As the oil gushes out from 5,000 feet underwater, with its massive spill heading for several states with fragile ecosystems, the President released a statement today in support of the Kerry-Lieberman climate change bill:
"Americans know what's at stake by continuing our dependence on fossil fuels. But the challenges we face -- underscored by the immense tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico -- are reason to redouble our efforts to reform our nation's energy policies. For too long, Washington has kicked this challenge to the next generation. This time, the status quo is no longer acceptable to Americans. Now is the time for America to take control of our energy future and jumpstart American innovation in clean energy technology that will allow us to create jobs, compete, and win in the global economy.
The Kerry-Lieberman bill does not ban offshore drilling, but allows states to 'opt-out' of drilling. This was added in hopes of keeping anti-offshore drilling Senators onboard.
We don't know yet if the White House will change its mind on offshore drilling, but the signs seem to be there that they will not shift their position given the catastrophe in the Gulf. If this is the case, this is disappointing that the case will not be made at the highest level to ban offshore drilling until we know how to deal with disasters at such deep levels like with the BP disaster.
Instead, the WH will be advocating for new safeguards, and increasing the liability cap for oil companies. Not to say that such advocacy is bad, in fact, it's good advocacy, but from my viewpoint, it is far less than what we desperately need now. There is a division between those who are in favor of incrementalism, and those who see incrementalism as being inadequate in addressing large-scale problems that require immediate solutions. I find myself on the latter side in needing solutions that don't just tweak around the corners, but instead represent a new change in approach and in our current paradigm where alternative energy is concerned.
Is this climate bill enough? At this point, it may very well be since it may be the only energy bill to pass Congress (before the predicted party shake-up in the coming elections), but could also be doomed because of its offshore drilling provisions. The argument has been made that stripping the offshore drilling provisions from the bill would not imperil its passage, as you can see from David Roberts at Grist:
One certain effect is that coastal-state drilling opponents, who might have had a little wiggle room to compromise before, now have none. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) absolutely will not vote for a bill with drilling.
The smart thing would be for the bill to simply be silent on the issue -- to offload it entirely to a separate floor fight. The revenue-sharing issue was already set to screw the whole process up anyway. Some enviros are pushing for this option, but I'm told the administration is insistent that a comprehensive bill include new safety restrictions and a boost to the liability cap.
Who would be lost if new drilling were delayed or dropped from the bill? Mary Landrieu (D-La.) would certainly bail. ("The environmentalists are wrong, actually," she says. "We can drill safely off the shores of America." Who you gonna believe, her or your lying eyes?) Mark Begich (D-Alaska) might, but he's known as a pretty thoughtful guy on this stuff, so he could probably be persuaded to stay. Maaaybe Graham would bail too, though I personally doubt it. But who else? Despite Graham's boasts, there really aren't all that many votes that stand or fall on drilling. Even Virginia's pro-drilling Mark Warner (D) and Jim Webb (D) agree it should be delayed for now.
It may be that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the oil spill could be a net positive for the bill. From what I can tell, the other possible R votes become more likely, not less, if drilling falls out.
I am in favor of stripping offshore drilling provisions from the bill, because as we've seen with BP currently flailing about, oil companies aren't equipped and nor do they have the knowledge in how to deal with an offshore spill at such depths of 5,000 feet. We can't further risk the environment with continued offshore drilling at depths of 3,000 feet to more, but yet, federal waivers have been granted to oil companies to do oil exploration studies (which include drilling) at 4,000 feet to 9,000 feet.
There's more information about the 27 federal waivers being granted in spite of the so-called moratorium on offshore drilling. With that said, we need to do better and do more than what we're currently doing now.
The earth cannot afford small, incrementalist measures at this point. We can't just tinker around the corners in hopes of getting a bipartisan consensus while ignoring the gaping hole in the middle. We have to do better than this. The earth is bleeding blue, red, and black onto her shores. She is hemorrhaging, to put it simply, from a giant wound opened up in her from mankind's stupidity and greed. Either we stop the hemorrhaging now, or we don't, and she continues to bleed for our sins.
Please take action by urging President Obama to fully reinstate the moratorium on offshore drilling, and ask him to fully consider energy alternatives instead of taking on even more of "clean coal" and "nuclear energy" as a solution to our energy problems.
Here's how you can help take action:
- Help support Sierra Club by signing their petition telling President Obama to stop new offshore drilling.
- Sign the petition by Greenpeace telling the President to change his current approach on offshore drilling.
You can call your Representatives and Senators at (202) 224-3121, and ask them to support the reinstatement of the ban on offshore drilling. The climate bill must also be changed to strike any provisions relating to offshore drilling.