I love a clean ocean and I love New Jersey's coastline. I live on it. Most of this blog has been written as I look out my window over the Sandy Hook Bay, Sandy Hook, the Atlantic and the New York skyline from Staten Island to deep into Long Island. I love that dolphins, seals and osprey live in my backyard. My commitment to a pristine environment is not theoretical or abstract.
Yet, there is a lot that bothers me about the fierce political opposition to energy exploration in the Atlantic. It seems to me that much of the opposition to New Jersey coastal energy exploration and production is thoughtless, knee-jerk, and based on events of the 1970s that technology could or should be able to prevent and contain today.
As we as a state and a country are preparing to make huge investments in "green energy" like solar and wind, I wonder if investments in making oil and gas production environmentally safe would offer faster solutions to our continuing energy dependence crisis and a greater economic return. It sure would be nice getting checks from the government for oil and gas royalties and not having to pay taxes.
Yes, accidents will always happen, as we are seeing this week in the Gulf of Mexico. I'm interested in watching how the environmental impact of that accident is contained.
I'm wondering if the choice between safe clean beaches and energy production is a false choice. Is it possible to have both without compromise? Are irrational fears and politics preventing us from even looking into the possibility of having both a clean environment and domestic energy independence?
I'm no expert on the matter. But I'm going to keep raising the questions and do some research.
Israel and America at a Crossroad
6 hours ago
Posts
6 comments:
It absolutly is a false choice.
Technology has made off shore accidents rare
Even when there are spills the damage is not permanant.
I remember when they statred drilling in the Gulf the alarmists screamed. No major ecological dammge has occurred. In fact they have discovered that the oil rigs actually create fish habitat.
Enviormentalists should worry more about run off and overdevelopment.
Those things cause way more damage to the coastal enviornment then gas and oil drilling.
totally agree,now, please, tell it to "Christine" from the other column!..
read Pizarro on politicker, it's obscene how in the pockets of the libs people like COA and Sierra, on and on still are: they've been so duped by people like Pallone, who've made a science of "lip service," which, for so long,over 20 or more years, has been "good enough" for these clowns, when it came to voting in Nov.!..well, it was Rep's like Steve Corodemus who actually got passed the NJ dedicated beach replenishment dollars we really need, while every two years, Frank shows up, takes a walk on the boards, and tells us how much he's done for us, as he did for so many times you could make book on it,when they'd whip out the ol' "Save the Fort" signs, march a few union drones out in front of the gates for the photo-op, the voters'd buy it, so, now, here we are: it's gone, gang: he and other phonies just like him, did ZIPPO!.. glad so many have finally awakened from the great sleep of disinterest and will now, pray God, really make some noise and MAKE the changes THIS year, at last!..
I get a kick out of the argument we do not want to damage the economic engine of tourism.
Energy development would provide more jobs, they would pay more then minimium wage and they would not be seasonal. It would provide more tax revenue and more money in the economy.
what is most scary is gooch is against off shore exploration. This means no possible revenue for the state of NJ and NO energy independence. She can't beat pallone on the environment so why is she trying.. Oh yea she just doen't get it...
I'm voting for Anna.
If this isn't enough to scare the crap out of you..then you need to see someone...also, this wasn't a working well...just exploratory.
And as I pointed out...it only takes one time to create a catastrophe.
Venice, Louisiana (CNN) -- Gulf Coast residents braced for potential calamity Friday as the oil slick resulting from the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion neared Louisiana.
Officials expect oil to reach land sometime Friday, with Venice and Port Fourchon, Louisiana, the first places likely to be affected, said BP, the company that owns the ruptured well where oil continues to leak.
As fears rose -- particularly in the region's critical fishing industry -- President Obama promised steps to prevent a similar disaster in the future.
Also Friday, Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida declared a state of emergency in six Panhandle counties, saying the oil spill "threatens the state of Florida with a major disaster."
Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana declared a state of emergency in his state Thursday.
Jindal also asked the Defense Department to approve funding for the deployment of 6,000 National Guard troops to the state. Jindal wants at least 90 days of military duty for soldiers and airmen to respond to the oil spill threat, his office said.
Some officials said they worried the destruction could surpass the Exxon Valdez disaster 20 years ago. That oil tanker ran aground in Alaska's Prince William Sound in 1989 and spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil.
Louisianans along the coast caught a whiff of the odor of oil Friday, and some feared an environmental nightmare of greater scope than the Valdez.
"There's certainly immense potential consequences," said LuAnn White, director of the Tulane Center for Applied Environmental Public Health.
Dean Blanchard, who runs a wholesale seafood business, said, "This is a disaster. We definitely need some help."
Post a Comment