Drilling policy shows conflict of interest

On Jan. 27, President Barack Obama announced plans to ban oil drilling in 12 million acres of Alaskan land. Environmental activists interpreted the announcement as a clear step forward in the fight against climate change. This step forward, however, was accompanied by a step back: the Obama administration also proposed opening up waters near the East Coast to offshore drilling, pleasing local Republicans who believe it will provide a boost to the economy.

The region spans the Atlantic Ocean from Virginia to Georgia. Opening the East Coast waters to drilling is part of the Interior Department’s new five-year plan, which will allow the government to lease federal waters for oil and gas development from 2017 until 2022.

This resulted in a confusing message from the Obama administration that seemed to simultaneously denounce and encourage oil production. To some, the plan aims to both preserve the environment and appease Republicans. However, Obama’s plan for Atlantic drilling holds our nation back in the fight against climate change, which Obama himself dubbed the “greatest threat to future generations” in his 2015 State of the Union address.

If Obama really believes this, his policy decisions should follow it. He can achieve this by opposing new oil production sites, instead of allowing the oil industry to grow at a time it should be shrinking. Obama’s attempt to please both the oil industry and his political opposition, albeit a noble move, will not efficiently address climate change.

This isn’t the first time the Obama administration considered using East Coast waters for oil production. In 2010, in another example of Obama’s tendency to couple environmental policy with Republican appeasement, the Interior Department proposed the first five-year plan for oil development in the region, while the president introduced a climate change bill to the Senate. The Interior Department’s plan, however, was scrapped after the notorious British Petroleum oil spill.

The plan’s timing was not right in 2010, and it still isn’t right now. The BP spill was the worst oil spill in United States history; it leaked more than 200 million gallons of oil. Memories of the spill leave many people wary to support the initiation of offshore oil drilling, and rightfully so — no new regulations have been implemented to reduce the risk of future disasters of similar nature.

Opening new areas to offshore drilling creates opportunities for environmental damage. Even if risk of another oil spill is low, oil production and consumption threatens our environment. According to the CIA, oil as a source of energy is responsible for more than 5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. If Obama is serious about combating climate change, curbing this number would be a good place to start.

Obama’s plan is not only unethical, it is unnecessary. Experts say that between public hearings, logistic and revisions, it would most likely be at least 10 years before oil is actually drilled off of the East Coast.  The CIA projects that in 10 years, oil demand will be down by three million barrels a day. This projection calls into question whether we should or need to increase offshore drilling.

Hopefully, 10 years from now, we will use less oil and eliminate the need to access new sources.

It’s time to stop using oil like a crutch. It’s time to give alternative energy sources more credibility. It’s time to get serious about climate change.

Obviously, people will still need oil. Even the most stringent environmentalists would agree that oil production cannot be halted. New production, however, can, which allows the nation to drag out its breakup with oil until we can survive without it.

Obama cannot be afraid to take a stance against climate change, even if it means failing to appease Republicans after a new environmental policy announcement.

A recent New York Times survey revealed that 83 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans, believe that global warming will become a very or somewhat serious problem in the future. The American public is on the same side as Obama and Earth.

With this in mind, Obama should use the rest of his term to do as much as he can to stop climate change to set an example for both future presidents and the nation as a whole.

“Unchecked climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies and our plane,” Obama said during the 2009 Copenhagen climate change conference.

Opening new areas to drilling definitely won’t “check” climate change. Obama’s talked the talk against climate change, but he needs to walk the walk. It’s impossible to fight climate change while increasing the very actions which cause it.