As Jonathan D. Salant reports for the New Jersey Star-Ledger:
Efforts to keep the Atlantic Coast closed to offshore oil drilling -- something pushed by advocates of the Jersey Shore -- came up for a vote this week.
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, New Jersey's most powerful House member, voted no.
And the bill failed to pass a key House committee.
The House Appropriations Committee, which Frelinghuysen, R-11th Dist., chairs, voted largely along party lines against an amendment by Rep. Chellie Pingree, who wanted to ban the Interior Department from spending any money on a new five-year drilling plan.
Frelinghuysen said he doesn't support drilling in the Atlantic, but neither does he support the way Pingree proposed to ban it.
"My opposition to drilling off the coast of New Jersey is well-known," Frelinghuysen said. "The Pingree amendment to the Interior appropriations bills was far too broad in that it would have prohibited drilling off all coasts, even where drilling is currently allowed."
My emphasis. This is an indication of what we will face should Democrats once again gain control in Washington. It’ll make the Obama reign of 2009-10 look downright moderate!
Salant goes on:
Environmentalists saw it differently.
"Representative Frelinghuysen has passed up a chance to protect Americans from Trump's extreme offshore drilling plan -- which he has said he opposes," said Franz Matzner, director of federal affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"His vote instead helps pad oil industry profits, and abandons the beach communities who'll bear the risk of oil spills, along with every citizen who'll experience the effects of the extreme weather made worse by increasing carbon pollution."
I left these comments:
We must keep proper perspective. Reliable, large-scale energy is vital to human life. Energy powers every other industry, including the NJ tourism industry. Reliable energy is vital to protecting us from extreme weather: Today, we enjoy a level of protection that people throughout human history up until the last century and a half never had. Worldwide deaths due to extreme weather has fallen by over 98% in the past century. Even if the climate catastrophists’ wild speculations about more extreme weather ends up to have a modicum of truth, what humane person would advocate, as a solution, a return life to the days when droughts brought famine? Fossil fuels are getting cleaner-burning all the time, thanks to ever-advancing anti-pollution technologies. (That's why anti-fossil fanatics have adopted the “carbon pollution” mantra. But as anybody with a kindergarten level of science knowledge knows, co2 is not a pollutant.) Those who want to stop fossil fuel development, such as the quasi-religious, totalitarian Environmentalists, are inhumane in the extreme.
We must understand the full risk context. The risk of lack of reliable energy far, far outweighs the risk of potential spills. Fossil fuels are the best and most progressive energy source we have today. Yes, fossils have drawbacks, as does every energy source. But the risks of ending fossil fuels would be truly catastrophic. Technological progress may, and probably will at some point, arise to replace fossil fuels as the main driver of industry. But that could be decades or even centuries away. Until then, pro-life = pro-fossil fuels.
Kudos to Frelinghuysen for his “no” vote. I just wish he were pro-drilling, not just pro-drilling off the other guy’s coast, but not off NJ.
Related Reading:
Atlantic Off-Shore Oil Drilling: Who Really Benefits?
Obama’s Not Anti-Fossil Fuel Enough for Hard-Core Environmentalists
The BP Gulf Disaster: the Proximate vs. the Ultimate Cause
Fossil Fuels and Climate Change: Remember Life Before Them
No comments:
Post a Comment