The environmentalists and the White House are to blame (not physically) for the oil spill.

Thank you for the debate. Already I see we are at odds from your name. . . Well on to the debate. First, I'll address your first contention, "Environmentalists and the White House have been taking extreme action when it comes to offshore drilling. They proposed that it would be more environmentally friendly to drill five miles underwater, than in shallower areas near the coastline of the U.S. in case of an oil spill" I have no idea where you got this idea. Environmentalists generally oppose drilling in just about any form in the ocean, so a source would be helpful. If you're referring to the Obama decision to open offshore waters to drilling, the accident at Deepwater Horizon was not in any way related to this policy change, as it had been operating long before, and is not technically considered an "offshore" rig, due to its relatively close proximity to land. Second. "the environmentalists complain that if we burn the oil away, it could cause air pollution." This is true. Simply burning the oil to get rid of it will cause air pollution. While it is a bit of a toss-up as to which ultimately does more damage, burning the oil or letting it remain in the water, it seems the dominant theory is that it causes far more damage in the water than out. Once again, linking to a reputable source who opposes burning the oil would help. Also, there is not a lot of oil on the surface compared to underwater, because BP has been putting Corexit into the stream at the wellhead in order to disperse it underwater, some suspect so that it cannot be as easily seen. Third. "a governor from Louisiana, I can't recall his name, proposed we should build artificially made beaches and islands to soak up all the oil, which by the way is an excellent idea, but the environmentalist and the White House think that could be environmentally harmful." I believe you're thinking of Bobby Jindal. As for the plan, here's a quote: "Corps officials say they are studying the plan, but the oil spill's national incident commander Thad Allen says that plan could take months to implement and might waste time and money better expended on other projects. Corps officials say they are studying the plan, but the oil spill's national incident commander Thad Allen says that plan could take months to implement and might waste time and money better expended on other projects." Hmmmm, so the person in charge of doing the proposed plan thinks it's something that will take a lot of time and waste a lot of money. . . And of course it's a tried and true plan, right? Oh, wait: "He faults the agency for not quickly approving his UNTESTED plan to place dozens of offshore sand barriers to block the oil before it drifts ashore." (caps mine) Although Thad Allen is in the government position of national incident commander, he has nothing to do with the environmentalists, and quite frankly all he's doing is vetoing a plan that is untested, and will most likely be a bigger failure than Top Kill. "So if you look closely, the environmentalists are doing more damage to the environment with their "ideas and precautions" than if we didn't consider them." I don't see a big solar plant explosion killing eleven and contaminating the air for thousands making the news. . . In addition, BP failed to take basic safety precautions on the drilling rig, and didn't install a device that would have shut down the wellhead in exactly a case like this. BP is also using a chemical, Corexit, that has many safer and less toxic alternatives, in enormous quantities. "They are not to blame for the oil spill actually physically happening, but could have easily prevented it from happening in the first place. " I agree with the first half of that sentence. Now tell me exactly how they could have prevented it? Tougher safety regulations aren't really possible when the MMS is smoking dope with BP execs. Environmentalists didn't insist that BP not install a safety valve. And finally, the cherry on top is that if the rig hadn't been profitable for BP, it wouldn't have been operating, so it's not as if they were "forced" to go there. "Or if they had drilled somewhere closer to the coastline of the U.S., where it is more shallow, they could have easily cleaned up all the oil within a short period of time." Newsflash: Deepwater Horizon was only 50 miles off the coast of the U.S. Oil companies do drill closer, and cleaning up the oil would have been easier if BP had just used a darn safety valve to begin with, and not drilled deeper than it should have. In summary, several strawmen were demolished by my opponent, but his main point is completely unsubstantiated by fact. http://online.wsj.com... http://www.nytimes.com...