I am big fan of Rachel Maddow, and I am a green green. But my wife thinks that she is going a little overboard about the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and I agree. “The energy in your studio comes from somewhere, Rachel,” she says.
Do not get us wrong. There were screwups that Petrobras and Statoil would not have committed. Nor do we care if BP goes bankrupt and ceases to exist as a result of the disaster. In fact, that would be a fine outcome. (Lift the caps! Go after them! My wife, the same one who thinks that banning offshore oil is bad idea and demonizing B.P. is silly, would be very happy at that result.)
Everything has risks and returns. Offshore oil is actually a tiny piece of the U.S. energy mix. It is not as though the waters of the South Atlantic are inherently more valuable than the Gulf of Mexico, but they are our waters, and if we choose not to risk them then that is a fine idea. But we should not get too out of hand in demonizing our inability to contain the leak.
I am working on this stuff pretty thoroughly, and thus the lack of posts. But my wife's opinion seems worth sharing.
I'm really not sure who you're arguing against, or what. If you acknowledge that it's a small part of the U.S. energy mix, then maybe there's reason to be concerned about whether the cost/benefit plays out. Maybe you put a high value on not having oil wells off Coney Island or Sea Side.
More seriously, one realize has to wonder why it was a great idea to start issuing waivers on environmental regulation willy-nilly.
Posted by: Scott | May 24, 2010 at 11:26 PM
The tone on MSNBC was too much for us. We're against that. Blame and punishment is one thing; Luddism and anger over an inability to produce miracles once the damage is done is quite another.
Perhaps I should have been clearer.
Posted by: Noel Maurer | May 25, 2010 at 01:44 AM