Debate over gulf drilling misses the real issue

In his Jan. 16 column, Mr. R. Shaffer made one thing abundantly clear — that he enjoys marginalizing anyone who disagrees with him. It is, however, unfortunate that he did not take his own advise and use “facts, logic and common sense” and attempt to come up with some type of persuasive arguments to shore up his apparent support of off shore oil drilling.

To view the Shaffer Column, click here.

For example, his claim that “there hasn’t been an Exxon Valdez-type incident since March 1989” isn’t accurate. On Nov. 7, 2007, a container ship struck the Bay Bridge and spilled 58,000 gallons of bunker fuel into San Francisco Bay. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina ravaged oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico to the tune of 30,000 tons of oil spilled and, according to Newsweek magazine, “the multiplicity of sources” in the Katrina-related spill made the clean up difficult and hard to assess.

Internationally, in 1993, 84,500 tons were spilled by a tanker off the Shetland Islands. Eighteen million tons were spilled by another tanker off South Wales in 1996. And as recently as 2001, 240,000 tons were spilled off the Galapagos Islands. In comparison, the Exxon Valdez spill was 38,500 tons.

Sadly, Mr. Shaffer did not use his opportunity in this public forum to advance the cause for which he so passionately cherishes. Instead, he chose to try and demean and insult those who think differently than he with references to “wine sippers,” “elbows on the bar” and “ringing the bell at happy hour.”

What opponents of off shore drilling drink, how much they drink or where they drink has no bearing whatsoever on this most important issue any more than if I was to declare that proponents of off-shore drilling are knuckle-dragging, antifreeze-swilling, bong puffers!

Understand, I have no qualm with Mr. Shaffer, or anyone else for that matter, who tries to debunk some of the arguments put forth by others on any topic. But pejorative comments serve no one well, and the newsprint could have been put to better use.

The real issue shouldn’t be to drill or not to drill in my opinion. What we really should be debating is what alternative energy sources or fuels we want to move forward with and how, rather than arguing over the virtues of yesterday’s propulsion medium.

The Japanese have already made plans to develop the next generation of hybrid vehicles. Do we intend to be left behind while other industrialized nations convert to other power sources? With the time and expense it would take to actually get enough oil — if the ban were lifted — to have any significant impact, wouldn’t we be better off to invest in vehicles that are powered by something other than gasoline?

I think that we all can agree we need to free ourselves from dependency on foreign sources of energy, but I think that it is equally important, aside from the environmental virtues, that we free ourselves from the oil oligopoly that domestic oil producers have enjoyed for so long as well.

No, Mr. Shaffer, the “bell” you heard ringing wasn’t announcing “happy hour.” It was tolling the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era, and the sooner we embrace it the sooner we can begin to enjoy its benefits.

Allan D. Pierson is a Santa Rosa Beach resident.