By Javier Manjarres and Vince Mariano

 To say that the national energy policy formulated by the United States Congress has been both incoherent and self-defeating over the past three decades would be an understatement of epic proportions. Well intentioned but misguided legislation and regulation has not only made gasoline more expensive and the nation more dependent on foreign oil, it has also managed to impede technological innovation, destabilize energy prices, and fail to substantially improve environmental protection. In addition to all of the unintended consequences of our misguided energy policy, we have had to deal with the consequences of a self-imposed ban on drilling along most of our coastline since the early 1980s. Congress’ misguided regulation of the energy industry has achieved pretty much the exact opposite outcomes that logical people would hope for; and taken cumulatively, it’s hard to deny that Congressional ineptitude has made things worse for the average American. 

 For over three decades, we’ve heard endless rhetoric from politicians lamenting our dependence on foreign oil— yet over that same time span, Congress has enacted legislation that has resulted in a 25% decline in domestic oil production while our oil consumption has increased 20%. The statistics are clear— we’ve failed in our stated intentions to become less dependent on foreign oil, and our domestic production margins have only gotten worse. When gas was recently topping $4 a gallon, the call for offshore drilling intensified, and it appeared that the political class was poised to take appropriate action. Now, with gas prices back down to a “tolerable” level, the public outcry for exploration and drilling has subsided, and politicians in Washington D.C. have moved to reinstate the ban on outer-continental shelf drilling. But make no mistake, our vulnerability on this issue is just as serious as it was prior to the last spike in oil prices. The case for ending the ban on offshore drilling needs to made convincingly— independent of what the current price of a barrel of oil happens to be.

But put aside our self-imposed national paralysis about oil and energy policy for a moment.  Is it realistic to conclude that other developing nations in the world will cease their own oil exploration and production while our politicians continue to play an unending game of semantics, blame shifting, and denial?  If we make the wrong choice as a nation and continue our inaction, not only will we be less prosperous financially, we will also be more vulnerable from a security standpoint as well. Our country has to get serious about energy independence now, otherwise we will continue to be held hostage to the whims of rogue regimes and the terrorists that they finance.

Unfortunately, what is hamstringing our national security and our prosperity is a misguided ideology, held by only a small minority of environmentalist ideologues, which continues to unfairly blacklist fossil fuels and coal— their production and utilization— as irreparably harmful to the environment and a contributor to ‘climate change’. This same ideology has also shut its eyes to both the science and technological developments over the past several decades that make oil extraction far more safe and reliable, reducing the possibility of an environmental accident substantially. It is this ideology that needs to be confronted and called out for what it is— alarmist, obstructionist, and squarely against the national interest.

 Energy Efficiency is an Admirable Goal— But at What Cost?

 A recent op-ed by Bob Rackleff in the St. Petersburg Times posed several questions to those interests who want to revive off-shore drilling along Florida’s coastline.  While Mr. Rackleff raised some legitimate concerns that deserve more specific answers, Rackleff’s main argument— that energy efficiency is the real problem we need to confront as a nation— is fundamentally flawed.

 In one of his more breezy assertions, he claims that, “the money Florida consumers spend on motor fuels and overweight vehicles creates almost no lasting value.” Overlooked by Mr. Rackleff is the not so minor detail that human lives most certainly fall under the category of ‘valuable’. 

 Research conducted by The National Academy of Sciences has made the connection between CAFE-mandated mileage standards with approximately 2,000 additional automobile-related fatalities per year. In addition, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that for every 100-pound reduction in the weight of small cars, as many as 715 additional fatalities occur annually.   Before we conclude that the fuel efficiency of lighter cars is an unqualified good, we need to honestly and soberly reflect on the deadly human cost that lighter vehicles are responsible for and see if that tradeoff really is worth the goal of ‘efficiency’.   

 The Rest of the World is Not Abandoning Carbon Based Energy Sources

 In spite of all the alarmist rhetoric emanating from environmentalist circles about how the rest of the world is abandoning fossil fuels to combat “climate change,” those same nations’ actions show where their real energy priorities lie. For starters, China and Japan recently reached a bilateral agreement to drill and share the natural gas fields located under the international waters between their countries. In Europe, 40 new large-scale coal plants are set to be built within the next five years. India has very ambitious plans for coal production in the near term as well as in the coming decades.   

 We certainly can’t look to the Obama Administration for any rational leadership on energy policy. Brazil recently discovered a huge underwater oil field off its coast— now known as the Tupi Oil Field— and is wasting no time extracting the oil off its own coastline. But in an act that betrays the national interest— as well as his own self proclaimed environmentalist rhetoric— President Obama is lending billions of dollars to Petrobras, Brazil's state-owned oil company, for offshore oil development within that same oil field.

 For what possible rationale would our Federal Government continue to ban offshore drilling here off the coasts of our shores, but finance coastal drilling in other parts of the world? Have we reached the height of ‘NIMBY’ hypocrisy?   Is the preservation of the coastline of Brazil somehow less important than the coastlines of Florida?   Petrobras and the Brazilian people understand that they can responsibly drill for oil off their coastline, and they are moving ahead affirmatively— with our full financial backing. It is beyond outrageous hypocrisy that we, the American people, are denied the right by our own Congress and President to further utilize the energy resources right under our own feet, while at the same time we assist countries such as Brazil in exploiting their own energy resources. This must change.

 Let’s Abandon the Alarmist Rhetoric and Start Acting Like Responsible Adults in the Global Community

 Modern oil extraction technology is safe and efficient, with enormous advances having been made over the last 30 years. Combined with more effective modern response techniques for oil spills, the opposition to offshore oil drilling is quick to resort to the same old alarmist rhetoric that is intended to spread fear rather than educate the public. We can immediately begin decreasing our dependency off foreign oil and provide Florida with an enormous economic boost if we were to open the coast of Florida to drilling immediately. 

 Aside from the tangible beneficial effects that offshore drilling would bring to our economy, we must also consider the symbolic message that it would send to the rest of the world. If we are being perceived by other developing nations as indecisive and weak— unable to marshal energy resources right off our own shores— are we going to continue to pretend that other nations will not attempt to extract those same energy resources from right under our noses? Will opponents of offshore drilling continue to exude a false sense of moral superiority to the global community simply because we refuse to open our own coastlines to drilling— even as other nations begin to drill within 50 miles of our own shores?   The answer is simple—we need to send a clear signal to the world that we can and will responsibly explore and manage the energy resources both within our borders and along our shorelines, thereby encouraging our global competitors to take their energy exploration efforts elsewhere.

 There are always critical junctures in a nation’s history when a people need to move past dialogue for its own sake and into meaningful action, and we are at that juncture now, especially in the security-conscious post 9/11 era. Clear majorities of people believe that the merits of offshore drilling are essential to our nation’s progress and security. For those who claim that the proponents of offshore drilling are “rushing” into the endeavor, they should be reminded that our nation has been effectively dealing with offshore drilling bans emanating from different levels of government for over 30 years— it is only recently that majorities of people understand the full ramifications of continuing on with a self-defeating national energy policy.

 We encourage the requisite players in the oil industry to be as transparent and forthcoming with the American people as possible as we begin to throw the chains off our national energy policy. Just as fear and ignorance in the ‘70s and ‘80s stalled the development of nuclear power in this country, similar public relations challenges confront the oil and gas industry. Informing and instructing the public about the necessity of oil exploration and drilling is an ongoing process that needs to continue until it achieves a consensus so broad that it will force our legislators to abandon their inaction and obstruction on a matter of critical importance to our nation’s future.