Today a federal judge blocked President Obama’s six-month moratorium on offshore oil drilling. The Obama administration has tried to justify its decision that would put thousands of people out of work, by citing a report on offshore drilling that did contain safety recommendations, but did not advocate a halt to offshore drilling.
Obviously, we want to take prudent precautions to prevent another Deepwater Horizon spill, but in decades of drilling no such accident has ever occurred. We don’t ground all airplanes when there is a plane crash. We may ground specific types of airplanes or ground the airline if the crash was due to negligence of a specific airline.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal reacts to the court’s decision:
Democrats have a long history of opposing all forms of drilling. Obama has claimed that we are drilling in deep waters because all the oil that is easier to get has been used up. This is a blatant lie. Actually, we are drilling in deep water because environmental activists have opposed drilling in shallower waters closer to the shore. This leak would have been stopped a long time ago if it had occurred in a few hundred feet of water rather than five thousand feet under the Gulf’s surface.
Watch this video about drilling in Alaska that demonstrates that environmentalist ideologues are opposed to any drilling even in a remote area where no people and no animals would be affected:
Obama’s actions would cause thousands of Americans to lose their jobs in the midst of a fragile economic recovery in which few private sector jobs are created because of the threat of Obama’s policies. It would increase our dependence on foreign oil, something Obama claims he wants to reduce.
If the Obama administrations were genuinely interested in reducing dependence on foreign oil, it would allow safe drilling for oil on land and offshore, expand rights to access our vast reserves of natural gas and remove regulatory obstacles to building new nuclear power plants.
The technology to take advantage of alternative energy sources like wind and solar energy is advancing, but still can only satisfy a tiny fraction of our energy needs. During the coming decades we will need to rely on oil, natural gas and coal for our energy needs. If global warming believers want to reduce the amount of carbon burned for energy needs, nuclear energy is the clean alternative.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
There are other sources of nuclear power!
I have recently been introduced to Thorium….. Thanks to similar radioactive properties to the uranium used to power the world’s nuclear reactors – and its by product, plutonium, used in nuclear weapons – thorium can also be used to power a controlled nuclear reaction that heats water, producing steam to power turbines that produce large quantities of electricity.
PLUS POINT: From an environmental perspective, the good news about thorium is that it’s far less radioactively damaging than uranium: its naturally occurring form, monazite, is said to be reasonably safe for human exposure, while the waste products from its use in a nuclear reactor decay remain dangerous for only a fraction as long – decades instead of thousands of years, by some accounts.
So Uranium and Plutonium can take thousands of years to decay safely, but Thorium does it in just a few decades?
Read on…………. http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/06/nuclear-terror-nightmares-are-made-of.html
Interesting comment. I don’t know enough about Thorium to judge the validity of your claims, but I did to some quick reading and found the following on Wikipedia in support of your argument:
If this is a real opportunity, it is of concern that leading research is done in Japan, India and Russia, but apparently not in the United States.
{ 1 trackback }