Speaking at Andrew’s Air Force Base in Maryland March 31, President Obama reiterated his commitment to what he called “America’s energy security.” As part of this effort, the president announced his intention to allow more oil drilling off America’s shores.
While the United States has invested millions in the development of clean energy, “in the short term, as we transition to cleaner energy sources, we’ll have to make tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development in ways that protect communities and coastlines,” Obama said.
The administration will be exploring offshore drilling options in the south and mid Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. “Sensitive areas” in the Arctic, like Alaska’s Bristol Bay, will remain protected, Obama said.
Acknowledging that this announcement would not be taken well by those who oppose oil drilling, the president said this was not a decision reached lightly. “But the bottom line is this: given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we’re going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy.”
Do you agree with the president’s statement?
I do agree with obama we need to stop getting oil from the middle east. Why do you think we went into iraq. it was for the oil in iraq not for the iraqi people freedom.
Our troops are dying because dick cheney and bush want the iraqi oil. bush and cheney lied to the American people.
I ask obama to end this war in iraq.
NO AMERICAN BLOOD FOR IRAQ OIL !!!
it is so sad that our american media sometimes hide the truth. america is fighting for dirty zionist Israel. zionist israel is useing our americans troop to fight and steal the iraq’s oil.
God is watching all of us. You can not hide NOTHING from God almighty.
thanks
esse g.
The Obama Administration’s decision to open up coastal areas to off shore drilling is, in my opinion, an obvious political maneuver, and not a very well planned one at that. Republican leadership immediately refuted the impact of the President’s decision. They pointed out that although this is a positive first step, it really is meaningless when the much more bountiful reserves were not included in this proposal. At a time when gas prices are expected to rise, jobs are scarce and the economy is down it’s pointless to begin domestic drilling projects that do not include the Pacific Coast, Alaska and the promising resources in the Gulf of Mexico. Clearly this was a move to gain Republican support as the clean-energy legislation is expected to be introduced in the Senate after passing the House. My question is, why did the President perceive this obviously politicized move as an impactful one? A quick Google search will present you with enough facts to realize that ALL of the drilling proposals are along the coastlines of traditional red stronghold states. So his “bi-partisan” offering is to endanger the pristine Virginia coastline while Californians consume a substantial amount of the oil that is drilled? Pathetic. Mr. President please just stick to your liberal agenda because at least you will remain consistent, and at the very least can maintain your perception as an intelligent, savvy chief executive. This move will not provide any tangible positive results, is counterproductive in forwarding the “clean energy economy” initiative that you campaigned on and is more insulting than appealing when you act like conservatives will appreciate this “bi-partisan” attempt.
Don磘 ever give up, just keep on trying, do the best you can
Agree 100%. Just shows at the end of the day we are all people not a colour statistic.