The hot topic of offshore drilling seems to be an almost daily topic in the news. Two weeks ago, I came across a poll by the Monmouth University/Gannet New Jersey Poll on offshore drilling that got me thinking about this blog. The poll can be found here. A few days later, I read an article by New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman entitled “Can this planet be saved?” And here is what I do not understand…
The current Bush administration, the Republican party and its Presidential hopeful, John McCain, are calling for the lifting of the moratorium on offshore drilling, hailing it as the way to address the country’s energy needs and to reduce gasoline prices. Based upon the Monmouth University Poll it seems like a lot of people agree with them – sort of. According to the poll, 56% of the respondents support drilling for oil off the coast of New Jersey and, while this is not an overwhelming percentage, it is still the majority response. Now, here is where I get confused, while a majority of the respondents seem to support drilling, less than half of them think that it will have any real impact on the price of gasoline. These statistics are right in line with what Krugman wrote. He noted that merely saying that offshore drilling will relieve gas prices seems to be swaying public opinion. McCain is using the argument to brand his critics as the cause of the high gas prices we all feel when we go to fill up the tank.
The reality is that any resulting decrease in the price of gasoline is at least a decade away and even then, for all real purposes, it will be an insignificant decrease. The Energy Information Agency, which is the government agency in charge of monitoring and projecting our energy needs – including gasoline- has said that opening up our outer continental shelf to drilling will have little impact on the price of gasoline. It clearly will have no immediate impact.
Tourism is one of the top industries in New Jersey and it is vital to our economy. In 2007, the Tourism industry brought in almost 38 billion dollars – and a large part of that revenue came from the visitors to the shore region. Forgetting for a minute any environmental impact of off shore drilling, why should we risk damaging a very real and profitable economic sector when the potential rewards are almost negligible? The recent spill on the Mississippi River caused huge economic damage as over 200 ships were delayed in reaching their destination until the oil could be cleaned from the river. The Mississippi incident spilled 419,000 gallons of oil. The infamous Exxon Valdez spilled 10.8 million gallons of oil into the ocean and affected 11,000 square miles of ocean and adjacent shore. Even though the Valdez spill was 19 years ago the environmental effects are still being felt.
Can you imagine what an oil slick at the mouth of the Delaware or along our coast would do to the ports in N.J. and Philly? What would happen to all of the hotels, restaurants, and other businesses along our coast that rely on tourists’ dollars?
Here is another point of confusion. Oil companies are posting record profits and a large percentage of existing on and offshore leases held by those oil companies are not even being used. The reduction in gas prices resulting from new off shore drilling will not be felt for a decade or more and will, in fact, only amount to a penny or two. A spill, however, could potentially devastate one of the most important economic generators in the state. But we must open up even more areas for drilling and cannot force companies that already have leases but are not using them to put them into production.
Given all of this, why are so many people are falling for the rhetoric? And how do we turn the tide?
