MAY 7, 2010 – Just because someone can do something doesn’t mean that he or she should do it, right?

I, for example, have the ability to get smashed to the gills every day by drinking a case of beer, but I choose not do that.

Those of you who drive have the capacity to drive on the left side of the road or crash into a tree anytime you want, but you choose not to.

Along these lines, the state of South Carolina soon may have the authority to drill offshore for oil or gas, but should it take that risk? Especially in light of the environmental damage caused along the Gulf states by the massive oil spill?

With South Carolina so dependent upon our beaches for tourism and our marshes and oceans for healthy fisheries, it is counterintuitive to “drill, baby, drill” for a resource that is depleting and, according to conservationists, may not be available in big enough quantities to take the risk.

“If you’re a state with limited resources, you really need to prioritize and pick the energy resource that’s best for the state,” said John Ramsburgh of the League of Conservation Voters in Columbia. “We have 1,000 to 5,000 Megawatts in energy potential in offshore wind. What the geologists are telling us is the potential for offshore oil and offshore gas just aren’t as comparable – are just not as rich.

“It is the job of our elected leaders to not take an all-of-the-above approach [to energy] but to prioritize and to put our resources into what will pay the biggest dividend.”

Crew members assigned to the Coast Guard Cutter Oak, homeported in Charleston, S.C., place the Weir Skimmer into the apex of the boom, during oil skimming operations in the Gulf of Mexico.  More. U. S. Coast Guard photo by Ensign Jason Radcliffe.

Dana Beach, head of the S.C. Coastal Conservation League, worries state leaders haven’t learned about the dangers of offshore exploration and drilling – even after stories this week that oily goo-balls from the Gulf may endanger South Carolina beaches this year.

And what may be more worrisome, he said as he was returning from a conservation lobby day at the Statehouse, is that many leaders don’t understand that even if there were recoverable supplies of oil off the S.C. coast, it wouldn’t make a dent in the overall world supply of fuel.

“It’s not a solution,” Beach said. “This talk of drilling is just political theater.  It’s dishonest. If people really confronted the reality – and this is information that is readily available – then they would not be promoting this lie that it is going to reduce gas prices or make us less dependent on foreign oil.”

A better solution, as suggested by Ramsburgh and Beach, is to concentrate on what really can make an impact – focusing on renewable, clean energy (wind, sun, biomass), instead of old-style fossil fuels that we are depleting rapidly.

Beach said if Americans really wanted to do something to make a difference, they could save more energy by driving slower – at 60 miles per hour instead of 70 – to reduce the country’s reliance on foreign oil. Other possibilities:

• Transform the nation’s auto fleet into hybrid or electric vehicles, which save more energy than gas-powered cars and trucks.

• Upfitting energy-wasting homes with relatively easy efficiency measures, such as installing fluorescent light bulbs, more insulation and better windows, as is being pushed by the state’s electric cooperatives.

• Investing in mass transportation, such as light rail in our larger cities. It wasn’t too many years back that most cities had trolleys.

Bottom line: We can be smart about energy. Drilling offshore for gas or oil isn’t being smart. It’s about continuing to pillage a diminishing resource without taking smart steps to move on to a better, continuing supply to power our future.

For too long, our state policy leaders have operated under the rubric, “Carpe diem,” or “seize the day.” When it comes to drilling offshore, it might be better to slow down and consider the opposite – “amitte diem.” Roughly translated from the Latin, this means “let this one slip by.”

Andy Brack in publisher of Statehouse Report, where this commentary first appeared.