Why Bother Drilling Deeper?

Offshore oil drilling is one of the most commonly debated endeavors that the US has partaken in. On one side, you have the environmentalists, who are concerned about the effects of this drilling on our environment. On the other side, you have the oil companies, who need to make money by providing increasing amounts of oil to support America’s demand for the resource and the energy it can produce. Many people feel that they need to take a side with one of these entities and fight for said group, but I do not feel that this is necessarily true. When evaluating the factors that should be most important when considering the expansion of offshore drilling, the most important factor that people should look at is the alternative methods of producing energy in America, rather than which side has the “best” ideas.

Whenever a new bill comes out proposing expansion of offshore oil drilling, you always have the environmentalists opposing the bill, and the oil companies agreeing with the bill. There is never a way to make both parties happy. Even if there is a compromise between the two and a smaller number of drilling plants are approved, then both parties are still unhappy, because the environmentalists don’t want any increase at all, while the oil companies want as much increase as possible. In reality there is no way to please both entities, because one wants no offshore drilling at all, and the other wants to fill the entire ocean with them to turn more profit. John Broder, a writer for the New York Times, illustrates this constant displeasure between the two groups in his article titled U.S. To Open New Areas to Offshore Drilling. In this article, Broder discusses a proposed plan for offshore drilling in America. This plan offers a compromise by only adding a few offshore drilling rigs compared to the many requested. Even with this relatively even plan, “Oil industry officials quickly criticized the plan,” and, “Environmental advocates responded vehemently to the new plan,” (Broder). Both entities can never be pleased, so it becomes rather pointless to argue or debate. What we should be focusing on is how we can create a viable source of energy that can make money for the oil companies and keep environmentalists happy. The US cannot depend on oil forever, so why not focus on finding alternative sources while we are relatively comfortable with the sources we have now? This would fix our issues when deciding whether or now to expand offshore drilling, because it would eventually become obsolete. This would not be a quick process, but if it were embraced by oil companies, then both in the long run, oil companies could make lots of money selling clean, renewable energy, and environmentalists would be happy about the new path the oil companies are taking.

Some companies are realizing this already and starting to research renewable energy, but they don’t put nearly as much resources into this alternative research compared to their main oil and gas production. A good example of this is demonstrated in an article by Jad Mouawad in the New York Times. Mouawad says that the oil company Shell, “Spent $1.7 billion since 2004 on alternative projects,” but that the amount was much smaller than the, “$87 billion it spent over the same period on its oil and gas projects,” (Mouawad). I firmly believe that if major companies truly put in the effort to find a renewable energy source, they could not only become very wealthy, but also solve the problem of depending on a nonrenewable resource, and keep environmentalists happy. This would all take dedication and a leap of faith by major oil companies, but it is going to have to happen eventually, so it’s better start now than later.

No, They Will Not.

Deciding where to take one’s education after high school is perhaps the most important decision a young adult has to make in his or her life. There seems to be a growing percentage of people who believe that college is not worth it or that it and that education above high school is pointless. Michael Ellsberg has a strong opinion towards college. In his article titled “Will Dropouts Save America?”, Ellsberg argues that not going to college gives students an advantage in the real world. I feel that this position makes no sense and that it could adversely effect success in the lives of students who read the article.

The argument Ellsberg starts out the article with is that some of the most successful people in the world are college drop outs. One of his main examples is Steve Jobs, who dropped out of college, to create Apple. He indirectly suggests that by not attending college Jobs was able to create his company Apple. What Ellsberg fails to mention in his article is that Steve Jobs did have some sort of education after high school. After he dropped out of college, Jobs continued to take separate college courses including a course on calligraphy. This course on calligraphy later inspired him to include different fonts in his computers, which ended up being one of the most unique and sought-after features of the first Apple computers when they came out. In his 2005 Commencement address to Stanford students, Jobs said, “If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces,” (Jobs). What college did for Jobs is important, it gave him inspiration. Which is what I believe College should do for everyone.

Another argument Ellsberg makes is that college breeds people to work for someone else when they should be creating their own businesses. This argument honestly makes me mad. Ellsberg acknowledges that school doesn’t really teach children how to run a business, so how is anyone supposed to create and properly manage a business if they don’t have any education on how to do so? Ellsberg is basically telling students that it’s perfectly fine to just jump in and make a business without having any knowledge on managing money or people. Doing this would set anyone up for failure. In fact, Ellsberg understands this and believes that "entrepreneurs must embrace failure," (Ellsberg). What he fails to explain is how anyone could turn that failure into success without having knowledge on how to run a business. Also consider that if a majority of people decided to create their own businesses, there would be a lack of workers and businesses would not have much to differentiate themselves from the giant mass of other similar small companies. If everyone followed Ellsberg's advice and dropped out of college to create their own businesses, the only thing America would have is a bunch of businesses that are not run properly and that are likely to fail.

The arguments Ellsberg makes are either totally illogical or misinterpreted. Through his writing, Ellsberg could lead students down a path of destruction, a dark path where learning is not important and success is just handed to people without college degrees. I guess if anything can be taken from Ellsberg's article, it's that students should always make their own decisions. No two people's situations are alike, so it's very important to look at the facts objectively and make a decision that's right for you. I firmly believe that if you do this and make all your decisions based on what you believe and what your goals are, then the only thing you can be is successful.