Frankenberry's Blog

The hot topic right now seems to be offshore drilling.  As Floridans, this is especially important to us since the existing offshore drilling ban specifically targets the continental shelf off of Florida's coast. There are arguments both for and against lifting the ban on offshore drilling. 

The red camp believes that the increase of supply from offshore drilling and/or perception of a supply increase will lead to reduced fuel costs.  The blue camp believes that the potential environmental impact is too great to risk offshore drilling in the current protected areas and that the oil companies should explore more of the existing area they already have leased.  Taking history into account, I tend  to side with the blue camp on this issue.  And with a recently elected Democratic Congress combined with the President's low approval rating, there is reason for the red camp to throw out a red herring.

With the latest push by the President and the GOP for lifting the ban on offshore drilling, several Republicans have reversed their positions on the offshore drilling ban.  Prior to this year most Republican law makers supported the offshore drilling ban.  Some notible Rebublicans who have reversed their positions are: Senator McCain, Governor Crist, Senator Mel Martinez and Congresswoman Brown-Waite. 

Is this sudden position reversal by members of the GOP really an attempt to provide some savings at the pump in a struggling US economy? Can offshore drilling significantly reduce America's dependence on foreign oil?  Or is it an election year red herring intended to maintain Republican control of the executive branch?  And the 1million dollar question...  Why didn't the Republican controlled Congress lift the offshore drilling ban a few years ago?

A lot of the news lately seems to be circling around the idea of offshore oil drilling.  I know that gas prices are out of control and I know that it is impacting us all.  Many people that depend on the availability of reasonably priced fuel are now out of work and others who would vacation in our state simply can't afford the associated fuel costs.  But do we really want to risk damaging our coastline and the surrounding marine life to potentially lower our fuel costs?

Unfortunately, our dependancy on oil is a problem that was created generations earlier but that we have inherited.  And although we did not create the problem, we do perpetuate it and eventually we will have to solve it.  I do not believe that the potential destruction of Florida's most precious resources is the solution to resolving our high fuel costs, nor is it the solution to eliminating our dependancy on oil.

Do we really want to leave behind a bigger problem then we inherited?  Florida is the number one destination in the world for SCUBA divers, sky divers and beach goers.  I enjoy the luxuries of my state on a daily basis.  This weekend I am going SCUBA diving and if past experience is any indication, I will probably have over 80ft visibility.  How can you even think about trading that for some savings at the pump?