As the U.S. Senate considers the latest offshore drilling proposal this month, our senators should heed the warnings of the state's chief executive, who raises several strong objections to the plan.

Gov. Mark Sanford cites the hazard to tourism, which as the state's number one industry, generates an estimated $10 billion a year for South Carolina's economy. He further contends that the bill provides insufficient protections to the state's environment or to its sovereignty.

The governor detailed his objections in a recent letter to the state's congressional delegation, citing the importance of the coastal habitat and the need to conserve energy as an alternative to the ill-advised exploration of offshore sites for natural gas and oil.

"This legislation immediately revokes the moratorium on offshore drilling, and puts in its place a very limited protection for South Carolina," he wrote. He cited the inadequacy of the opt-out provision to limit drilling closer than 100 miles from shore.

Both the Legislature and the governor must agree to opt out, and must do so every five years to limit drilling as close as 50 miles. "Even, then the Secretary of Interior is allowed to deny a state's petition," he wrote.

Additionally, it removes the requirement for an environmental impact statement, which would "seriously inhibit our ability to determine the impact of drilling on wildlife, habitat and most importantly, our tourism economy."

Gov. Sanford notes that neighboring states could allow offshore drilling "without consideration for the protection of our waterways, marine life or coastline."

High fuel prices have given life to proposals that would remove the 25-year moratorium on offshore drilling. Fluctuating prices and the intense efforts of industry advocates should not be sufficient to persuade coastal senators to sign onto the idea. Neither should the promise of royalties to the individual states.

Gov. Sanford takes the long view on offshore drilling. His arguments should encourage our senators to approach the bill more deliberatively than their counterparts who supported the bill in the state's House delegation. There's too much at stake for South Carolina to support a speculative venture that could endanger the state's coastal resources, natural and economic.