that Obama made an excellent political choice and it may just be that he is rollong the dice that in the long run we will come up with some long range "green" energy alternatives before the lengthy, expensive prep period to the spudding in of the first offshore well is completed. If the prices of oil and gas fall to levels that will not justify production in what is known as "paying quantities" and the green energy is less expensive than Obame will have again mystifiied the pundits and driven the Limbaughs and his ilk to perdition, I will wait and see

Advertisement

Don't miss the best from America

Sign up for our Newsletter to get the Jesuit perspective on news, faith and culture.

The latest from america

The ‘chaos candidate’ is now our pyromaniac president.
Margot PattersonDecember 11, 2017
At first Father Flanagan rejected the idea of a film, but he signed on after he saw a script that he liked.
Kevin LawlerDecember 11, 2017
People celebrate Nov. 21 outside parliament after hearing that President Robert Mugabe resigned in Harare, Zimbabwe. All Zimbabweans should have a voice in the country's governance following Mugabe's 37-year presidency, and the new government should embrace diversity, Zimbabwe's bishops said. (CNS photo/Kim Ludbrook, EPA)
The Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops Conference issued a statement urging calm, restraint and patience during what they called “most delicate times.”
Anthony EganDecember 11, 2017
A reflection for the second Monday of Advent
Elizabeth Kirkland CahillDecember 11, 2017