I can’t take it anymore. I have to start writing about the oil spill. Consider it to be the subject of this blog for the foreseeable future.
On May 1st, 2010, the day that Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar declared the Deepwater Horizon oil spill “potentially catastrophic” adding, “I think we have to prepare for the worst,” an article was published in Offshore Magazine, the online periodical on “World Trends and Technology for Offshore Oil and Gas Operations.”
Penned by drilling executive and lobbyist Burt Adams, the article, titled “A Teachable Moment” is a glowing description of the “new cause for hope” offered by the government’s offshore plan proposed in March which “provides an historic opportunity for America’s offshore energy sector.” Seemingly oblivious to the disaster unfolding daily, he praises the “Develop, Explore, and Protect” strategy and cheerfully asserts “These are three areas in which our industry excels.” As untold thousands of gallons of petrochemicals and semi-toxic dispersants fill the Gulf of Mexico, Mr. Adams pays homage to the technology of offshore drilling, saying it “rivals that of the space industry” and that “despite claims to the contrary, energy production and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive.” He continues with a sparkling review of the industry’s environmental record, its impact on our economy, and a resounding call to “engage in the policy debate to help create the right frameworks that will allow this great industry to accomplish what we know we can.”
As absurd as it sounds in light of recent events, the article is the legitimate voice of a powerful force that profoundly affects our daily lives, and the justifications for so insidious a presence will be refined and reiterated at length in the coming months as the debate over this practice rises astronomically. We will be constantly reminded that 25% of our energy comes from offshore drilling, that it employs hundreds of thousands of people, and that it lessens our dependence on foreign oil. What they will not tell us is how other countries, like Germany, France, and even China, will soon be able to generate 25% of their electricity through renewable means, or how Brazil has passed everyone at 85%, or the 27% per year growth rate that alternative energy technology enjoys and the millions of people it will employ.
No, the oil industry and the many different voices they enlist will treat us as dependents, and speak to us as a drug dealer speaks to an addict, with platitudes and veiled threats. Mr. Adams is eerily correct when he writes “the general public and to a large extent decision makers in Congress and state legislatures remain uninformed of the tremendous contributions of our industry.” Their contributions ensure our ongoing addiction to oil, and as anyone in the social services knows, the first step to curbing an addiction is to admit it. What follows is a grueling process of introspection and willpower. One does not beat an addiction with a closer, friendlier, more reasonable dealer. As the oil spill worsens and seeps into the Gulf Stream, as the lawsuits multiply and the economies of the coastal states collapse, America will see the ugly side of its addiction. It’s kinda like watching a methhead scratch off his own skin.
Offshore drilling was banned before. This is not a radical, unprecedented notion. Curbing the practice would force America to confront its energy demons and develop sound renewable energy policy for the long term, much like our international competitors. Beyond its initial creepiness, the tone of Mr. Adam’s article is insulting to any American in its insinuation that we cannot do any better than fossil fuels. To borrow the author’s parting words: “This is a teachable moment. If we are successful, America’s energy future will be much brighter.” I encourage all who agree to share their ideas with anyone who will listen.
TiJ 