Through understanding, grasping the sense of the world as we dance through the movement of history....
If I commit action X, and action X leads to a detrimental consequence, then one of the proper action by the sovereign might be temporarily banning action X against all individuals. Temporarily banning offshore drilling might seem to fit this picture, but a careful look reveals something else.
Why did the Obama Administration ban offshore drilling? For many, this question might not be trivial, because banning offshore drilling might be the most obvious response against the oil spill. The problem with this thinking is this: the oil spill was not caused by offshore drilling. Although an investigation is still going on regarding this matter, the BP oil spill was caused by poor maintenance of an existing oil well. Thus, isn’t the proper response to ban all oil well activities until all of the wells are investigated for proper maintenance?
If the oil spill was caused by new offshore drilling, then the Obama Administration’s action is justified. However, this is not the case, and there is growing skepticism to the intent of temporarily banning offshore drilling. This is mere speculation, but one possibility behind the administration’s response is to placate angry Green supporters.
The Green supporters are already upset with the oil spill, so to prevent any additional lose of general political support, the administration might have temporarily banned offshore drilling to appease the Green supporters. There is not enough evidence to support this analysis, however.
What is clear is that temporarily banning offshore drilling does not seem to be rooted in a direct response against the oil spill but potentially directed by another intention. The administration’s move on this ban needs to be severely interrogated.
