Ecological policy
The policy was put in place to restrict the utilization of natural resources and activities that result in extinction of endangered plants and animals. Concerning the proposed drilling project, the exact method to be used poses an environmental risk because the mixture of water, sand and corrosive chemicals would flow along an underground water table and thus enter the Ocean.
The highly corrosive and radioactive chemicals would cause threats to aquatic life. The proponents would argue against that by indicating the fact that deposition of these chemicals would not cause direct threats to the ecosystem (Recent News on Natural Gas Drilling, 2013).
Efficiency policy
the US efficiency policy was established to guide the utilization of the country’s resources in a sustainable manner. That is, without incurring economic and environmental losses. Concerning the controversy, the drilling would help reduce the country’s dependency on imported Oil.
It would also serve as an alternative source of energy and would help reduce carbon emission thus help reduce the climate change and its effects. Proponents would argue that it would help reduce the cost of life and help reduce global warming (Recent News on Natural Gas Drilling, 2013).
Safety policy
in general, the safety policy is about creating a safe country from diseases, poison and any other activity that brings harm to its Citizens. Concerning the controversy, drilling the natural gas would help reduce health risks associated with pollution of Land, air and water through Oil purification processes. Proponents would argue that the project enhances safety standards (Recent News on Natural Gas Drilling, 2013).
Cost benefit analysis
Costs: the cost of hiring the required number of skilled engineers and the machinery for the project is huge. If the project becomes a success, the country’s dependency on Oil would reduce. The situation could weaken the existing good relationship between the United States and its Oil suppliers thus promote terrorist attack. That is an example of a negative external costs associated with drilling. The costs associated with the drilling are not borne equally by all US Citizens (Goodstein, 2010).
Benefits: the major consumers of the gas would be the US citizens. The US government would reap revenues in the form of tax. The surplus would earn foreign exchange to the government through export. The facility would create employment opportunities for those living in New York City and its surroundings. Shareholders of this project would benefit more thus resulting in an unequal income distribution (Goodstein, 2010).
(C): The measurement problem that might hamper the cost-benefit analysis of the project is the alignment of buffer areas and the drilling path. There is a possibility of destabilizing the dams and water tunnels and thus creating a hindrance (Independent Oil and Gas Association, n.d.).
(D): The use of a lower discount rate in estimating drilling costs would provide an overstated estimate. On the other hand, the use of a higher discount rate would present an understated estimation. The cost of the project is discounted to give a figure representing the present values. This means that the future values of the cost are higher than the present values (Goodstein, 2010).
(E): The proceeds from the environmental bonds would be used to solve the climate change problems and invest in environmentally sustainable activities. With regard to this situation, environmental bonds would help the future generation to tackle health problems that would arise after undertaking the project. Proponents of ecological standards including myself would not be for the idea because it is not possible to restore the environment back to its previous state after pollution (Goodstein, 2010).
References
Goodstein, E. (2010). Economics and the Environment. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Independent Oil and Gas Association. Web.
Recent News on Natural Gas Drilling. (2013). Web.