Rick Scott's statement on oil drilling is not only wrong, but rings of amnesia. The Gov.-elect's statement via Naked Politics:
---
"The Obama Administration's offshore drilling ban is yet another example of government regulation impeding economic growth. Florida is committed to pursuing energy independence, which is essential to national security. With sound policies in place, we could expand domestic drilling and eliminate our reliance on foreign oil. Furthermore, I am disappointed that the White House has chosen to unilaterally impose a policy that threatens job creation and economic growth in Florida without consulting our office."
Read more: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2010/12/rick-scott-oil-drilling-is-great-obama-aint.html#ixzz19w6V7V8W
---
Wonder where this man would have stood on drilling within 10 miles from the coast.
Of course, like so many of Rick Scott's public statements, this goes way beyond his jurisdiction as a state official can only affect what happens in state waters. But this does send a disturbing picture of what Scott thinks should be driving the conversation on oil. That was why it was so important to pass a drilling ban before this man took office, but alas, that was not to be.
But just as when he announced plans to mesh the Department of Community Affairs, Environmental Protection and Transportation into some sort of growth-steroid dispensing agency, this outlook shows that Scott is willing to take nothing into account in policy-making besides the ambitions of rich men who wish to get richer.
Getting back to oil for a second, one cannot underestimate the enormous amount of financial damage which the BP oil spill did to the state of Florida. In oil-stricken areas like Desdin, the environmental and economic damage has been huge. BP has paid out more than a half-billion to local businesses, but as the linked article in the Desdin Log notes, that is just a drop in the tar-sickened waters there. But even in regions that were never realistically at risk of being hit by oil, the damage was huge. International visits to Florida are down. Our reputation as a destination to vacation or retire has been deteriorated significantly.
But Scott says stopping drilling is "impeding economic growth"?!
The other thing Scott completely ignores is that Florida has never reaped any job benefits from oil drilling. Because of our long-standing (and very wise!) ban on near-shore drilling, combined with heavy bipartisan lobbying against deepwater drilling in our neighborhood, we have never become financially dependent upon drilling the way Louisiana or Mississippi have. It's worth noting again that Jeb Bush, a Republican's Republican if there ever was one, fought hard against offshore drilling in Florida at precisely the time BP was installing the Deepwater Horizon rig. So Rick Scott is defending financial interests with no stake in the future of Florida, and standing for not a single Florida job.
That's not even getting into a babyish complaint that President Obama didn't consult with a transition team when the sitting governor supports the White House 100 percent on a drilling ban.
It also largely ignores the severe environmental ramifications. I know Rick Scott doesn't believe in global warming, or even in saving the Everglades, but he really needs to take a deeper look at the issues than consulting with some CEOs who got rich off a single industry and then basing his entire position statements on the desires of those industries. If he did, he would realize offshore drilling has cost the state more than it has ever done for the state, and that Florida will be better off financially if Big Oil is restricted more, not less.
Unfortunately, I believe we are seeing right now an opening salvo from a governor determined to be the worst environmental disaster to ever move into the Panhandle, and six years after Ivan, that's a lofty goal.
What you fail to note is that the further out offshore oil exploration and drilling is done, the greater the potential for disaster. Had the well that led to the BP disaster been closer to shore it would have been in shallower waters, making it much much easier to contain, both due to the logistics and due to the extreme weight of water above the well impeding efforts to cap the well. Had this mess occurred closer to shore it probably could have been capped in a matter of days.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately those most concerned with the ecology are so blind in their hatred of business and technology that they fail to understand that their policies often cause greater harm than good. This is the same mindset (or mindless-set) that causes people to believe that vaccines can cause autism thus allowing greater spread of infectious diseases and placing their own children at risk
I neither hate business nor technology, but believe all advances need to be taken into consideration with other issues such as the ecology. Before the oil spill, the oil companies were gaining sway in Tallahassee by saying oil drilling had become safer than ever, when in reality, it had become more dangerous than ever.
ReplyDeleteThe reason Big Oil wanted to drill so far from shore was not that they had no choice, but that there was more oil out there, safety measures be damned.
Had a similar disaster happened within 10 miles of our coasts, it certainly would have been capped sooner. That would have offset the ecological damage which conservatives so quickly dismiss, but the economic damage would have been much worse even if there was less oil. We wouldn't have been talking about tarballs in Pensacola, but huge sheets of oil impacting our beaches directly. It would have closed down tourism locations permanently.
Rather than fighting for the right for oil companies to profit off our coasts through dangerous means, we should be focused on clean energy opportunities, which could create new jobs while boosting our reputation as the Sunshine State.
What PWD fails to note:
ReplyDelete1. The number of jobs Florida would gain from more offshore drilling, no matter how far off the coast, would be minimal.
2. The amount of oil that could be produced from Florida waters would not make a penny's worth of difference in the price of gasoline at the pump. The price of oil is determined by the world market, and Gulf oil is such a small part of that market that it could double and the consumer would pay no less.
3. Of course, if the oil companies sold Florida-produced oil at the lower prices it could charge because of the difference in transportation costs, that might make a minor difference. But don't hold your breath. Before that happens, Rick Scott will switch to the Democratic Party and launch a website called "Down with the rich!"