Last month the Obama administration released a draft for its 5-year offshore drilling plan. The draft allows the U.S. government to sell leases for oil and gas development in federally owned waters from 2017 to 2022.

The areas newly made available include the southeastern coast spanning from Virginia to Georgia, additional portions of the Gulf of Mexico as well as a portion of the Arctic Seaboard. This is just the latest example of President Barack Obama’s “all of the above” energy strategy, and one that contradicts the widespread persona Obama has crafted for himself of tackling climate change no matter the cost.

Not only is increased accessibility to oil drilling an invitation for ecological disaster in already sensitive regions, it is yet another step in the wrong direction in a time where the investment in fossil fuels is the root of our problems, not the answer. As the drafting process moves forward, this must be an area of increased scrutiny.

The nation’s worst ever oil spill, commonly referred to as the BP oil spill, occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, polluting the sea with over 4.9 million barrels of oil. As part of a Feb. 18 New York Times debate panel in regard to the new offshore drilling plan, Richard Lazarus, executive director of the Presidential Commission responsible for identifying the root causes of the 2010 Gulf oil spill, said, “Congress has failed to enact a single statute increasing safety in offshore drilling in response to the huge regulatory gaps revealed by Deepwater Horizon.”

For a bit of perspective, according to the documentary “Mission Blue,” in 1947 there was one offshore drilling site in the Gulf of Mexico. As of 2014, there were more than 33,000 drill sites. If this same emphasis was placed on the expansion of renewable, sustainable energy, we would not be on the verge of an irreversible climate disaster like we are today. It is time to break this destructive cycle and begin anew.

A common argument in favor of expanding domestic oil production is that it is fiscally responsible and that if the U.S. government does not do it, others will. This mindset is dangerous for a number of reasons. For one, it prioritizes theorized short-term economic gain over long-term environmental sustainability. A Jan. 19 article from Chron.com argues that opening the Atlantic to offshore drilling “could result in $23.5 billion added to the U.S. economy.” These statistics ignore the tremendous fiscal and ecological risk that a spill poses.

A spill can cripple a local economy. Take the ocean-dependent tourism industry on the southeastern seaboard for example. In the same New York Times panel, Sierra Weaver, a senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, pointed out that “by the government’s own estimates, ocean-dependent tourism in the mid- and South Atlantic contributes $6.5 billion and $4.4 billion annually to coastal communities.”

Offshore drilling is assured to harm local habitats and increase harmful CO2 emissions. Furthermore, the economic argument in favor of it, already short sighted as is, pays little regard to costs of massive spills even though history has shown that it is not a matter of if they will happen, but rather when.

The proposed opening up of previously protected federal waters to offshore drilling is irresponsible to marine life, local communities and our environment as a whole. Scientific consensus continues to stress the negative environmental effects of fossil fuel industries, but from looking at Obama’s 5-year plan, you wouldn’t know it.

Azor Cole is a junior public relations major and geography minor. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at azcole@syr.edu and followed on Twitter at @azor_cole.

Published on February 26, 2015 at 12:19 am