Carcinogens, Offshore Drilling and Tax Breaks.
Posted June 19, 2008 in The Media and the Environment
Today in the News…
Jim Presswood outlines the limitations and drawbacks of offshore drilling in an hour long interview with NPR Boston’s “On Point” show… In the Associated Press, Lisa Speer talks about State options for recourse if the federal government pursues offshore drilling… In The New York Times, Allen Hershkowitz warns that disposing of toxics like PCBs in Port Arthur, Texas’ toxic-waste incinerator could increase the everyday health risks for the surrounding communities... In an all-too-typical Opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal, they urge the Supreme Court to pick up the NRDC v. Navy case regarding requirements to mitigate the dangers of sonar during Navy training... According to Rich Schrader in the Albany Times Union, tax cuts NY State may soon approve could translate to up to $5,000 off income taxes towards the cost of home-based the solar thermal systems.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Ken Richards — Jun 19 2008 11:34 PM
I would like to see our off-shore oil developed as an energy security reserve.
Dan Troutman — Jun 20 2008 10:07 AM
I agree with Ken, I believe we owe it to Americans to actually drill into potential oil deposits to determine how much usable oil actually exists.
What I'm afraid will happen:
Active US drilling rigs plummet due to moratoriam on new drilling. US drilling industry shrinks dramatically. 20 years from now, world desperately needs new oil because alternative sources haven't caught up with growing demand. CHINESE drilling companies win contract to drill US off-shore areas to provide oil to America. Wow, wouldn't that be ironic?
As the price of crude oil continues to climb, the off-shore deposits represent huge sums of economic wealth that can't be ignored. The question is whether politicians and environmental movements can work together with state of the art drilling companies to provide a reasonably safe method to deliver badly needed oil?
Saying "NO" to everything isn't a realistic answer. NRDC has a noble mission, but just saying NO to every option doesn't help. Surely we can work together for an acceptable compromise!?
Earl Killian — Jun 21 2008 01:43 PM
Ken and Dan want to drill off-shore for energy security, but it is unclear that this would accomplish their goal. Even if the U.S. produced more crude oil than it uses, the price of U.S. crude would remain linked to the world price. Thus off-shore oil affects gasoline prices by affecting the world price of crude. This remains true in a supply disruption. If mid-east oil were to stop flowing, the world price would rise dramatically, and the fact that we have some of this off-shore would not insulate us from that price rise.
What would make a security difference is switching to an inherently American fuel: electricity. When you power your vehicle with American electrons (e.g. from local wind energy), you become insulated from events around the globe.
Fueling your vehicle on wind or sun is much cheaper than driving on gasoline as well. My 2002 Toyota RAV4-EV, when charged in California with its high electric rates (9 cents a kWh at night), costs about 2.7 cents a mile to fuel (vs. 2.4 cents a mile when charged in the rest of the U.S.). The 2008 Toyota RAV4 (non-EV) in comparison costs 17 cents a mile to fuel. Which would you rather pay, 2.4 cents or 17 cents per mile?