copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert
In Florida, talk of fuel prices flourishes. Citizens communicate concerns in Letters to Editors. For the populace in this Southeastern State is the focus of numerous negotiations, consultations, and deliberations nationwide. The subject is offshore drilling. Might Americans abandon opposition to this environmentally perilous practice and let the petroleum flow. There is much push and pull. There always is when purses are pinched. With the cost of gas high, and the use of cars critical in a culture built on travel, much hot and cold air is bandied about.
The questions presented to publishers are, who might decide the fate of the sea just off the shores of the Everglade State. Are natural beauty and a balanced ecosystem high priorities, or only afterthoughts? Do Sunshine State residents have a say in what happens on the fragile coastline or does the federal government dictate what occurs? Perchance, Governor Charlie Crist rules? There is reason to believe Californians are also caught up in this tumultuous tide, over offshore drilling. The difference may be Floridians now fear a fight from within. For many concerned citizens the Chief Administrator in the Gator State is a foe. Charlie Crist has forgotten his constituency or made friends with those more interested in financial investments.
Readers mention on Op-Ed pages, many affluent individuals muse offshore drilling is an ideal resolution. These influential profiteers have convinced an anxious public, the greater the surplus, the lesser the expense. The people willingly believe. Well-connected politicians propose what will benefit those with deep pockets. The energy problem would not be, if only . . .
Other options are no longer preferable. For consumers who contemplate the dilemma in print, the time is now. The people do not wish to wait, worry; they love to wander. Therefore, few have the “energy” to study how might laws affect the inhabitants and the country as a whole. Sea mammals, fish, and fowl are not a consideration to contemplate; nor are future generations.
Article after articles addresses the fact, Americans clamor; the cost of gas is too high. This seems to be their more significant quandary. The public asks what are the politicians going to do to relive the pain at the pump. People who write in to periodicals note, the persons in power pounce on the problem. The current President of the United States, George W. Bush, and his “protégé” Arizona Senator John McCain say, “I will take care of your needs immediately.” Governor Crist relents, or rejects an earlier definitive stance. While in the past all spoke of how we, as a nation, must reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Now that the price of petroleum has generated much public protest, these savvy elected officials speak of sweet crude differently. They say supply can be easily increased and should be.
The three public servants boast, inexpensive fuel is just around the corner, or off the shores of Florida. Each “representative of the people” wishes to forego environmental policies they once endorsed. Presidential hopeful McCain, and Texas-tea-tycoon and the man who now occupies the Oval Office offer, perhaps, it is best to do as we have done and know how to do. Let us reinstate offshore oil drilling near the coastal shore of Florida. Charlie Crist chimes in, “What is good for the goose or his political Party, will be good for his gander. Governor Crist has his eye on his future. Many whisper he could be chosen as John McCain’s running mate.
A few letter writers assert, certainly, ocean exploration will provide Americans with the gas they covet. At least this theory is the conventional wisdom amongst those who wish to please the people who ultimately place them in office. In the case of George W. Bush, he may not desire a position in the Executive Branch. He has been there and done that; he only wishes to strengthen his legacy .
While this shortsighted solution may seem supreme, did anyone mention Mister Bush, his family, and friends will profit from further investments in fossil fuels? Might we discuss the rewards Republican John McCain will reap if research on alternative fuels is once again delayed? Could we consider that the oil moneyed moguls intentionally choose not to operate eighty percent of established oilrigs? If energy executives wanted to, they could produce more petrol . . .
Attempts to keep these topics out of the mainstream are ample. Taboo questions are suppressed. Talk is controlled just as the flow of fuel through pipes is forbidden. However, on occasion the subject of profits, the Presidency, past and present, petroleum bubbles to the surface.
Many Floridians have penned Letters to Editors. Often the refrain posits a need to lower the price Americans pay at the pump.
While some wish to speak of the cost of gas, I for one prefer to ponder the fate of nature, horticultural plants, to be differentiated from power plants, and people. I submit my correspondence below, and I ask you to inscribe your own communication. You may wish to use the template Florida Democrats furnish. If so please click here, or you might read the reference and use it as a guide. If you enter the Internet portal and select the publications you wish to address, the software will forward your message on. Please remember, Letters to Editors need be short and concise. A standard 250-word count may help to ensure your words will be published.
Economic and environmental endangerment
Dear Editor . . .
The reckless plan John McCain and George Bush proposed is meant to appease the public. Fat and happy people will not protest. The populace is encouraged to consider the current cost of fuel before they think of the planet’s future. A desire for immediate gratification among the masses is a profitable opportunity for oil executives. John McCain, George Bush, and Governor Charlie Crist benefit from the stuffed coffers of corporate oil cronies.
If we lift the ban on offshore drilling consumers will reap few if any rewards. The price at the pump will remain high. The greater the supply, the more likely demand will increase. If we continue to focus on fossil fuels Americans will be as we have long been, at the mercy of oil moguls.
Off shore exploration will endanger the habitat of man, sea mammals, fish, and fowl. Oilrigs blemish the natural beauty that is the coastal calm.
Oil executives allow eighty percent of fuel fields to remain dormant. There is no need to give petroleum companies permission to penetrate the Earth’s crust near Florida’s coast.
Might Americans realize oil production is an expense we cannot afford, economically and environmentally.
For years, in cooperation Florida Republicans and Democrats were unified against offshore drilling. Let us not be led astray or forget our conscious choice to clean a badly damaged environment. Our lives depend on this decision.
Resources, Natural and Rare . . .
- Idea of Offshore Drilling Seems to Be Spreading, By Damen Cave. The New York Times. June 19, 2008
- Bush Calls For End to Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling, By Sheryl Gay Stolberg. The New York Times. June 19, 2008
- McCain plays with fire on offshore drilling, By Charles Mahtesian and David Mark. Politico. June 17, 2008
- Stop the Bush-McCain-Crist Drilling Deception. Florida Democrats.