Resolved: Allowing deep-water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.

Thanks, Bench! I'll make my case, then rebut Pro's.KEY TERMIf you are unaware of what offshore drilling is or what it entails, this offers a good explanation: http://science.howstuffworks.com... CON's CASEContention One: Environmental HarmIn the gulf, for example, one of the "biggest environmental impact[s] has been the estimated 10,000 miles of canals dug by the oil and gas companies to transport oil and lay pipelines...The canals crisscross the coastal wetlands...and have contributed to coastal erosion." [1] This degradation of the "marshland removed an important natural buffer against storms and amplified Hurricane Katrina's damage." [1]More generally, "when oil is brought up from beneath the ocean floor, other things are, too. Chemicals and toxic substances such as mercury and lead can be discharged back into the ocean. The water pumped up along with the oil may contain benzene, arsenic and other pollutants. Even the exploration that precedes drilling, which depends on seismic air guns, can harm sea mammals...The biggest pollution risk involved in offshore drilling is in transporting the oil." [1]What this evidence suggests is that it isn't just oil spill themselves that harm the environment, but the entire operation. Building pipelines, testing for oil-rich sites, extraction of the oil--these all have deleterious consequences on top of and separate from the risk of oil spills. But, let's not downplay the risk of oil spills. In some areas, like the Artic, experts believe that oil companies have been unable to show that they have the proper safety procedures and technology to cope with the conditions. [2]Underscoring the concerns of an oil spill is the Exxon-Valdez catastrophe. "Over 40,000 tons of toxic oil spilled into one of the world's most productive, pristine, cold-water, coastal ecosystems. The oil eventually spread over 10,000 square miles of Alaska's coastal ocean, 1,300 miles of spectacular shoreline, including national parks, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, a national forest and ancestral lands of Alaska Natives. And the oil spread over 600 miles from the site of the grounding...The spill killed thousands of marine mammals, and hundreds of thousands of seabirds, and much of the intertidal zone. And there were long-term, chronic impacts to fish and wildlife--reproductive failures, deformities, reduced growth rates, altered feeding habits, organ damage, tumors, genetic damage and viral diseases. The Sound's ecologically important herring population collapsed." [3] You'd only need one spill of similar magnitude, and 600+ miles of ecosystem could be irrecoverably damaged. This would harm biodiversity, local economies, and more.Contention Two: Human Safety and Wellbeing“Dispersants washing up on the Gulf shoreline could be immediately dangerous, especially for the tens of thousands of workers...involved in the cleanup. Fumes...may overwhelm spill responders. So far, more than 400 oil-exposure complaints have been logged by poison-control centers and 100 oil-spill-related illnesses have been reported…but these maladies may be just the tip of the iceberg...Studies [of spills] have shown us consistent evidence for oracular, neurological and dermal exposure as a result of exposure to volatile organic compounds. Short-term lung, kidney and liver functions could be affected.” [4]Also "the groundwater contamination happening across the U.S. from drilling for natural gas, combined with the challenges of what to do with the toxic fracking wastewater, a byproduct of drilling, makes me wonder how...the natural gas industry [is] to significantly grow without 'putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.'" [5]Contention Three: The EconomyOffshore oil drilling will only account for around 2-2.5% of America's oil reserves. [5, 6] The risks associated with drilling cannot be reasonably offset or justified by such paltry benefits.We also need to consider two additional facts: (1) oil is not sustainable [6], (2) we need to diversify. As to the first point, our oil reserves are temporary--they will run out eventually. If we persist in our reliance on oil, we may put ourselves in an untenable position later. Consider, once we can no longer manufacture oil for ourselves, foreign nations could charge us even higher rates for what limited oil remains. Another issue here is that once oil fields dry up, we have hundreds of workers with no jobs. Oilmen who lack other skills will be left economically adrift, and America may be unable to absorb the shock of the lost revenues and the unemployment increase.The second point leapfrogs off of the first one. Since the oil industry is not a sustainable one, we need to start implementing a longer-term plan. Instead of investing in offshore oil, we should be investing into other, cleaner, renewable forms of energy that will create stable jobs.Thus, I negate.PRO's CASEPro's remarks will be in italics. "These days, the US is still a slave to oil consumption, and the only reason why gas prices aren't hovering near record highs like they were in the past is due in part to large amounts of oil still being discovered and accessed in places we couldn't reach before, such as deep offshore."The U.S. is a slave to oil production and to oil companies with their sizeable lobbying powers and political influence. In order to break our subservience, we should redirect our oil subsidies into renewable energy. And what happens when the oil wells run dry--energy prices will probably break some records. Keep in mind, of the U.S. oil reserves, only 2% are accessible by offshore means. [5] Therefore, offshore oil drilling is having only a small impact on America's energy independence. Finally, offshore oil drilling won't significantly impact gas prices. [6]"Deep-water drilling could account for up to 13% of all oil production in the world by 2020, and that US offshore production is expected to grow by 18% by 2020 as well."This is all highly speculative. How much of that 13% will occur in the U.S.? And, even with an 18% growth rate, only 2% of U.S. oil is offshore; all we'd be doing would be depleting our own limited resources faster."It is a hell of a job creator."Pro fails to provide sourcing here; I ask that he do so next round. Anyway, these jobs are all unsustainable. When the oil runs out, these jobs will end suddenly. That could create a crash in multiple industries since they're all interconnected--welcome back, Great Depression. It would be a more strategic choice to diversify our energy resources now, and to shift focus there instead of on offshore oil. Green energy even makes more jobs. [6]"Oil rig catastrophes don't happen very often."As my evidence shows, all it would take is one spill to obliterate an ecosystem. It's not an issue of frequency, it's an issue of magnitude. Moreover, even if rigs don't spill, ships and pipelines will. BP was a deep water incident."It's immune to political events."So too are land drilling and renewable...Domestic energy is good, just not offshore."The US overall has extensive safety protocols."Then why was BP able to engage in unsafe practices? [6] If regulators don't enforce them (as with BP), the protocols are meaningless. SOURCES1 - http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...2 - http://www.cnn.com...3 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com...4 - http://content.time.com...5 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com...6 - http://oceana.org...7 - http://www.bloomberg.com...