Reasoning Reason

Off-shore oil drilling has become a national issue recently in the wake of President Bush's decision to overturn the long-standing ban on such drilling. The proper rationalization of this policy change argues that off-shore oil drilling is an environmentally safe manner of increasing U.S. oil supply as a means of bridging the gap between the current U.S. dependence on oil and the future of energy in the United States. The argument acknowledges that the U.S. will not be independent of oil for a minimum of 50 years and recognizes the need for the U.S. to decrease, and to ultimately eliminate, it's dependence on foreign countries such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela for energy. Additionally, oil companies such as Exxon-Mobil would pay for the drilling and no off-shore oil drilling would be performed within eye-sight of land, a horizon of about 25 miles from the coast.

Under a McCain administration, the legality of this form of harnessing energy would be in the hands of individual states. While oil-drilling as described previously seems like a good idea and represents the Republican perspective and the majority of Americans support off-shore oil drilling, very few people either understand the potential environmental implications and lack of specifications, or believe that the act is either environmentally safe or will positively affect the U.S. economy. Currently no provisions exist to keep drilling 25 miles off-shore, no provisions exist to ensure the environmental safety of drilling, and no guarantee exists that the drilling would produce any increase in oil supply within the next 10 years, not to mention a significant increase no matter the timeframe.

Furthermore, many people in accordance with their representatives' support of off-shore drilling fail to understand the drilling is not a solution to the United States's attempt to uncover and put into place the future of energy. Oil is oil, meaning that energy efficiency will not be increased, and at best there will be only marginally more oil. Since supply will not significantly increase, oil independence will not significantly increase, and oil prices will not decrease in relation to the implementation of off-shore drilling. Increased oil drilling is not a replacement for alternative forms of energy. Again, the Republican Congressmen supporting the President's decision view drilling as a bridge instead of a solution, but many of their constituents fail to recognize this key distinction.

Another factor to consider is that Congress has had a moratorium of off-shore drilling voting in place for a couple decades. Therefore, Bush's decision may simply be a moot-point decision designed to help salvage his legacy. The decision represents a proactive side of the President that has been all but non-existent until recently save for his anti-terrorism initiatives.

So should the United States engage in off-shore oil drilling? Drilling has little upside, but likewise has little downside. If the government were to be responsible for the drilling, I would advise against oil drilling. However, since corporations such as Exxon-Mobil would supply the funding, do the drilling, and be liable for any wrongdoing (presumably including environmental damage), providing that each company abides by and promotes the stipulations and ideologies, respectively, outlined in the opening paragraph, the answer becomes simple: why not?

Realisticly though, how confident are you that Exxon-Mobil and the like will conduct off-shore drilling within those parameters?