Environmentalism and the BP Spill

Facebook: Extreme Enviros: Drill, Baby, Drill in ANWR – Now Do You Get It?

This is a message to extreme “environmentalists” who hypocritically protest domestic energy production offshore and onshore. There is nothing “clean and green” about your efforts. Look, here’s the deal: when you lock up our land, you outsource jobs and opportunity away from America and into foreign countries that are making us beholden to them… Your hypocrisy is showing. You’re not preventing environmental hazards; you’re outsourcing them and making drilling more dangerous.

Extreme deep water drilling is not the preferred choice to meet our country’s energy needs, but your protests and lawsuits and lies about onshore and shallow water drilling have locked up safer areas. It’s catching up with you. The tragic, unprecedented deep water Gulf oil spill proves it.

For the sake of honesty I want to point out a couple of caveats.  First of all, drilling in ANWR has risks as well.  The Exxon Valdez was shipping oil drilled on-shore to refineries.  Secondly, there’s only but so much oil on the planet.  If we didn’t need to do deepwater drilling today we’d need to do it tomorrow.

But Sarah’s central point is correct.  Locking up safer sources of oil pushes us to get it from more dangerous sources faster.  The environmentalists have their share of the blame for what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico right now.



  1. John Buyon says:

    hey Robert,
    I will clue you in on why America doesn’t and shouldn’t tap into domestic energy sources.
    1) if peak oil has any truth in it ( which it seems like it might) it would be better for America to keep it’s oil reserves unexploited and drink the milkshake of the mid east instead.

    2) a shortage of oil is actually very good. it pushes oil prices higher, causing the free market to invest more into renewable greener technologies.

    3) oil extraction is extremely messy and difficult . let the uncivilized third world pollute their environment for the black gold while we help them get it out of the ground and take a nice cut of the profits.

    that is the real reason America shouldn’t tap it’s domestic sources, there are however other more geopolitical reasons we shouldn’t drill.

  2. Gail B. says:

    I just KNEW you were going to have something to say about the sand barriers that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal wanted to build to protect the marshes and beaches! He wanted 24; the “Powers that Be” said Nooooooooo! They might harm the environment!!!

    Here’s an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal story by Lauren Etter (written before June 1):

    [Quote] Weeks ago he requested approval to build 24 segments of sand-boom that would cover 100 miles of Louisiana’s marshlands and beaches. Last week one segment was approved, and BP was asked to pay for it. But so far no work has begun on the project. Wednesday afternoon the White House approved another five segments and said it would require BP to fund them.

    Authorities have been slow to approve all 24 of the requested barrier segments as different agencies, including the Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, assess his proposal.

    Without the barriers, Mr. Jindal says that the “war” against the oil will be fought in the sensitive marsh regions rather than on islands of sand offshore that would serve as a buffer. Once the oil gets into the marsh’s tall grasses, Mr. Jindal says it will be next to impossible to clean up. [Unquote.]

    Louisiana has 140 miles of contaminated coastline.

  3. Robert Wallace says:

    John Buyon-

    There’s obviously *some* truth to peak oil because oil comes from dead animals (to oversimplify a bit) and there’s a finite supply of those. There are a couple of problems with your suggestions, however.

    1 – Living off of mid east oil to save our own oil has the unhappy side-effect of funding terrorists who want to kill us and our allies, not to mention making us dependent on a very volatile region of the world. It also enhances the power of other nations (like China) who have fewer scruples about where they get their energy resources (Nigeria) since the lack of American product on the market drives up the value of those other sources.

    2 – If you’re interested in alternative energies – and I am – then you should know that R&D costs resources. If we refuse to use the oil, coal, and natural gas reserves we have, then we are crippling our R&D efforts by creating an artificial shortage of the very resources we need to develop new fuel sources and efficient technologies.

    In short – there are only two ways we can exit the fossil fuel age. We either go on into the next energy age, or we go back to pre-fossil fuel technology.

    I know which I prefer.


    Great comments! I have no idea why the Feds denied Jindal’s requests. It’s stupid both environmentally and politically.

  4. kevin says:

    I’m not an expert on oceanography, but I’ve lived on the coast for many years and even the wealthy shore dwellers with all their political clout haven’t been successful in getting berms, barrier islands or other forms of man-made erosion control made legal, because those who ARE experts understand the detrimental long term affects of building these restraints. Haven’t we done enough harmful things by moving full-steam ahead with what, at first glance, seems to be a no-brainer idea only to find out later (sometimes much later) that it was a BAD idea. There’s more to the impact of building of 24 barrier islands than may be apparent to those uneducated in these matters. I’m not saying enough is being done to deal with this spill, but just giving a big “why sure!” to the request for these islands wouldn’t make sense either.

Speak Your Mind