I really don't understand how the average American (you and I) has such strong opinions on overly complicated political issues. Things that come to mind are the economy, international wars, immigration, and healthcare. These types of issues inherently involve many variables and factors that are all interconnected and work together to affect the outcome of any action influencing any component of a particular issue.
Lets take the economy, for example. How is it possible that the average person (read, not a super genius) feels like he/she has all the answers? In fact they don't; Still I hear things like, "The government needs to lift the ban on off shore drilling!". A statement such as this is usually followed by the usual rhetoric about how environmentalists are so naive and don't have a clue about how things work, etc. In reality, the person making this comment is no more educated on the economic or environmental effects on lifting such a ban as the generic stereotyped group they are opposing.
What effects does drilling have on the environment? Personally, I can not quantify these effects, because I have little education in that area. I have no formal or informal education in environmental science or marine biology or any other field of study that would be required to assess the issue with some level of accuracy. Does crude oil get into the ocean and kill marine life? Do harmful gasses get into the atmosphere and hurt the environment? Does it affect things beneath the surface that will have detrimental effects for years to come? I have no idea. Have the drilling techniques changed over the past 20 years? Perhaps some of the original concerns that were present when the ban was implemented are now obsolete.
How will the local economy be affected if we lift the offshore drilling ban? Will it lower fuel costs in the US and help throttle inflation? If so, by how much and how long will it take? Will it be permanent? If you listen to the media you get extremely vague information like, "Drilling off shore won't significantly affect gas prices". What is 'significant' and how did you come to this conclusion?
Then, of course, there is the cynical component of it all. Who will get to build these off shore rigs? Can you imagine the profits on drilling right off the coast of your home country where your refineries are located. Not that I'm against a businesses making profits, but I hope this isn't the driving force with all other issues being neglected. I mean, what better time to tap into previously sanctioned oil reserves than when fuel is selling at an all time high. After all, the production costs have not increase (relative to inflation), only the demand. But I shouldn't be so cynical right? After all, I'm sure no oil investors have any ties to the political decision makers. Even if there were a few ties, we are only talking about billions of dollars of potential revenue; I'm sure this isn't enough influence any of the key decision makers...
So how do you take a stance on issues like this? Even if you assume that good intentions are abound, you still don't know how to work out the equation that includes all other variables. I would be thrilled if, for once, I heard someone say, "I have researched the potential environmental effects of this and I have researched the potential economic effects of this, and although I don't know if my assumptions were correct or if things would work out as proposed, overall I feel like the potential environmental impacts are small as compared to the total potential economic impacts. Additionally, an improved economy has a better chance of funding future environmental programs that could potentially 'offset' the impacts that are created during off shore drilling. That being said, I am also aware of the possibility of substantial profits being made by big oil companies resulting in perpetuated off shore drilling as they indulge in high-dollar lobbyists and propagandized scare tactics; Which is why I would like to see the duration of the ban lift perhaps tied to a date or economic indicator."
There's nothing wrong with admitting that the issue is complex. Sometimes it's best just to state your preferred outcome rather than state your strong, unfounded, opinions on what immediate actions should take place. Personally, I want energy costs to be as cheap as possible without adversely affecting the environment that we have to live in for the rest of our lives. My preference is that energy costs decrease as a result of long term changes in the way we (the world) uses energy and as a result of new sources of energy. If we need to temporarily increase the supply at some expense to the environment in order to achieve a successful long-term energy-environmental equilibrium, then that seems reasonable to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment