Environmentalists to blame for Gulf spill?

Environmentalists to blame for Gulf spill?

Charles Krauthammer, a controversial Washington Post columnist, recently addressed the blame game being played out in regards to the Gulf spill and his take may not sit will with everyone, but is it worth consideration as we proceed with policy and regulatory alterations?

"Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place? Environmental chic has driven us out there."

Krauthammer says it's because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. And in the safest of all places, on land, weve had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Krauthammer continues, and in my opinion, makes an even stronger argument by asking, "where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. Thats a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?"

If you've gotten really heated already, don't worry, he admits that the environmentalists are not the only ones to blame. But that it's odd that theyve escaped any mention at all. And he goes on to discuss BP's and the government's roles as well.

What do you all think? Assuming oil production won't end for at least another 20 years, and that's a HUGE stretch, where do we do it? How do we pick our battles and categorize which methods are really the best for the environment?