It doesn’t take an activist to be revolted by the horrific scenes of baby seals washed ashore in a wave of oil that plaster the reputation of drilling. Today though, we’re beginning to see a rivaling fury at the sight of a gas station receipt. Is there no relief for the environmentally conscious yet poorly funded college student? Maybe we should save up for a hybrid– or take another look at offshore drilling.

American support of offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is on the rise. According to a recent Rasmussen Reports survey, 85 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of Democrats are in favor of offshore drilling. Even Obama’s stance on the subject has recently shifted from blanket opposition to a sort of limited support. But, it is still exceptionally difficult to find information on the benefits of offshore drilling in the mainstream media. And, with the recent vote in Congress to lift the 1981 ban on offshore drilling, it has become increasingly important for the American populace to be informed. Why have Republicans pushed for offshore drilling so strongly for so long? Why have Democrats let the ban expire? Is it a matter of popularity, or do the long-term benefits outweigh the risks?

The ban’s supporters generally cite environmental issues, a lack of short-term relief in the price of oil or even make claims that offshore drilling won’t meet the U.S. demand for oil. Meanwhile, Republicans, oil companies and a variety of research organizations provide a different view. Those who endorse offshore drilling frequently argue it would lower gas prices, decrease dependence on foreign oils and possibly avoid the advance of a major economic downturn. America certainly stands to benefit from these natural resources. Proponents of offshore drilling claim there are 18 billion barrels of drillable oil that are untapped.

Even if offshore drilling did not completely eliminate this problem it’s difficult to argue that it would not be greatly reduced. In addition to creating new jobs, as an increase in the size of oil companies will do, offshore drilling could give America more control over the market and the price of oil– both of which would bolster the economy in a time of major economic downturn.

It’s difficult to say when these resources will actually become available, and much will depend on how quickly oil companies act. Though some estimates, like those done by the Energy Information Administration, claim that we will not be able to access this supply until some time between 2012 and 2030, the White House claims that “acting now on a long-term solution would send a serious signal to the market that more oil supply will be coming on line.” In a blog post, economist Robert Murphy from the Ludwig von Mises Institute explains that a healthy futures market could stabilize oil prices. With speculators buying when prices are low and selling when prices are high, this would serve to increase the low prices and reduce the high prices, thus contributing to more reasonable, stable oil prices sooner than the oil supply becomes available.

The environmental consequences of offshore drilling have also been exaggerated. While offshore oil spillage does sometimes occur, environmental damage has been minimized since the start of the ban on offshore drilling due in large part to technological innovation. Norway, a major exporter of oil gets its oil from offshore, and has an minimally intrusive environmental record. Statoil, Norway’s national oil company, is working towards zero harmful emissions due in part to government incentives and to social accountability. With an environmentally aware public and environmentally responsible businesses, Norway provides an excellent example for the United States to follow in its offshore drilling practices. And, as stated in Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions blog, there is no reason why the United States would be less environmentally responsible than Norway.

Many oil spills are caused by tankers transporting oil from other countries, many that exercise lax environmental regulations. It is possible that drilling in America would actually reduce oil pollution by decreasing the number of international oil tankers traveling to the United States. Certainly, it is a preferable alternative to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which would have a far more pronounced affect on the environment and the wildlife inhibiting the Alaskan wilderness found to be so desirable for its extensive oil resources.

Perhaps the benefits of offshore drilling are years away, but they aren’t going to get any closer if we wait longer to start drilling. While this is no substitute for the research and development of renewable and environmentally friendly forms of energy, it could certainly buy some time for corporations to get to work on these issues as well as some relief at the pump for Americans in the meantime.