As logic often eludes chanting crowds, the environmental dangers of offshore drilling seemed either to escape the audiences of John McCain's 2008 campaign rallies or just not make any difference at all (I hope the former, I assume the latter). However, the recent spill in the Gulf is a perfect example of why the ban on offshore drilling (put in place by a Republican President) existed in the first place and why it needs to stay in effect now.
Dan Lashof notes in the Huffington Post:
However, as issues become more and more politicized and politics becomes more and more polarized, we see sides being taken even on environmental issues as obvious as this. For some, the devastation of an ecosystem just doesn't seem to matter. So, let's not just focus on the environmental aspect of the issue; let's come to the political right from a perspective they understand and love: economics.
Look here and here to see one aspect of the economic impact of an oil spill. However, it's not just local and small businesses being harmed. BP will have to pay substantial amounts for the cleanup and, though I don't know for sure, one could assume they'll pay out more to clean it up than they would have, simply, to implement stronger safeguards. Shipping costs will go up for any business whose freighters had to go out of their way so as not to interfere with the cleanup effort. Litigation costs that will arise out of this catastrophe will be high. Tourism in an area still hurting from Katrina will be down this summer. Federal, state and local governments will, surely, bear some of the financial burden. All of these are strong economic incentives to keep from risky drilling in offshore areas. While "Shine, Baby, Shine" is a much less catchy slogan, we need to consider that the economic drawbacks to implementing costly solar and wind power programs would be mitigated by the fact that such programs pose much less risk for costly damage control.
Dan Lashof notes in the Huffington Post:
The damage being done by the oil gushing out of the hole left by the Deepwater Horizon blowout and coating birds, killing turtles, decimating fisheries and destroying wetlands is visible for all to see. Had it been successfully produced by BP and burned for its energy, the oil would have been converted into carbon dioxide, which is colorless and odorless but still dangerous.
However, as issues become more and more politicized and politics becomes more and more polarized, we see sides being taken even on environmental issues as obvious as this. For some, the devastation of an ecosystem just doesn't seem to matter. So, let's not just focus on the environmental aspect of the issue; let's come to the political right from a perspective they understand and love: economics.
Look here and here to see one aspect of the economic impact of an oil spill. However, it's not just local and small businesses being harmed. BP will have to pay substantial amounts for the cleanup and, though I don't know for sure, one could assume they'll pay out more to clean it up than they would have, simply, to implement stronger safeguards. Shipping costs will go up for any business whose freighters had to go out of their way so as not to interfere with the cleanup effort. Litigation costs that will arise out of this catastrophe will be high. Tourism in an area still hurting from Katrina will be down this summer. Federal, state and local governments will, surely, bear some of the financial burden. All of these are strong economic incentives to keep from risky drilling in offshore areas. While "Shine, Baby, Shine" is a much less catchy slogan, we need to consider that the economic drawbacks to implementing costly solar and wind power programs would be mitigated by the fact that such programs pose much less risk for costly damage control.
No comments:
Post a Comment