1 April 2010 | Luca Del Buono
Chemical, Climate Change, COP15, COP16, Energy, North America

 

In front of the "Green Hornet"-a jet that runs partially on biofuel at US naval base in Maryland-US President Barack Obama officially stated his endorsement for exploring offshore drilling 50 miles out from Virginia along Atlantic coast, parts of the Gulf of Mexico, and the Chuchki and Beaufort Sea along the Northern Alaskan coast. ConocoPhillips and Shell figure to be two of the US's biggest players in offshore drilling.

This announcement has gone anything but unnoticed. Offshore drilling was a part of the Republican energy platform during the 2008 election and a continuation of George W. Bush's policy-Bush lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling research. Obama has agreed to keep offshore drilling in Alaska's highly sensitive Bristol Bay area illegal, which received praise from the World Wildlife Fund. All of the Pacific Ocean-from Mexico to Canada-will also be protected.

Many environmentalists are up in arms over the announcement, while conservatives seem to only offer begrudging support. The offshore drilling policy would be included into the US Senate's Climate bill that Climate Action has been following (link here). Actual drilling would await Congressional approval, and environmental research from the US Interior Depatartment.

In general, the addition to the Obama energy policy means little in the immediate-former Alaskan governor Sarah Pahlin has just labelled it "stall baby, stall". Some see Obama's decision to include nuclear power and offshore drilling into his energy policy as a bipartisan political move to garner Republican support for the climate bill. Also, it would not significantly reduce the prices of petrol in the US.

"This is not a decision that I've made lightly. But the bottom line is this: given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we're going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy."

It is questionable whether offshore drilling is worth the cost or environmental risk-although offshore drilling has not been pursued in 30 years, the last seismic estimates believed that the amount of oil and natural gas deposits on the Atlantic would not last the US 10 years. Many hope that new technology will show that there are higher reserves than first anticipated.

In a year where the threat to the planet's biodiversity has never been higher-particularly in coastal regions, the policy appears dangerous. However, if technology proves drilling safe or drilling is halted after environmental research concludes, and a comprehensive climate bill manages to pass through the US Senate, it would be a boon to the rest of the world and international climate negotiations. But the announcement itself has been polarising, and only time will tell what consequences the world will see.

Many coastal state congressmen who rely on tourism as a large part of their state's economy also object to offshore drilling-an oil spill could cause tourist beaches to be abandoned. Clearly, offshore drilling cannot provide long-term sustainable energy, nor will it address the US's longstanding issue of foreign oil dependency. But the rocky road to energy reform is long and unpredictable. The announcement coincidentally comes at a time where petrol prices in the UK approach record prices of 119.7p a litre, and in conjunction with President Obama's imposing new standards for automobile fuel efficiency.

Author: Michael Good | Climate Action

Image Provided by: | Greenguy21

blog comments powered by Disqus