President Barack Obama has seemingly spent a lot of his second term trying to cement his reputation as one of the United States’s most environmentally conscious leaders. However, his most recent decision to approve controversial oil and gas drilling in the Arctic is certain to lose him favor within the environmental community. How can he preach about the consequences of global warming and carbon emissions and simultaneously give corporations permission to drill in a vulnerable region for decades to come?
As Scientific American reminds us, although we tend to romanticize some of Obama’s environmental policy, his decision to give Arctic drilling a thumbs-up is not incongruent with his overall scheme to have America reliant on multiple sources of energy, including both renewable options, as well as gas and oil.
President Barack Obama has seemingly spent a lot of his second term trying to cement his reputation as one of the United States’s most environmentally conscious leaders. However, his most recent decision to approve controversial oil and gas drilling in the Arctic is certain to lose him favor within the environmental community. How can he preach about the consequences of global warming and carbon emissions and simultaneously give corporations permission to drill in a vulnerable region for decades to come?
As Scientific American reminds us, although we tend to romanticize some of Obama’s environmental policy, his decision to give Arctic drilling a thumbs-up is not incongruent with his overall scheme to have America reliant on multiple sources of energy, including both renewable options, as well as gas and oil. Since Obama’s long-term goal is to wean the country off harmful energy sources, that doesn’t preclude us from using (and securing) oil and gas in the meantime.
At the same time, that doesn’t make Obama’s decision any less infuriating. Drilling was first approved in this Arctic region years ago by the Bush administration, and the Obama administration agreed to continue approving the exploration. In 2014, the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals ruled that Interior Department needed to reexamine this decision based on the potential risks.
Surprisingly, by the Interior Department’s own estimates, they predict a major spill in the area is 75 percent more likely if the plan were to go ahead. Even more surprisingly, though, is that even after stating these risks, the Interior Department thinks exploration in this area should continue. It’s not just that a mistake could happen, it’s that a catastrophic mistake almost seems inevitable – yet we’re going forward with it anyway!
In fact, just the “exploratory” phases of Shell’s efforts in the Arctic have proven problematic. Just a few years ago, the U.S. government said that Shell was violating its permits and fined the company for excessively polluting in the region, but apparently these issues were not reason to kick Shell out of the area.
Arctic drilling platform image via Shutterstock.
Read more at ENN Affiliate, Care2.
