by Deb Cupples | For years, one of our nation's top Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, fought against offshore oil drilling because of the risks it poses to Americans' resources and health. Many congressional Democrats recently agreed that drilling for oil off our nation's coastline 1) would not render oil for years -- thus, would not lower gas prices now; and 2) would not lower prices a significant amount in the future.
Apparently, they didn't mean what they'd been saying, as a British newspaper points out:
"Democrats have hitherto said new drilling would do little to relieve consumer pain at the pump, accusing Republicans of misleading the public and being a pawn of big oil companies. Yet signs are emerging that they are easing their opposition to the comprehensive ban.
"Last week House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would consider allowing a congressional vote on the issue if drilling was part of a wider energy plan that also focused on promoting alternative energy sources. Pelosi told a television interviewer that she would consider a vote, but 'it has to be part of something that says we want to bring immediate relief to the public, and not just a hoax'.
"More than 30 Democrats have signed up to sponsors legislation that could pave the way for fresh drilling off America's coasts. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has also moderated his stance, moving from staunch opposition to suggesting that new drilling could be part of a new energy strategy. That shift led to accusations from some of his supporters that he had flip-flopped." (Guardian UK, emphasis added)
Many Democrats opposed offshore drilling because accidents (like oil spills) pose significant risks to citizens' health and coastal states' resources (e.g., seafood, beaches, and the industries that revolve around them -- like tourism, fishing/shrimping, real estate...).
If those risks are still real, then how would offshore drilling be any better simply because it's "part of a wider energy plan"?
That's like saying it's safer to swim in a pool with sharks if someone else is swimming in a different pool with dolphins.
Either offshore drilling is risky to Americans' health and economic resources, or it isn't. If it is risky, then doing other stuff (in different places) along with the offshore drilling wouldn't make the offshore drilling, itself, any less risky.
That said, Speaker Pelosi's argument may make for a sensible-sounding sound bite, but it doesn't seem logical or realistic.
And what about those leases that some oil companies hold on 68 million acres of land, on which they haven't yet bothered to start drilling? Speaker Pelosi told us about those hoarded leases less than two months ago.
At the time, she seemed to think that oil companies had no business even thinking about offshore drilling before those 68 million acres had been drilled -- which seems to make sense.
My question: why has the House Speaker suddenly abandoned that argument?
Comments