SD Union-Tribune Wants Offshore Drilling, Nuclear Power
The San Diego Union-Tribune has published an editorial from their editorial board in this morning’s edition calling for drilling off California’s coast. In addition to that, they’re also calling for building more nuclear power plants:
When a majority of Californians signal to pollsters their support for offshore oil drilling, something dramatic is occurring. In this case, it is the price of gasoline lurching toward $5 a gallon. Suddenly, Americans have awakened with a hangover to their perilous reliance on foreign oil, which has escalated alarmingly since the oil shocks of three decades ago.
Since the first Arab embargo in 1973, dependence on imported petroleum has jumped from 25 percent of U.S. consumption to 70 percent. Apart from the far-reaching national security implications of this strategic vulnerability, American consumers now find themselves at the mercy of oligarchic foreign producers who effectively control pump prices in Santee.
No wonder Californians are willing to take another look at coastal oil development, which has been politically verboten since the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill jolted the state’s environmental consciousness.
Over time, the entire world must wean itself from fossil fuels in order to curb greenhouse gas emissions. This means a variety of alternative energies must be developed,from massive wind farms and solar installations to hydrogen-based processes and biofuels made from algae or other plants that do not consume large amounts of arable land and drive up food costs. And when it comes to greenhouse gases, an urgent shift to nuclear power for electricity generation would eliminate a key contributor to global warming.
But for the next half century or longer, as the transition to noncarbon fuels plays out, the United States will continue to consume petroleum as the lifeblood of its economy and standard of living. No amount of conservation, an important tool in its own right, will eliminate the need for increased production in the near term. So, unless we are willing to become almost totally dependent on oil pumped from the ground in the volatile Middle East and Persian Gulf regions, a very dangerous course, the United States must boost its own output significantly.
While I think that MMGW is myth, not science, I don’t have a problem joining with the SDUT in calling for drilling off California’s coast and more nuclear power plants. My theory is that there’s plenty of room on the bandwagon as long as they’re heading in the right direction. It’s all about building a big coalition that puts enough pressure on Pelosi’s Democrats to capitulate. It’s all about getting the moratoria lifted so that we can become more energy independent.
I’m not so worried about eliminating all imports as I’m worried about eliminating imports from the Middle East and Hugo Chavez. I’m not worried about the oil imported from Canada or Mexico.
The editorial board has it right when it says this:
No amount of conservation, an important tool in its own right, will eliminate the need for increased production in the near term.
How does a farmer picking his crops conserve? How does an OTR trucker hauling those farmers’ goods to market conserve? The UT is exactly right in pointing this out. I’d further add that I’d rather see ‘R & D’ based conservation than the ‘let’s turn down the thermostat’ style conservation. ‘R & D’ based conservation is using technology to make more efficient appliances, vehicles, etc. that allow us to maintain our standard of living.
While I don’t agree with their reason, I still agree with this policy:
an urgent shift to nuclear power for electricity generation would eliminate a key contributor to global warming.
I’m not worried about MMGW. I’m concerned about dramatically lowering electric bills, though, which is what nuclear power will do.
This page long has joined the chorus opposed to the mere prospect of any drilling rigs in San Diego County’s coastal waters. But circumstances, most notably America’s increasing dependence on foreign supplies, have changed. So has the safety record of offshore drilling operations along the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts. The risk of another massive oil spill has been greatly reduced by improved technology and federally enforced safety standards.
This is another way of saying “we were wrong in continuing our objections.” Like I said, we’ve got plenty of room on this bandwagon, no matter what their prior beliefs were. They’re right in saying that “the safety record of offshore drilling operations” has improved.
Here’s the closing paragraph of the editorial:
And while Congress is opening up coastal waters to spur domestic production, it should lift the ban on drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a vast untapped petroleum supply that is far removed from human activity.
I wholeheartedly agree, not just because it’s “far removed from human activity” but because it’s home to huge natural gas supplies, too. With winter approaching faster than I’d like, concerns about the doubling of heating one’s home start entering the equation. Those of us living in northern states don’t want drilling just for the oil but for the natural gas, which will stabilize the cost of heating our homes.
The situation is too dire to do nothing, which is the plan being pushed by Pelosi’s Democrats. I wouldn’t care about them if they were the minority party. Now that Democrats control the House’s and Senate’s agenda, though, I care alot about their agenda.
Their environutter-friendly agenda will bring our economy to its knees just like it did under Jimmy Carter.
Technorati Tags: Editorial, Gas Crisis, Drilling, OCS, Nuclear Power, ANWR, Global Warming, Environutters, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog