The United States should continue with offshore oil drilling

I will begin by defending my own case, and then moving on to his. ====My Own Case===== David Sandalow specifically deals with "energy for policy and international affairs" so his specifically looks at how energy affects foreign affairs. He is also on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, so I think that he is an extremely reliable source. My point regarding dependency was that offshore drilling would provides solvency for dependency and prevents dependency from growing. I showed how the United States gets 30% of its domestic oil from offshore drilling alone and how offshore drilling reduces dependence. Since offshore drilling will reduce dependency; it should continue. In my second point, I was referring to oil barrel prices, not gas prices. Oil is used for much more than just glass, including plastic. My opponent also has not yet refuted my points regarding the jobs offshore oil drilling provides. ====My Opponent's Case==== My opponent begins by stating that other energy sources will overtake crude petroleum products. I first, would like to know the specific source(s) for this and, second, why can't other energy sources be explored while offshore drilling is occurring. If he cannot answer these questions then we must not look to this point. My opponent has focused in the second round mainly on the environmental effects of offshore drilling. I will show how these effects are not as bad as they seem. He states that there is a lot of pollution inherently caused by offshore drilling. However, the pollution will occur even if offshore drilling does not occur. 1) Natural Seepage already occurs, offshore oil drilling relieves this. According to Bruce Allen of the American Heritage Foundation, there are environmental and economical benefits to offshore drilling[1]. He points to the fact that natural seepage already occurs, and that through offshore oil drilling the flow of this seepage is decreased because oil-field pressure is relieved. A decrease in the seepage of the oil has several environmental and economical impacts. Cleaner water and a lightened impact of this seepage on wildlife are two environmental impacts. The lessening of seeping oil will help to clean up beaches, which will increase the value of property in beachfront areas, which clashes with my opponent's point about negative effects on the economy. The seepage is also widespread, Bruce Allen's research shows that the natural oil seeps in the ocean floor are leaking 70,000 to 80,000 barrels of oil into California's coastal waters every year along an 80-mile stretch of the state's shoreline. This research shows that offshore drilling can, in fact, help the environment. My opponent's points about the oil's effects on wildlife must not be looked to because oil will seep without drilling, causing these same effects. My opponent points to the fact that marine life, namely sea turtles, are attracted to the lights on the rig. The same effect is caused by cities and their lights. Should we not have cities on the beach? My opponent points to facts about the economical impacts of the BP oil spill. However, because of the economical impact of jobs that offshore drilling provides, in the long term, the economic impact from discontinuing offshore oil drilling is worse than the oil spill. He says that another spill is bound to happen, but there are new safety regulations and better enforcement of these regulations, so it is not "bound to happen again". With some of the space I have left, I will show how the oil spill was not that bad. According to an article by The Energy Tribune[3], natural seepage has been occurring throughout history and it impacts the environment as much as the oil spill. According to Alun Lewis, a U. K. -based consultant who is considered a leading authority on oil spill dispersants, there will no effects of the oil spill next year. According to an article by The Guardian, most of the oil evaporated, and the effect on the environment is minimal[4]. According to Dr. James Carafano and Jack Spencer of the American Heritage Foundation, new response techniques would minimize the effects of future spills[5]. I will address alternative energy sources when they are posted. In summary, the resolution should be affirmed for the following reasons: 1. I have shown that offshore drilling has positive environmental benefits so my opponent's points about the environment do not stand 2. I have shown that the points about the economy do not stand, and my points about the impacts on jobs outweigh the negative impacts of spills 3. I have shown that the BP Oil Spill did not have extremely negative effects, and how future spills would not have large effects. Thus, this debate should be affirmed. [1]. http://heritage.org... [2]. http://blog.energytomorrow.org... (summarizes some of the points in the documentary) [3]. http://www.energytribune.com... [4]. http://www.guardian.co.uk... [5]. http://www.heritage.org...