outline

"Energy Policy: Should the United States increase domestic production of oil and natural gas?" Issues & Controversies, Infobase Learning, 15 July 2013, http://icof.infobaselearning.com.eznvcc.vccs.edu:2048/recordurl.aspx?ID=6308. Accessed 28 Nov. 2018.

Opponents Argue: Government Should Promote Environmentally Friendly Energy Sources over Fossil Fuels

Opponents of an energy policy that concentrates only on fossil fuels argue that the United States must set a comprehensive policy that will protect both consumers and the environment, rather than merely respond to the rise and fall of fuel costs. "The only way to really break this cycle of spiking gas prices," President Obama said in 2013, "is to shift our cars entirely—our cars and trucks—off oil.… It's not just about saving money. It's also about saving the environment."

Critics argue that increasing domestic oil exploration does little to lower fuel prices, since any new oil or gasoline would not be on the market for years. "If the solution were so simple, then the problem of rising gasoline prices wouldn't exist," Michael Conathan of the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress wrote in 2012. "We're already drilling like crazy in the United States. And yet prices have continued to spike."

Opponents of government policies to expand fossil fuel supplies argue that building new oil pipelines, such as the Keystone XL, would only further cement the United States' reliance on old technology that causes dangerous pollution. "The Keystone pipeline is a 40-year commitment to the continued and increased use of tar sands oil, which is some of the dirtiest oil in the world," environmentalist and investor Tom Steyer wrote for the San Francisco Chronicle in 2013. The pipeline will only encourage Americans to consume more environmentally damaging energy, Steyer contended, "at a time when we need to be taking aggressive actions to reduce carbon outputs."

Rejecting polluting projects like TransCanada's Keystone XL and developing alternative energy sources like wind and solar, opponents of conventional energy claim, will benefit both the environment and the economy. "Rather than supporting a policy designed to increase profits for a foreign company by making it easier to export oil," Steyer argued, "we should be looking at policies that will produce clean energy jobs here in the United States."

Many opponents of fracking maintain that the practice is not nearly as safe as its supporters claim it is. Indeed, they argue, the gas industry itself has performed studies that indicate that one of every 20 wells used in the fracking process leaks harmful substances into local water supplies. "No matter what the industry tells you," Cornell University engineering professor Anthony Ingraffea said at an anti-fracking conference in 2012, "their own data…proves conclusively to any reasonable scientist or engineer that it is impossible to design any well so that it will never leak.… [Gas wells] will leak."

Critics also argue that the government should not open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. Any potential spills or accidents, they contend, would likely have a devastating impact on local wildlife. "[I]f oil drilling begins in the Arctic seas and anything goes wrong," Subhankar Banerjee, a photojournalist who spent a substantial amount of time photographing the arctic argued in an article for TomDispatch in 2010, "the nature of the disaster in the calving, nesting and spawning grounds of so many creatures would be hard to grasp."

Opponents contend that the government has been subsidizing the use of fossil fuels for too long. While the government has a crucial role to play in funding energy companies, they argued, it should direct those funds to clean, renewable energy sources, rather than the type of fuel that badly damages the environment. "When we consider that investments in clean energy are investments in America's future, it's clear that the smart choice is to make these investments to meet the next generation of energy challenges and to produce a foundation of affordable, reliable, and clean energy alternatives," Richard Caperton of the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress wrote in 2012. "At the same time we can no longer afford indiscriminate or wasteful subsidies. It is essential that government's investments in energy be fair, effective, and efficient."