Bush's Push for Off-Shore Drilling

Tomorrow, President Bush plans to renew his push to get Congress to revoke the ban on off-shore drilling for oil, a ban in which was put into place more than 25 years ago. "He will explicitly call on Congress to ... pass legislation lifting the congressional ban on safe, environmentally friendly offshore oil drilling," White House press secretary Dana Perino said. "He wants to work with states to determine where offshore drilling should occur." Truth be told, evidence since industrial drilling of oil has shown that it is environmentally hazardous. In practice, drilling for oil uses enough energy to pump about half of a ton (1,000 pounds) of carbon dioxide into the air a day. This figure is while drilling for oil on dry land. The figure, I am sure, would be greater if drilling were to occur in under water sources. What is the definition of environmentally friendly? According to dictionary.com, it is "having minimal impact on the natural environment." So any of you reading this particular blog, give me one way drilling for oil anywhere is environmentally friendly in this sense that is actually being practiced, because I see no example of it. Then again, there is another definition on dictionary.com, one that Perino must be using in the quote above; "using as well as maintaining natural materials." Now we can all agree that oil is a natural resource, being the byproduct of long-deceased plant matter. So, in this sense of the phrase, it is "environmentally friendly." But, then again, it is misleading, since this definition has a different denotation then the connotation of the phrase. In my last post, I argued that we need to quickly find and utilize domestic sources of fuel. Drilling for oil in American waters at least appears to be the case. However, there needs to be equipment put into place before pumping can commence. That would take two to three years. On a dry land drilling project. Since this is an under-water source, it would take at least another 2 years on top of that before we can tap those reserves. This 4 to 5 year estimate is a conservative one. Oil, in the form of petroleum, would also add to the CO2 emissions to the air. CO2 that it hasn't taken out of the air in over a million years. So, when oil is used for a domestic form of energy consumption, it is doing more harm than good. Though, I will give you the fact that economically, when it is produced, it will procure financial relief in this country. My thing is, you have to weigh the positive with the negative and see whether it is worth having. So, given the fact that it will take at least 4 to 5 years to produce this oil and it's affect on the environment, I still hold to my belief that biofuels are the best short term relief of gas prices. At least they are only adding as much CO2 as they took out of the air since 2000. Take that as you will. -[alpha]{BETA}[delta]