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

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this critically important issue. I agree to all definitions set forth. I take a stance in opposition to the resolution. Offshore deepwater drilling is not in the best interest of the United States. There exist means of energy production that are not only safer for the environment, but are more viable in the long-term, and will have greater benefit to the economy. To address my opponent's points: My opponent claims that the damage done by the oil spill has been grossly exaggerated. However, the fact of the matter is that the true damage the oil spill cannot be assessed yet, as oil spills have long-term effects that will only be made clear years down the road. "Scientists worry the oil deep below will get into plankton and the food web, maybe not killing species directly but causing genetic mutations, stress or weakening some species, with effects that will only be seen years later. ‘I think populations are going to be affected for years to come,' said Diane Blake, a Tulane University biochemist. ‘This is going to cause selective (evolutionary) pressure that's going to change the Gulf in ways we don't even know yet'" (http://www.time.com...). While it may be true that the immediate effects of the oil spill are not as drastically damaging as expected, only time will tell what the true impact of the spill will be. Personally, I value the opinions of the scientists researching the spill more highly than the AP reporter my opponent quotes in his argument. It is true that the spill has largely steered clear of the beaches of the Gulf, but scientists have discovered that the oil that sank to the ocean floor did significant damage to the sediment. "University of South Florida's Ernst Peebles said the oil on the floor ‘is undermining the ecosystem from the bottom up.'" Additionally, while Time may have stated that the spill killed less than 1% of the birds that died because of the Exxon-Valdeez spill, we must keep in mind that the Exxon-Valdeez spill happened over a decade ago, and we are still seeing the effects of it. We would expect that the amount of damage done by the more recent spill would be fractional in comparison to the Exxon spill because that statistic quantifies data collected over years, whereas the Horizon spill happened only months ago. It may be true that, to a certain extent, we ‘dodged a bullet' in regards to the damage done to Gulf beaches, Louisiana Wetlands, and the spread of the oil up the East Coast. However, it does not actually matter whether or not the oil spill did AS MUCH damage as predicted – the fact remains that the spill caused damage because offshore drilling is legal. Outlawing offshore drilling would prevent even the possibility of these disasters happening. My opponent astutely points out that the spill cleanup was poorly handled by the government. However, this point works in my favor. There is no reason to suspect that future governments will handle cleanup efforts any better than the current one did. Many politicians accept donations from oil companies who expect those politicians to represent their interests, including President Obama (http://www.nytimes.com...). There is no reason to expect that oil companies will not continue to donate to future politicians. My opponent notes that 11 lives were lost when the oil rig initially exploded. He points out that oil-rig workers are fully aware that they are participating in a dangerous occupation and are paid more as a result. However, workers have claimed that Exxon did not inform its workers of the radiation risk they faced while at work (www.nytimes.com). In regards to the Deepwater Horizon spill, a rig worker noticed a dangerous leak which was reported to BP, which failed to repair it www.businessweek.com). Even the BP employees hired to clean up the spill say they were not wholly informed about the dangers they would face while working on the cleanup (www.chron.com). Oil companies are negligent when it comes to the safety of their employees. As such, it is unfair of my opponent to claim that rig workers are fully aware of the dangers they face. Natural oil spills, as my opponent calls them, do in fact account for the majority of the oil that ends up in the ocean. However, the fact that the ocean floor leaks oil naturally has no value in this argument. The fact remains that leaks from off-shore platforms still pose a significant risk and can still cause great damage. Part of the reason for this is that they are located so close to the coast, where they pose a greater threat to the United States. Natural leaks could occur anywhere – however, we have control over where rig-leaks can and cannot happen. Natural spills will occur no matter what we do, but we have the ability to prevent man-made disasters from happening by banning off-shore drilling. It is a known fact that eventually we will run out of oil. Eventually, we will need to find a new major source of energy. New energy sources present great economic opportunities including job creation. My opponent points out that 400,000 jobs will be lost if off-shore drilling is banned, and 270,000 jobs could be created if more platforms were opened, for a total of 670,000 jobs. However, there are far more jobs in alternative energy than in off-shore drilling. According to a study conducted by the University of Illinois, the University of California, and Yale, switching to alternative energy means a potential 1.9 million jobs would be created. In the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana alone, around 180,000 jobs would open (in just three states, that's roughly a quarter of the total jobs off-shore drilling would create) (www.alternative-energy-news.info). As we are well aware, the vast majority of the money generated by oil drilling is not flowing into the coffers of the United States – rather, it goes directly into the pockets of oil executives. Creating new sources of energy production gives us the opportunity to restructure and regulate the money flow so it would have a greater benefit to the United States government– a much more manageable task than attempting to create a new monetary framework for the oil companies, which would mean fighting the politicians who have been in the oil companies' pockets for years. Finally, my opponent claims that banning US companies from setting up platforms would be a wasted opportunity, as foreign companies would simply sweep in and set up shot on vacant wells. However, there is no reason that a full-on moratorium banning drilling by both foreign and domestic companies could not be put in place. Additionally, by setting up new oil platforms instead of establishing renewable means of energy production, we are essentially saying that we wish to continue using oil as a primary source of fuel. This means that we will be forced to continue economic relationships with potentially and known-to-be dangerous countries including Iraq and Saudi Arabia, as we are forced to import much of the oil we need to power the nation (http://www.globalpost.com...). Even if we opened more platforms to supply ourselves with more oil, we would still need to import oil to meet our demand. I challenge my opponent to prove that we could completely sever ties with hostile foreign nations through off-shore drilling. If we established a solid energy network based on renewable energy that could be produced in the United States we could opt out of funding dangerous foreign governments. Are we willing to sacrifice the environment and human lives for short-term economic gain? Why not take immediate measures to create renewable energy that will do less harm to the environment, create safer working conditions and new jobs, and help us to become a nation that meets its energy needs domestically rather than being forced into partnerships with hostile nations simply to meet our need for oil?