Obama's Offshore Drilling REACTIONS: Plan Brings Flood Of Responses (PHOTOS)

President Obama announced an offshore drilling agenda today that outraged environmentalists and wasn't quite enough for some conservatives. Obama's new policy would put oil and natural gas platforms in waters along the southern Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and part of Alaska. He cited the need for this move to meet short-term economic needs and a longer-term, clean energy future.

We've compiled the reactions of politicians, journalists, and activists following Obama's announcement. Check out EnviroKnow for an extensive list of reactions. See what they had to say, and let us know what you think!

1 of 14

Not Enough

1 of 15

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

"Opening up areas off the Virginia coast to offshore production is a positive step, but keeping the Pacific Coast and Alaska, as well as the most promising resources off the Gulf of Mexico, under lock and key makes no sense," House Minority Leader John Boehner said in a statement.

Japan Tsunami Debris: Bones Expected To Wash Ashore, Oceanographer Says

Vegetarian Sandwich Ideas: How To Make The Best Meat-Free Lunches And Dinners

The World Begins to 'Connect the Dots'

Green Shipping Tips: How To Send Eco-Friendly Packages

Green Festival 2012: Fostering Community And Sustainability In New York City And Beyond

Earth Day 2012: Harder to See, Harder to Catch

"Opening up areas off the Virginia coast to offshore production is a positive step, but keeping the Pacific Coast and Alaska, as well as the most promising resources off the Gulf of Mexico, under lock and key makes no sense," House Minority Leader John Boehner said in a statement.

comments(1838)

Total comments: 1838 | Post a Comment

1 of 15

Rate This Slide

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

Off Base Right On

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

Top 5 Reactions

loading...

Top 5 Reactions

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

Comments

[Terry Suen]

03:43 PM on 04/04/2010

Obummer is up to his tricks again. As soon as the minerals management service (under the BLM) gets the oil company checks for leasing rights, the EPA will have them tied up in red tape and restrictions and delays until the oil leases expire! Wow! A cool new tax ripoff perpetrated on more American companies! Please consider this whole episode a bait and switch.

[Perspectiver]

02:32 AM on 04/07/2010

I hope with the greatest faith I can muster that you are right...

[charles77]

12:22 PM on 04/03/2010

Obama is smart enough to realize it is about “balance of payments”.

The more money we use to Import oil, the less money we have for green energy or anything else..

“A Balance of payments (BOP) sheet is an accounting record of all monetary transactions between a country and the rest of the world. These transactions include payments for the country's exports and imports of goods, services, and financial capital, as well as financial transfers. The BOP summarises international transactions for a specific period, usually a year, and is prepared in a single currency, typically the domestic currency for the country concerned. Sources of funds for a nation, such as exports or the receipts of loans and investments, are recorded as positive or surplus items. Uses of funds, such as for imports or to invest in foreign countries, are recorded as a negative or deficit item.”

“When all components of the BOP sheet are included it must balance - that is, it must sum to zero - there can be no overall surplus or deficit. For example, if a country is importing more than it exports, its trade balance will be in deficit, but the shortfall will have to be counter balanced in other ways - such as by funds earned from its foreign investments, by running down reserves or by receiving loans from other countries.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_payments

[WorkhelpWorkhelp]

04:27 AM on 04/03/2010

Nope folks,...you haven't heard the REAL plan for future oil use.
It'll simply get poured all over the interstates to act like a big Slip 'N' Slide. (Big wind sails.) Sure, transportation will be slower but SO much more enjoyable. And the best thing? It'll drain right back into the ground without polluting the air. (I believe this is Behners idea?)

[luckyone77]

08:50 PM on 04/02/2010

If this is what it takes to bring the troops home, and keep us from invading other countries, so be it.

But it also needs to come with strengthend environmental regulation of the petroleum industry and renewal of the corporate Superfund tax.

[JayeSF]

09:44 PM on 04/02/2010

...do you think for a moment that handing over our nation's coastlines to Big Oil is going to STOP the US military complex from continuing its wars abroad ?

[JayeSF]

11:00 PM on 04/01/2010

The rationalizations here are really, really funny.

'Balance of Payments"....is that the new operative term ?

...I understand folks so DESPERATELY wanna maintain their hope in obama that they are willing to buy all of the pretzel logic being trotted out ...

but ...having just forced progressives to stand down in the healthcare debacle...the administration has decided they'll run roughshod over the very constituents who put them there, banking on suffering ZERO consequences for taking their supporters for granted.

obama is banking hard right and is seriously off the tracks.

He lost independents long ago...and with each sellout to big industry he whittles away what is left of his base.

So...what will be the final straw for some of YOU ?

If healthcare and drilling sellouts weren't enough ?

Will it be a Climate Bill full of $$$ for Nukes and mountaintop removal..?

Or... an Immigration Reform Act playing into the hands of both homeland security and huge corporations wishing to take advantage of cheap labor ?

Or .....the ransacking of Social Security (psst, the prez has already apppointed a "commission" to "study" this)...as opposed to having the political fortitude to create a system of taxation which makes the rich pay their due ?

What will it be ?

We are witnessing barack obama trying to push through some things which even dubya and his repooblican-controlled congress (for all of their bluster)...would never have DREAMED of really implementing.

When do we stop accepting these silly rationalizations as reasonable explanations ?

[RogHol]

11:46 PM on 04/01/2010

I understand you don't believe in Obama.
So what do you suggest?

[MelRoy]

06:06 AM on 04/02/2010

1. The estimated maximum reserves in federal and state waters (for the continental U.S. plus Alaska) IF found, IF possible to extract, would amount to 2 years' supply based on current consumption. 2 bloody years, no more. And that is the maximum potential IF we extract every drop off every one of our coasts (excluding Hawaii). Then, IF we find it we have to send it somewhere else to refine, 'cause we only have a few refineries and it's pointless to build more if they're only going to be useful for 2 years.

2. The reason there's been a moratorium on drilling off the California coast is because there was a spill off Santa Barbara which wiped out the local fishing and tourism economy. Bristol Bay, Alaska supplies 40% (yes, 40) of America's seafood, thousands of jobs not just for local people, but for people all over the country who work in the industry (canning, etc). Jobs will be LOST if we drill. The only reason states like Virginia want to drill off their coasts is they want to collect taxes from the oil industry. The jobs argument is a canard.

[tice]

05:42 PM on 04/01/2010

I always thought we had plenty of oil but figured we would use other nations' oil first, so we had the upper hand when it runs out.

With the clean energy push we hope to not be as reliant on oil in the future, at least for fuel and electricity. So why not tap our reserves while it is economical, it can create jobs, and most importantly protect us from gouging by OPEC?

Tapping our reserves doesn't increase our dependence on oil as some have claimed, it decreases our dependence on the Middle East for the oil we will be using one way or another.

Use our oil while pushing alternatives as well. Sounds reasonable to me.

[JayeSF]

10:19 PM on 04/01/2010

Mmmm...but where the logic fails is here: how does creating jobs in an industry which is (supposedly) going to be phased out make any sense.

Also...is the risk of degradation to 50% of the nation's coastline worth it to gain a very temporary supply of oil.

Finally: if the goal is to wean America off of fossil fuels and convert our energy system to a greener and cleaner one...how, exactly...does drilling off of our coasts fit into this ?

Would it not be wiser to take that $ and invest in it the technologies which will (ostensibly) replace fossil fuels NOW ?

Is it not a better idea to create new jobs in those cleaner-energy industries now...if that is the future ?

Why go in a direction which poses risk to environment and public...when you already know that what you can tap from it is both finite....and the antithesis of clean energy ?

[tice]

10:56 AM on 04/02/2010

1. Because it will be decades before the jobs are phased out.

2. Where do you get the numbers for "50% degradation" and how are you defining degradation?

3. Weaning off oil and promoting renewable resources are not mutually exclusive.

4. Oil production ultimately generates money so I don't quite follow the "take that money and put it elsewhere" argument.

It's not like we can just dump a bunch of money into renewable resources and call it a day. Our dependence on oil runs very deep and we are sending boatloads of money to the Middle East. I'm all for a global economy but many of the countries getting our loot don't think very highly of us right now, I'd like to not be dependent on them for something as important as oil. Anyone remember $147 a barrel oil and how hard it hit us at the pumps. No thank you! As I said in my first post, drill up the oil while pushing renewable resources hard, there's no reason not to do both. I'd strongly consider major environmental degradation as a factor against drilling, but the data must support this, not hyperbolic environmentalists (not directed at you).

[Vivian Fulk]

02:32 PM on 04/01/2010

Oil rigs are off the coast of Pensacola where I grew up along Alabama line that allows drilling and it has the most beautiful white sand and still does. Oil rigs bring jobs. GOOD paying jobs. I is the refineries that cause problems.

[MelRoy]

06:10 AM on 04/02/2010

for 2 years, sound like temporary jobs to me. And as you say, we don't have enough refineries and we're not going to build anymore for a maximum 2 year supply.

[kgMA]

02:17 PM on 04/01/2010

CLEAN ENERGY pumped from the earth in liquid form does not EXIST! NO WAY NO HOW!
PERIOD !!!!!!!!!
CLEAN ENERGY made by Nuclear Power is a dream in the minds of fools!
Don't put that waste in my State!
PERIOD !!!!!!!
CLEAN ENERGY captured from the SUN and WIND would solve the worlds energy problems over time!
The sooner we start, the better our children's future will become!
PERIOD !!!!!!!!
CLEAN ENERGY from coal ????? This energy source as had its day! Time to move on!
PERIOD PLEASE!

[Professor Zoom]

02:27 PM on 04/01/2010

That's all fine and dandy and I agree with you, but it's not going to happen over night. For us to survive on solar and wind power alone, just how long do you think that would take? How many years?

[MelRoy]

06:13 AM on 04/02/2010

If they start exploring now, they might find some oil by 2018.

It's ludicrous. In that time we could convert every home in the SW to solar power and install enough wind farms off the Pacific coast to power several U.S. cities.

[RogHol]

11:43 PM on 04/01/2010

There is no such thing as clean energy wheather you put it in Capitals or not...

[charles77]

12:57 PM on 04/01/2010

It is not about price, it’s about balance of payments.

Why would any logical person oppose drilling to get energy in America?

The typical answers here are, “we need to use less oil not more” or “burning oil is bad for the environment”.

Well no argument there, but I challenge anyone to explain how stopping drilling in the US accomplishes either of those goals.

If the US was an isolated country (no exports or imports), then you could make a reasonable argument that opposing drilling would lead to less petroleum use in America.

But we do not live in an isolated country. When you stop Americans from getting US oil, you do not change in any way how much petroleum we use!

You only increase imports of oil.
That increases how much money we send abroad to countries we do not like!
That exports both our money and our JOBS!
That is the only effect of stopping drilling here, it makes us poorer, we have less money for green energy or health care or education or anything else, and if you don’t believe that, google “balance of payments”.
Why would any sane American be FOR that?
As long as we are importing ANY oil it makes no economic sense to not use American energy. Most people realize this simple economic truth and they are mad about it.

[wdw505]

12:58 PM on 04/01/2010

well said

[JayeSF]

10:28 PM on 04/01/2010

Not really. We have gotten along just fine with the ban in effect.

How in the world does subjecting 50% of the nation's coastline to environmental degradation for the sake of producing a temporary supply of a fuel which is not clean...and which admittedly is finite, anyway...supposed to wean America off of fossil fuels ?

There is no logic to that.....other than the alternative explanation:

This is yet another capitulation to industry, at the expense of the environment and the people. Our prez is on a roll...he is making Bill Clinton '94 look like JFK at the moment.

[MelRoy]

06:06 AM on 04/02/2010

1. We are the world's largest net importer of oil because we are the biggest consumers of it.
2. We are also a country known for its technological innovations.
3. Per capita, the US has the largest number of Earth scientists (geologists, biologists, etc) and spend more on research grants and have more discoveries than anywhere else.

If we don't do it, who will? The reason France has more nuclear power per resident, Australia has more solar panels per resident, all-electric cars have been on the market in Europe and Israel for a while, Norway's domestic energy needs are almost all met by wind and wave power - it's not because they have more vast oil reserves or more money than us. It's because there has been political will - going back decades - regardless of which political parties have been in power - to DO SOMETHING.

[DarkStarr]

11:37 AM on 04/01/2010

I am okay with giving a little if Obama is really serious with promoting green energy... Somehow I do not think he has the backbone to push the change he so well talked about during campaign time. Look at health care. He allowed that bill to get sliced apart by special interests... Now think energy... The energy lobby is so much more powerful than the health care lobby.

[tice]

05:29 PM on 04/01/2010

You think healthcare was sliced up because he didn't have backbone? How about because if he didn't make concessions nothing was going to get passed at all.

[JayeSF]

10:31 PM on 04/01/2010

If that makes you sleep at night and maintain your faith in a president who is banking hard-right....I am glad for you.

Healthcare became a debacle because obama didn't have the political will and fortitude to use his bully pulpit and deliver what he had promised...even when early on he had 70% approval ratings...even wehn, much later on it was clear that the path of reconciliation could produce EXACTLY what he had said he supported as late as Dec. '09 !

the prez capitulated to corporate industry...just like he did yesterday on his attempt to lift the offshore ban.

there is no other explanation which really makes sense.

[406stew]

11:32 AM on 04/01/2010

Despite what we know about the negative effects of our oil consumption we continue to demand it. If there was no oil in the middle east we wold not be at war. Obama is making a choice here and if both sides are upset he has probably made a good compromise. Until we make some real lifestyle changes we cant sincerely begrudge elected officials for supplying our demand for oil.

AND!

The overpopulation of the planet is what is driving most of our current energy and pollution problems. Until overpopulation is addressed no environmental management paradigm is going to make any difference. If everyone on the planet halves their consumption of resources and we double the population we will gain nothing. Until the enviros confront exponential population growth they have nothing to complain about. Most of our environmental problems are created by a human population that has grown way beyond the planets ability to sustain it. Most enviros scream about the symptoms but fail to address the real problem.

[gbloodgood]

11:38 AM on 04/01/2010

Ride your bicycle to work or take the bus
Purchase a diesel fuel car or a hybrid - it too expensive a moped or cheap Yaris

Eat less meat or none at all
Bring bags and containers to grocery stores

plant your own garden

We can do it people - let's get busy!

[406stew]

11:53 AM on 04/01/2010

I ride do ride my bicycle and have a bike trailer for my grocerys in my cloth bags
I have diesel truck for work
I don't eat beef
We have a garden
We are installing solar panels
ect ect

The point is as long as we keep increasing the population these efforts make no difference!

[Ardi Ramidus]

11:23 AM on 04/01/2010

The way I see it (maybe I'm missing something), there are two central questions:

(1) Does this do anything to forward the President's agenda to create substantial shifts towards homegrown, clean energy; i.e. does it help, politically? (and if you've paid attention at all to the administration's dialogue on energy, or to the money already allocated towards renewables, you'll see that we're pointed in the right direction)

(2) What are the potential environmental costs?

We will continue to use oil. What is the cost-benefit of enabling more domestic supply?

[henrypapillon]

11:10 AM on 04/01/2010

Shoot ! My wife and I been having steaks every day. We were trying to solve the oil crisis. I thought they were saying "Grill, baby , Grill!"

[iceage7]

11:07 AM on 04/01/2010

What the country needs is a green policy. Obama should have included a green policy in exchange for oil drilling. He should have said ok..we are going to drill but in return for off shore drilling we are also going to include a 10cent gas tax every time you go to the gas station. The 10 cent tax will go into a green bank and a website will be made (Akin to recovery.gov) specifically for the bank. The website will show how the money is being spent and how much is collected every month. Money to be used solely for green technologies..i.e. for green research and development, new technologies ,wind , battery technology, solar panels, wind turbines, transmission lines, up grade to newer effecient transmission lines all across the state, high speed rail, grants for companies willing to establish green technologies , transmission lines for green energy. This in turn will create jobs and less dependency on foreign oil and a cleaner america. Americans dont mind paying taxes as long as the taxes are being put to good use. One way to sell this is every time you fill up your tank you are empowering america from foreign oil and into a green future. We all in need put skin in the game.

[iceage7]

11:08 AM on 04/01/2010

last August the govt announced a $49 million grant that was part of an initiative to develop advanced batteries for electric-drive vehicles.

The company said in January that the grant would help expand its Charlotte site and build a new manufacturing plant in Concord, creating 80 jobs in Charlotte and 209 in Cabarrus County. The new jobs will pay an average salary of nearly $57,000, significantly better than the average wage in the two counties.

Now imagine what billions of dollars collected every month would.

The GOP is going to gripe and say more taxes..But Obama should come out and say look we have to invest now, it will cost money for us to get off of foreign oil. What do the republicans prefer...keep spending our tax dollars 800b to import foreign oil or use our tax dollars here at home to create jobs and ween us from foreign oil and a cleaner america. he should then tell people the realities of china already so far ahead of us in green technology..china is investing 400B in green technology and they are now the leaders in green technology while we seatt and gripe china is forging ahead.

[MelRoy]

06:15 AM on 04/02/2010

He would have had one had he not bowed to pressure from the right and gotten rid of Van Jones.

[remember the alamo]

10:30 AM on 04/01/2010

Guess he doesn't mind the east coast smelling like rotten eggs.

[IssuesInFocus]

12:04 PM on 04/01/2010

It already does. However, the President has to be open to some new information we are not aware/knowledgeable of. There's much more to this than meets the eye.
If he supports limited explorations-- drilling, when previously he opposed the idea, some one in his cabinet has shared something the thinks could be a plus as we talk energy. If not, my question: what's up with this , Mr. President? Picking a fight with environmentalists?
Reaction from the GOP--not a measure of what's relevant or appropriate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BZWyNNckO8