After a 40-year ban on oil exports, the House voted to lift the ban, giving major oil companies suffering from low prices and falling profits, victory. Those who support the bill say that it'll make more jobs, while allowing American producers to compete on the same level as other countries, revitalizing our economy. Those who oppose are afraid that lifting the ban could raise gas prices. The Obama administration is wary of lifting the ban because environmentalists claim this would only increase fossil fuel usage at a time when the country should be using less to reduce climate change. Should this ban be lifted as a job creator? Or are the costs of lifting this ban too high?
Monday, October 12, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Coming from a family of environmental scientists, my view would be that the risk on the environment should take a higher consideration than job economy. Also, yes, lifting the ban can create more jobs, but adopting other policies can benefit this aspect, too.
ReplyDeleteI agree - the potential costs to the environment outweigh the possible benefits of creating more jobs. We need to reduce, not expand, our use and development of fossil fuels. The ban should not be lifted.
ReplyDeleteI also agree, dependence on fossil fuels is something that we as a nation need to ween ourselves off of gradually. This would only set us back in that process. The burning of fossil fuels is too detrimental to the environment for this action to be favorable
ReplyDeleteI agree that the costs to the environment are too high, and that congress should be passing laws against the use of fossil fuels, not for it. As for the job creator, why not create jobs in the clean energy field?
ReplyDeleteHonestly I think this ban should be lifted. Yes, there will be a negative effects on the environment, but it will help our economy. There is still a huge demand for oil and there's a great opportunity to supply it.
ReplyDeleteI am torn between both sides because I truly think our environment is suffering and we need to fix it- but our people are suffering too. I think the ban should be lifted in hope that the unemployment rate would go down. If the numbers don't prove influential enough, I would say to stop usage of fossil fuels as much as we can.
ReplyDeleteAdmittedly, lifting the ban would have significant economic gains, as it would create jobs. And although some fear a rise in gas prices, it seems very possible that lifting the ban would actually lower gas prices around the world; according to the law of supply, an increase in the supply of oil would lower its price to the benefit of its consumers.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, now more than ever do environmental concerns take precedent. We have very limited time left to address the world's environmental issues; I think, for this reason, any benefits from lifting the ban would only be temporary, anyway. In my opinion, the ban should be maintained, according to environmentalists' arguments.
In my opinion, the bill should be lifted in order to create an economic stimulus. Once the effects of the stimulus are felt, however, figuring out a solution that both keeps the economy moving while appeasing environmentalists should become a priority. Increasing the amount of oil production domestically would do nothing to help reverse the effects of climate change, and eventually, new methods for producing energy would have to be found and integrated. Once new methods are found, it would replace the jobs produced by oil companies. But until new technologies are utilized, producing and exporting oil will serve as a way to drive the economy.
ReplyDeleteI think a small, temporary gain in stimulus is far out weighed by our need to protect the environment. While, granted, this won't radically destroy the environment overnight, we need to stop somewhere, and limiting the global oil intake could be start. I agree with Ryan in that if we want to generate some more jobs, we should look to clean energy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think, as with most environmental issues, one must consider the long term consequences before agreeing to the short term benefits. The statistics about oil usage versus the actual available amount is extremely alarming. According to BP, as of our consumption rate in 2014, we only have 53.3 years worth of oil left. By lifting the ban, we would increase this rate, further depleting this nonrenewable resource and damaging the environment. As others have said, there are other ways to benefit the economy. At this point, we should do everything we can to avoid further damaging the environment, even if that means passing up opportunities to help the economy,
ReplyDelete