Political dilemma: Gulf Coast oil

[thatcrazycajun]

As the Democrats prepare to assume control of Congress for the first time in 12 years next month, and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) promises to make the Senate's Environmental Committee live up to its name rather than belie it as its new chair, I am faced with a quandary. On the one hand, a bill to open up 8 million more acres of Gulf of Mexico ocean bottom to petroleum exploration may mean gobs of additional cash for my beleaguered home state of Louisiana, among the several states still working to rebuild following last year's hurricanes. On the other, the resulting environmental toll of said exploration, not to mention the accompanying delay in getting the oil monkey off our national back once and for all, makes me question whether this is a good idea.

Is it worth risking more "black sand" on Gulf Coast beaches and more disturbance of the undersea ecology to reduce our dependence on dodgy Mideastern oil from OPEC and keep gasoline prices under $3 a gallon? Is a helping hand to Katrina's victims worth spewing more CO into the air and keeping Louisiana one of the two most polluted states in the Union (the other being its next-door neighbor, Texas)? There's a reason it's called Cancer Alley, folks; I still am firmly convinced that living most of her life in these two states was what gave my mother the incurable disease that killed her 11 years ago at the age of 56.

Discuss.

Comments

I Refuse to Support ANYTHING

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

that encourages us to remain reliant on petroleum for energy.

[baggette.livejournal.com]

What if we put that same amount of money into finding better, cleaner, environmentally friendly alternatives?