Any mention of oil
drilling almost inevitably spurs conversation regarding its environmental
impact. When the discussion turns to offshore
oil drilling, the debate is even more heated, not just digging underground but
rather thousands of feet underwater. Offshore oil drilling consists of drilling
the sea bed from a platform to obtain oil lying beneath the sea; it is a risky
activity fraught with potential for spills, and consequent catastrophic contamination.
Advocates of offshore drilling maintain that it creates jobs for individuals,
who will then spend money from the wages they earn in the local community. This
in turn, the argument posits, increases GDP and could play a major role in the
recovery of the current overall economy. When environmental depletion is added
to the measure of GDP, however, we see that the economy as a whole actually deteriorates,
not improves.
Despite
years of legal and logistical obstacles as well as relentless opposition from
environmentalists, Royal Dutch Shell attempts yet again to drill for oil in the
Alaskan Arctic, one of the great untapped frontiers in the United States. The
proposed plan consists of two drilling rigs in the Chukchi Sea, which Shell
believes could produce more than 400,000 barrels of oil per day. Such figures however, when
weighed against the various costs associated with offshore oil drilling, only
superficially impress. Given that Shell’s previous Alaskan Artic efforts have
been marked by mistakes and accidents, I believe that the potential benefits of
offshore drilling do not outweigh the potential costs. Easily my favorite quote
in the article was from Travis Nichols, a spokesman for Greenpeace, who said “Anyone
who has been following this story knows Shell is not Arctic-ready. And more
importantly, the Arctic will never be Shell-ready.”
This seems like a tricky topic. While more jobs would help out the economy, I'm unconvinced that it would be as severely beneficial to us as some claim. It seems more likely that the possible environmental repercussions would outweigh the positive economic ones.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brandi. The article specifically mentions that when environmental factors are added to the measure of GDP, the economy as a whole deteriorates. I think we need to start investing more time and money in more sustainable and environmentally-friendly options.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement about the benefits not outweighing the possible costs. While offshore drilling may be one way to increase GDP and boost the economy, there is a chance that it could have a negative impact on the environment, ultimately hurting GDP and the economy. I believe there are safer ways to boost the economy than offshore drilling.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that although GDP does increase due to the employee's consumption costs, it does not justify the environmental impact offshore drilling has. I think that we have to be more environmentally aware, and if Shell has made mistakes when drilling in the Artics in the past, then they should not make plans to do it again.
ReplyDelete