Reference no: EM133290404

Question: With the rising concerns for our global climate, there have been outbursts against the oil industry, which continues to extract a tremendous supply of oil daily for the consumption of citizens worldwide. These rebellions against the oil industry are not done so without basis, as the ill effects of the oil industry have left us with only a gloomy future to look forward to without having the privilege to be ignorant of what we consume. Although the short-term benefits of allowing offshore drilling to occur in Florida offer good prospects for the economy and citizens, the long-term consequences largely outweigh these temporary resolutions.

Unfortunately, oil is still the more easily accessible solution for most individuals residing within the United States. The annual production rate worldwide is approximately 2.2 x 109 tons per year. Although this may seem like an incredibly large amount, we typically lose about 8 x 106 tons through the production of this amount of oil. This lost production tends to infiltrate and contaminate the wildlife and natural ecosystems and their surroundings, resulting in devasting environmental impacts. If we were to allow Florida to be used in an offshore drilling operation, the environmental impacts that this area was recovering from would risk the possibility of becoming in danger once again. With the loss of extraction that occurs during the transportation and processing points of the operation, it is almost impossible to not affect the wildlife and environment that this company will be working around. Despite this immense work in creating oil and extracting it, the amount of time and attention that is placed upon these sources of energy continues to be prioritized over alternative and renewable forms of energy.

The damage to the wildlife surrounding the area impacted is devasting enough as it is, but that is not where the effects of oil disasters end. The livelihood of the people living nearby these bodies of water is also at risk when it comes to drilling for oil. The environmental impact that it causes can create detrimental health complications. Not only that but oil spills can also negatively impact the local economy of the neighboring city, as it hinders and halts any developments while they attempt to rectify the mess created.

If there must be a concession reached between these two varying positions, I would propose that there should be a limit to how much and how often offshore drilling should be done. Rather than attempting to extract as much oil as possible, it should be done so in limited quantities in order to limit the possibility of another oil spill that could occur. Whether this operation would be approved by a locally knowledgeable scientist based off of previous experiences and the current well-being of the environment is also an incredibly important factor. If, as this case scenario has stated, the environment is in a current state of recovery, the plausibility of redoing past mistakes should not even be considered as it gives the environment no time to heal and could even worsen its state. Overall, the short-term benefits that would be provided to the State of Florida do not outweigh the long-term negative impacts that it would cause the environment to invest in and approve of an offshore oil drilling operation.

A few questions for the class:

If you were a local resident within the Florida Coastline, how would you feel about this proposition? Would you like someone to discuss this with the citizens before moving forward?

Should short-term benefits be considered more thoroughly before long-term negative effects?

How long would you say the environment takes to recover from an oil spill?

Considering the current economical state of Florida after its most recent hurricane, would investing in oil companies be beneficial to the people?

How would one set regulations that appease both parties in this agreement?