Article published October 26, 2008
Great Lakes region needs answers on drilling issue
It’s a fair question, right?
Lifting the ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf has implications for the Great Lakes region, whether the two presidential candidates and their running mates want to acknowledge it or not.
Just like letting oil flow from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge does, something three of them oppose and Sarah Palin supports.
It’s all about drawing lines. Do you listen to your instincts and guard against long-term risks or ignore your conscience and grab the cash while you can?
And let’s not forget energy independence, either. Something we’ve been hearing about since the OPEC oil embargo of the 1970s, yet have managed to keep putting off for more than three decades now.
This country has to wean itself off its oil addiction. No question about that.
But increasing the supply and lowering the price of drugs that addicts crave doesn’t sound like much of a rehab program to me. Or a long-term solution.
What have we learned? Will we really stick to our moose-ready shotguns and seek out alternative forms of power? Or are we always so intellectually lazy we’ll take the most politically expedient way out of a crisis?
I didn’t expect John McCain or Barack Obama to drop everything and have an epiphany over the future of the Great Lakes while researching today’s front-page story about where they stand on the drilling issue.
A federal ban has been in effect since 2005. But congressmen have a way of undoing stuff their predecessors did, especially when push comes to shove. Hence the call for offshore drilling.
So why can’t the candidates just say it loud and clear? Yes, we’re drillin’ in the Great Lakes. Or no, it ain’t happenin’.
Not that the Great Lakes region deserves any clarity on issues affecting each of its 42 million people who live in the United States and Canada, mind you. We only have one of the largest voting blocs of swing states up for grabs, especially those of us who live in Ohio.
We only border the world’s largest source of fresh surface water, a resource that is becoming every bit as coveted as oil and then some.
Look, politics has a way of making the possible happen. Those aren’t my words. They’re paraphrased from a statement I got for today’s story from Tom Stewart, executive vice president of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association. “Do you eliminate all risk in your life or do you manage the risk?” he asked.
We manage the risks we want to take. As a society, we’ve agreed it’s too risky to even consider drilling in the Great Lakes beyond what’s already being done in Ontario and, to a much lesser degree, in Michigan.
But politics is also the art of compromise.
At virtually the same time President Bush said in 2001 that he has no plans of ever trying to drill in the Great Lakes, Vice President Dick Cheney was at a Republican fund-raiser in Detroit assuring people in his warm and cuddly Cheney-esque way that the Great Lakes aren’t off limits.
A little confusion between the President and his veep over energy policy. That could never happen again, eh?
So now, as things heat up and the world gets just a little bit nuttier about oil, gas, and everything else, from 401(k) accounts to Ms. Palin’s wardrobe, people living in one of the nation’s most water-rich, yet economically distressed parts of the country just want some straight talk — especially after seeing all of those GOP delegates pumping their fists in the air and crying “Drill, Baby, Drill” at the Republican National Convention seven weeks ago.
Maybe it’s just me.
I thought it was a fair question.
Permanent Link
|
|
 |
|
Search
advertisement
