The May 21 letter, "Risk is a price we pay for our energy," claimed the Gulf oil gusher represents risks we must accept for our oil use and that only those in "Liberal La La Land" would think otherwise. Although our collective oil use requires some risks, the letter writer was in his own "La La Land" regarding the current situation. It has been reported BP made inappropriate decisions to reduce expenses and increase risks, including overriding recommendations from drillers that might have prevented the worker deaths and all this damage. And although we have seen bad images, BP has reportedly tried to restrict access and prevent full knowledge of the impacts and has reportedly even limited experienced volunteer wildlife rescue efforts. As a result, when compared to past spills, little has been done to help sea mammals and birds.
For years, the oil industry and its conservative media friends have fostered misunderstanding about the consequences of oil production. How can the writer claim consumers have taken on these risks when the industry is misleading about them and doesn't follow good management practices?
And the writer was off base to suggest that responsibility for these risks is simply a matter of using oil because risks are a matter of how much is used. For decades, many Americans have done much to reduce energy use and start the transition that must eventually occur from petroleum to reduce environmental, economic and the security costs of oil use.
Some individuals and companies promote the "drill, baby, drill" mentality to maintain waste of oil for their short-term benefit, thereby harming future generations.
This disaster should make us support the first group and oppose the latter. This isn't a matter of abrupt, drastic changes in lifestyle or living risk-free, but rather of moderate expense and effort, and limited sacrifices, to help our country and our future.
ADVERTISEMENT
Russell Erickson
Duluth
