Advanced Search
Why No More Drill Baby Drill?
As the nation watched both presidential candidates finger point, interrupt each other, and sell themselves as having the best future plan for our country, all of the debates lacked real consideration for climate issues. Yes, there was much discussion around energy, but majority surrounded “cleaner” coal and oil and which candidate could produce more of it.
Romney shied away from saying “drill baby drill” (maybe because the Gulf oil spill is fresh in our minds) but the ideals behind it still hold strong. Our dependency on foreign oil is decreasing due to the use of hydraulic fracturing technology, and people are compelled to believe that this will lower oil prices and increase energy security. Think again.
While places like North Dakota have benefited from the Bakken Oil Boom with increased employment and a state budget surplus, the rest of the country is not seeing the effects at the pump; but why? Just because oil is found within our nation’s borders does not mean that it will stay here. Oil considered a global commodity before it is considered a regional one, so the production of oil in the in the United States can be increasing and still have no relief at the gas pump because globally there is a higher demand for the product than there is a supply.
It may seem that the amount of oil being drilled is enough for our country, but it has no exclusivity to the U.S.A, rather it fills a big pot that everyone draws from. That's why despite the Dakota boom, and natural gas deposits out east, renewable and clean fuels still represent the best future (and in a growing number of cases present) promise
While the candidates may appear to have talked around the elephant in the room, people took notice of the silence on climate change. Even with a lack of discussion on the issue, it is more important that actions are taken by either candidate during the next presidency. As a state, there may not be the opportunities for an oil boom, but there are opportunities to move our environmental and energy standards forward. The continuation of progress towards renewable energy guarantees energy from a long lasting, independent source that won’t go bust in the next hundred years.
Posted in Economic Development | Related Topics: Energy 2012 Election
1 Comment
Bob Helland says:
October 29, 2012 at 11:42 pm
Sorry, but I just have to disagree. I don’t really have the sense that climate change and emissions were an elephant in the room nor do I feel a sense of urgency for the next presidential term to act decisively to bring it to a halt or meaningfully alter it in any way.
In a free country, in a lot of ways, they are and should be powerless. Yes, they can inform and encourage, but I think we have a mistaken identity here for the role of the president.
First, in terms of any sort of standards set to legislation, this requires champions and coalitions in Congress more so than a hand in the Oval Office. Putting full confidence in one person sets them up to fail time and again. There are more people at the table. Second, the real champions must come from the technology innovators, producers and retailers that bring the solutions to market quicker.
Though I agree with you on principle and support the president’s strategic goal, I don’t necessarily believe it’s the job of the president nor government to push this product to market because if it is as good as it has been heralded, it will replace its alternatives. I don’t put full faith in markets, but in this area I have high expectations of science and engineering among my peers. ~Bob