The Obama Administration agreed to open up portions of the Atlantic coast to drilling for the first time last Tuesday while designating parts of oil-rich Alaska as off limits. The decision comes just days after the administration’s push to secure protection of Alaskan wildlife by restricting drilling in an area of nearly 10 million acres. Interior Secretary Sally Jewel complimented the decision, calling it “a balanced proposal that would make available nearly 80 percent of of the undiscovered technically recoverable resources.” The Sierra Club, meanwhile, released a statement claiming that “opening these areas to dirty fuel development is incompatible with a healthy future for America’s coastlines, coastal communities, or our climate.” Although drilling may take many years to be fully approved, do you support the administration’s decision? 

Prof. Dan Perlman (BIOL/ENVS)

Last week I was thrilled to hear the news that President Obama planned to set aside additional areas in Alaska as being off-limits for oil and gas exploration. My excitement, however, was tempered by the news that the president proposed opening a large portion of the Atlantic coastline and additional parts of the Gulf of Mexico for drilling. The key lesson from the Deepwater Horizon blowout of 2010 is that accidents will happen and that they can have far reaching and devastating impacts. In an era when we are trying to move away from fossil fuels, it makes no sense to me to drill alongside large population centers and ecologically fragile areas such as the Chesapeake Bay–especially in an area that is regularly hit by hurricanes (Google “hurricane maps history” and imagine hundreds of oil wells along the East Coast). Let’s take a pass on this one, Mr. President.

Prof. Perlman (BIOL/ENVS) is an Associate Provost of Innovation in Education and a professor of Biology. 

Sophie Freije '17

The Atlantic coast could face wildlife harm and pollution in light of Obama’s new land allocation measure. Oil companies claim their technologies boast accident-resistant safeguards, but accumulating gallons of crude oil in the deep ocean threatens environmental catastrophe. I know drilling may necessarily improve U.S. energy security due to our lackluster adoption of alternative energies. In my most ideal world, politicians would tackle renewable energy implementation, rather than argue over which parts of the ocean they should relinquish to the oil industry. Before we exhaust our next oil supply, I hope U.S. leaders pursue the alternatives: solar power, wind turbines, electric cars and even reducing resource consumption. Only after exploring these feasible options should we lease another piece of the ocean.

Sophie Freije ’17 is a member of Students for Environmental Action.


Prof. Michael Appell (HS)

President Obama has made a wise decision by opting to approve offshore drilling while also protecting spaces within the Alaskan frontier. Environmentalists can point to a major piece of real estate which has been taken off the fossil fuels and extractive industry ‘wish list.’ Developing Alaskan lands for fossil fuels may not have been economically viable in any case. Energy industry leaders–and business interests in general–can breathe a bit easier as a result of the decision to allow offshore drilling. Obama is signaling that he is not anti-business. Rather, he is truly focused on a balanced approach to addressing America’s energy needs. But the president’s message is meant for more than domestic audiences. He is also telling OPEC and the Saudis that America is not content to avoid dependency on foreign oil. America stands poised to become an energy exporter. Only time will tell whether the drill is mightier than the sword.

Prof. Appell (HS) is a senior lecturer and assistant director of the MBA program at the Heller School for social policy and management.


Matt Smetana '17

When talking about destroying an area of near-pristine land, the last fragment in our nation, it’s hard to sympathize. I tend to flock to the side that favors its protection. But that doesn’t mean I blindly walk into a scenario without looking at the facts of the situation. In the case of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the United States Geologic Service estimates 10.4 billion barrels are found in the Reserve. The U.S. Department of Energy states that Americans consume roughly 7.6 billion barrels of crude oil annually. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to destroy a landscape providing tens of billions in ecosystem services for a year’s worth of oil. Instead of wasting money fighting over fossil fuels, we should be funding engineers to discover new, more efficient ways of producing renewable energy.

Matt Smetana ’17 is the co-chair of the Brandeis Senate Sustainability Committee and is a member of Students for Environmental Action.