'Gang of 10's' energy proposal creates new problems

Sen. Lindsay Graham and his "Gang of 10's" recent proposal for solving America's energy crisis falls woefully short of substantive reform. In what is becoming an unsettling trend from the media and the public, a free pass is being given on the hard questions that should be answered before moving ahead with a proposal of this magnitude.

T. Hamilton Davis IV

The proposal's wayward focus on offshore drilling and nuclear reprocessing is not justified by readily available facts and studies. That being said, the proposal isn't all bad. A large amount of federal dollars would be spent on research and development for alternative fuels. Tax incentives would make buying higher mileage vehicles more affordable.

The glaring problem with the proposal is that it lacks the kind of cost-benefit analysis and objective evaluation necessary to actually affect change.

Recent studies by the U.S. Department of Energy have concluded drilling offshore in the current off-limit zones will have insignificant impacts on both gas prices and our foreign dependence on oil. No studies to the contrary are being produced by proponents of offshore drilling, and the errant claim that drilling in these areas will lower gas prices is being swallowed by the public and media without an ounce of scientific support.

A congressional report released this year points out that the oil industry holds leases on 68 million acres of public lands that could reduce foreign oil dependencies by a third, yet no drilling is currently taking place. The report also recognizes the fact that nearly 80 percent of oil and natural gas reserves on the eastern seaboard are presently available for leasing. The Gang of 10 proposal fails to justify why our most environmentally sensitive areas should now be opened to this industry when enormous reserves are available but sitting idle. Shouldn't the media and the public be demanding an answer to these questions?

In his avid support for this proposal, Sen. Graham has stated that offshore drilling is safe and Hurricane Katrina provided the proof when no oil spilled in the Gulf during that storm. This statement begs the question of how much research and thought actually went into this proposal.

The U.S. Coast Guard estimates that Katrina caused over 740,000 gallons of oil to be spilled from offshore operations and over 7 million gallons were spilled from the onshore facilities necessary to support this industry. This past July we witnessed a 400,000 gallon oil spill that closed over 100 miles of the Mississippi River for weeks.

The offshore drilling debate also raises yet another question that has not been addressed: What coastal communities in South Carolina will be despoiled by the refineries and storage facilities now marring the Gulf Coast? Beaufort? Awendaw? McClellanville? Is it not appropriate for a reporter to ask the proponents of this industry to suggest what part of our coast is fit for hundred plus acre refineries?

Sen. Graham also touts the benefits of nuclear reprocessing for this state. What he doesn't say is that countries like France and Italy are currently courting places like South Carolina to dump their waste because of the national security and environmental risks associated with their own nuclear reprocessing programs. In addition, this industry must be heavily subsidized by tax dollars to function.

If we are to make real progress in the energy arena, it is incumbent upon our leaders to present honestly the pros and cons of different solutions and what impacts they will have on our local communities. We cannot ignore the threat offshore drilling poses to our tourism economy and our quality of life, nor can we pretend nuclear processing poses no serious hazards. We must hold our elected officials, the media and ourselves responsible when these realities are being swept under the rug.

Moving forward with comprehensive energy legislation will require an objective evaluation of the potential for renewable energy sources like wind, solar and tidal to replace foreign energy supplies. It will require implementing aggressive energy efficiency measures that can significantly reduce demand. It will require we accept that high gas prices may be here to stay and that we invest in mass transit and the development of mixed use, sustainable communities instead of building new highways and subsidizing more sprawl.

There will be no easy decisions as we act to address our energy dilemma. It may be the most complicated challenge facing our society, and this is precisely why the Gang of 10 proposal fails. It assumes that simply drilling for more oil and bringing more of the nation's nuclear waste to South Carolina will somehow save us from high prices at the pump. The reality is that a much more balanced and in-depth approach must be taken.

If we fail to diligently evaluate the potential consequences of our decisions, we may just end up destroying the way of life we are struggling to preserve.

T. Hamilton Davis IV is project manager for the Coastal Conservation League.