Yeah, THIS makes sense....
How wonderful. Our country's Senate has just passed legislation to allow drilling for oil in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge.
I can't begin to tell you how many things about this smell rotten, not in Denmark, but right here at home.
First off, before anything else... It's a wildlife refuge. It's been set aside as a place to be untouched for the indigenous wildlife. That's not supposed to be "as long as it's convenient", it's supposed to mean that the animals in this one of very few small corners of the planet can safely live their lives, undisturbed by the various evils Man inflicts upon the Earth.
Also, there are the tactics. Not that it should surprise me, but this bill is attached to a vital budget bill, in a rider, making it harder for Senators to oppose in it’s own right. The rider system is fundamentally flawed in this country, in that it allows completely unrelated things to be lumped together in one vote. Want a new perk for your state? Get the bill attached to something that no one in their right mind can vote against, like anti child abuse legislation. The Senate has on several occasions (although I am not aware of any perpetrated by the CURRENT Senate) slipped through pay raises for themselves by attaching them as last minute riders to other bills with overwhelming support. But the worst of it is that by attaching this particular rider to this PARTICULAR bill, they take away one of the few weapons left in the minority’s arsenal. You may not like the filibuster, but it has been used to great effect down through the years, and to make a bill like this filibuster proof abuses the system.
But the real kicker is that expert opinion says that if we were able to harvest ALL of the oil to be found under ANWR, we could only meet 6 months of this nation’s demand. Now, granted, 6 months on top of what already exists is a nice bonus, but to argue (as they have) that this will somehow loosen the grip foreign oil companies have over our nation is ludicrous. Estimates are that it will take 7-10 years before we can possibly see any of this oil. 7-10 years of destruction of home for caribou, polar and grizzly bears, snow geese, golden eagles, as well as sacred ground for at least one of the native "eskimo" tribes.
And the hypocrisy of it all is that this same congress refuses to increase fuel efficiency standards on automobiles. Why conserve, when we can just make more? What are the needs of a few million animals, compared to the profits of automobile and oil companies, which might be threatened if they were forced to put money towards developing more efficient vehicles? I drive a Toyota Prius, I know it is possible to make a mid-sized car which can get (in warm months) 55-60 MPG, and in winter, around 40. Let’s push the companies to all go that route. There are a number of new technologies which show promise, not the least of which is hydrogen fuel cell technology. Let’s develop that and COMPLETELY eliminate the foreign dependency on oil. Oh, right, our leader’s corporate friends in the oil industry wouldn’t like that one bit.
We don’t really want to reduce our domestic dependency on oil, we just want to find a way to make it OUR oil, instead of someone else’s. Can it be any clearer that the almighty profit margin, and not the American People, is the master to which our government bows?
Copyright (c) March 16, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net
posted by Liam at 3/16/2005 08:47:00 PM
8 Comments:
I grant your point on how things get passed in the Senate. It is a crazy system. But you lose me with your arguments against ANWR. Nothing in your arguments says that it is a bad thing - other than the sacred wildlife reserve is compromised. Since such a small part of the reserve will be touched, I am willing to compromise slightly in favor of civilization against wildlife.
The fuel standards seem as stupid as raising the minimum wage. Destructive for the economy, making the elites feel good and handicaping the ordinary people trying to get buy.
Monday, March 21, 2005 2:15:00 PM
OK, I'll bite. I'm always open to hearing the other side of any argument. (Really, I am. I love to learn new things.)
My point is that it's destructive for little gain. There just isn't that much oil there, and in the mean time, we mess with something which was set aside specifically to NOT be disturbed by "human progress".
I also don't understand (but am open to learning) your argument about fuel standards. My car, a Toyota Prius, gets great gas mileage, and it's not terribly more expensive than a similar non-hybrid car in it's class, and those differences should largely disappear when economies of scale come into play.
Eventually we're going to HAVE to come up with alternate sources of energy. OIL is a limited resource, and regardless of which projection you use, the supplies WILL run out eventually. By that time, our ever-increasing societal need for energy will need a new source, and we'll be FAR better off (as will the economy) if we make a slow, steady progression to new technologies than if we have a sudden emergency scramble at the last minute.
Why not take this opportunity to start switching to some of those new technologies, instead of encroaching further and further across the Earth, like a junky desperately searching for our next fix, when eventually there will be nothing left anyway?
But thanks for posting, I really do encourage you to enlighten me further!
Liam.
Monday, March 21, 2005 2:30:00 PM
Love the dialogue and not trying to preach. I think that the point I am trying to make is that solving our energy problem is more a case of doing many small things rather than one big one. There is some oil in ANWR that we can get with minimal impact on the environment. GET IT.
The new hybrid technology is exciting and the higher oil prices are making it ever more attractive. USE IT.
Maybe the hydrogen thing will work out but don't pump government money into it. IF IT IS VIABLE, BIG OIL OR SOME COMPANY ABLE TO COMPETE WITH BIG OIL WILL GRAB IT.
When you have a few years under your belt, unless you are competely oblivious to reality, you notice that what was believed to be true at one time is now ridiculed. Government (and the crazy system by which laws are passed) is very vulnerable to falling for convential wisdom and mandating policies and spending which turn out to be wasteful and irresponsible.
For this reason, I don't want government overriding economic decisions.
My prediction is that the solution will come from a direction and involve technologies completely off the scanner just now.
Monday, March 21, 2005 8:15:00 PM
Ah, but Ralph, drilling in ANWR is a big government decision. It strikes me as all the things you might fear.
- it is an emotional move with little real impact
- it gives people a false sense of security
- it encourages the public to maintain their current usage patterns
- it burns a resource that will be of more value to the nation 50 years from now
You know, I'm a pessimist in the sense that I think we humans will burn all available oil. But it disturbs even the pessimist in me that we will burn it too fast, and based on our emotional needs, rather than any practical considerations.
Why shouldn't I picture this as a bunch of fat, lazy, stupid, people sitting on their couches (with their mouths full) saying "bring us ANWR!"
It beats, you know, doing anything yourself.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:10:00 PM
Anon,
It is an economic - not an emotional decision. The opposition to it is emotional.
It gives a sense of doing something rather than wringing hands.
I won't be avaiable for 7 years and will have minimal impact on oil price in the meantime.
It uses a resource while it still has value. Who is to say that we will be using oil in 50 years. Enviros can't have both sides of the argument.
What visions you have are completely beyond my control.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005 1:28:00 PM
When people tell us "gas prices are high, so we should drill ANWR, and have more oil ten years from now" ... that's rational?
I see a ten year gap, and emotional response is the best explanation for that gap. Indeed, as you say:
"It gives a sense of doing something rather than wringing hands."
(Your "seven years" is the first time I've seen it, so I'll go with the common number.)
Wednesday, March 23, 2005 2:41:00 PM
Anon,
Yes.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005 5:17:00 PM
Nice answer ;-), but it is unfortunately completely wrong.
If you are worried about gas prices this summer, it would be rational to do something that will affect your gas prices, this summer.
Of course, if we want to reduce our fuel expenses for this summer there are only two options: we can drive less, or we can switch to more efficient cars.
Do you know what the problem with those is? The actually ask us to do something! They ask us to take charge of our own lives!
It is so much easier to sit on our fat lazy bottoms and wait for ANWR!
Wednesday, March 23, 2005 8:35:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home