- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
More than a little over the top and one-sided.
Is anyone other than me getting tired of hearing that drilling will not immediately solve our gasoline supply problem? This argument is a total red-herring. No solution (nuclear, drilling, clean coal, bio-fuel, solar, tidal, expanded refining capacity, etc.) will immediately solve our supply problem. All of them require development/implementation time. Some of them are not yet technologically feasible. However, for decades the arguments cited in this article have been advanced to stymie any action and look at the result - $140/barrel oil. Due to the complexity of our energy use needs (e.g.., it is very hard to run an airliner on electricity) we need a multi-pronged approach that explores and exploits all viable options.
My personal opinion is that a greatly expanded nuclear program (with fuel re-processing like the French do), some use of wind power and electric cars is the most promising option. This approach will hugely reduce the amount of dollars sent overseas and has the added advantage of simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.
However, we must start drilling. Currently the overwhelming majority of our energy comes from hydrocarbons. Until other economically viable energy sources come on line, there is no other realistic alternative. The impact of even just 1,000,000 barrels of oil a day is huge. Especially at $140/barrel. As an added benefit the money spent on new domestic oil is money that will remain in the US and will have a multiplier effect when you factor in the money to be spent to develop and produce the new reserves. Think jobs - think purchases of equipment.
Please reject the canard that drilling will not have an immediate impact and we can rely on as yet unproven energy sources.
