Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from Florida: Published Column: Focus on alternative fuels, not more oil

When most people think of oil spills, they usually see birds covered in sludge, dead fish washing ashore and miles of blackened beaches. What they often don’t think about are the long-term economic consequences for coastal states – like, Florida - that depend heavily on clean beaches and healthy marine life for tourism.

That’s the risk Florida faces - should Congress allow oil and gas rigs to be built right off our shores. With several drilling proposals pending before Congress, our state’s unique environment and tourism-driven economy are in more jeopardy now than ever before.

In the past, Florida always has taken a purely defensive stance on this issue, fighting off oil-drilling proposals as they occurred. But as pro-drilling forces increased their efforts over the past two years, it was time to take control of the issue to ensure long-term protections for our state’s economy and environment.

That’s why Senator Mel Martinez and I introduced bipartisan legislation in February aimed at achieving two basic objectives: banning drilling within 150 miles of Florida’s northwest coast; and, keeping drilling 235 miles away from most of the state’s west coast to protect U.S. military training ranges in the Gulf of Mexico.

I’m encouraged that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and other senators recently sought to address our concerns. They announced an agreement on energy legislation that includes a ban on drilling within 125 miles of Florida’s northwest coast through 2022, and provides protection for those military training ranges out in the eastern Gulf also through 2022.

Still, I’m concerned this proposal - if senators approve it this week - could be changed drastically when House and Senate negotiators meet behind closed doors to craft a compromise. A House bill passed last month is too friendly to the big oil companies, and would allow states to approve drilling within just a few miles of the shore.

That’s why I have asked Sen. Frist to get House leaders to accept the Senate proposal - because, absent that, Florida would be exposed to too much risk through backroom political dealings among pro-drilling lawmakers. Meantime, advocates of ever-more drilling continue to cite rising gas prices and the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. But the fact is additional drilling will not bring down energy prices and save the U.S. from foreign dependence. With only three percent of the world’s oil reserves existing within our country, it’s impossible to drill our way out of this situation. Plus, the American Gas Association reported that natural gas reserves grew significantly last year and now are at their highest level since 1984 - and, natural gas prices just dipped to two-year lows.

So why were consumers paying such high heating bills? The Missouri Attorney General launched one investigation and concluded that Midwestern consumers were paying $5 billion more a month to heat their homes due to price-gouging. As for oil prices - remember, the same oil companies that are lobbying for drilling closer to our coasts raked in billions of dollars in record profits last year on top of the $80-billion in subsidies and tax loopholes they got in last year’s energy bill.

Let’s not cave in to that lobby by allowing more drilling. Instead, let’s address the larger issue: the fact that we’re still addicted to oil. President George W. Bush has acknowledged our dependence, and has concluded: “the long-term solution is to get off oil.” I agree.

Unfortunately, this is not what the House drilling bill aims to accomplish. Instead, it will simply continue our dependence on oil, fulfilling the prediction of former-Secretary of Interior Gale Norton. It was Norton who said drilling in the offshore zone would only lead to further drilling in other areas declared off-limits by a three-decades-old federal moratorium.

Every president since the 1980s – both Republican and Democrat – has supported and even strengthened the moratorium against drilling in most federal waters. Why? Each president concluded that jeopardizing our nation’s coastal economies and environment for a minor amount of our oil supply did not make sense.

Even if we were to have drilling off Florida, California, Maine and all coastal states, as the bill passed by the House would allow, the leases wouldn’t provide a drop of natural gas or oil to any consumer or business for a decade, according to a recent report to Congress by the federal Minerals Management Services.

In a nutshell, consumers will see no relief from the cost of filling their gas tank or paying their home heating bill. And there won’t be any long-term effect on oil prices. That’s because price is determined on the world market; and, there isn’t enough oil under the waters off Florida to have any significant influence.

Instead of focusing on using more oil at the expense of our environment and economy, we must get serious about developing alternative fuels, like ethanol, and about making this country independent of foreign oil within ten years.

More practical fuel technologies exist today than ever before. Ethanol – made from sugar, corn or even switch grass – as well as synthetic fuel made from coal are just a few alternatives to drilling off Florida’s beaches.

And while we are embarking on a path to energy independence, we should launch a congressional investigation of oil company practices and profits.

The bottom line is this: additional drilling closer to our shores carries too many risks and very few lasting rewards. Placing our coastal states’ economies and the environment in jeopardy for only marginal returns simply is not worth the risk.

###