Friday, November 11, 2005

Romantic environmentalism smashes into cold realities

Echoing a post I made yesterday (including an old quote by him) here’s Charles Krauthammer today with “Pump seriousness into energy policy”:

For decades we've been dithering over drilling in a tiny part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Look, I too love the caribou. They are sweet, picturesque and reputedly harmless. But dire predictions about the devastation that Prudhoe Bay oil development would visit upon the caribou proved false. They have thrived. Let's get serious. We live at the edge of oil shortages and in perpetual vulnerability to oil blackmail. We have soldiers dying in the oil fields of the Middle East, yet we leave untouched the largest untapped oil field in North America so that Lower-48ers can enjoy an image of pristine Arctic purity. This is an indulgence bordering on decadence.
Meanwhile, Steven Milloy of Junk Science reviews how scientific proof of global warming seems a secondary concern to the technical people lauded in this month’s Rolling Stone.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

But dire predictions about the devastation that Prudhoe Bay oil development would visit upon the caribou proved false. They have thrived.

The Prudhoe Bay fields have had 5,000+ spills since 1996. Excuse me, I meant 5,000 unrelated incidents each caused by human error.

Why don't the Conservatives just take the final step already and change their name to "atives"?

Eric said...

Nice try: the oil companies operating up there have to record every bit of non-organic chemical that hits the ground. Thus, a tablespoon of anti-freeze is designated as a "spill."

I'm sure that wasn't detailed in whatever Sierra Club newsletter you pulled that stat from.

Anonymous said...

5,000 tablespoons of coolant. Sure.

You're clearly attuned to partisan statistical massaging. So tell us again how it's okay to annex the 1.5 million acre "tiny part" of ANWR. Because the animals can't stay there while it's covered with ice for 9 months anyway.

For that matter, let's drill under Foxboro Stadium. After all, the Patriots only use the place 8 Sundays a year.

Anonymous said...

Social Security is a juggernaut of doom. But oil dependence keeps America safe and strong. And they call me a dumb animal.

Eric said...

Oh Greasy:

First of all, I noticed you didn't bother to substantiate my assertion about what constitutes a "spill", but that's OK. I'm used to your dismissiveness about anything you don't understand. Just wave your hand and say "Sure" and everything falls into your sphere of "statistical massaging."

As for the "tiny part" of Alaska: even Tim Russert noted that if Alaska were a football field, ANWR would comprise the one-INCH line. I know football metaphors confuse you, but that's a really small area.

As for drilling under Foxboro: if it keeps money away from Hugo Chavez and the Saudis, then drill away.

Anonymous said...

• Size of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: 19 million acres (100%)
• Area closed forever to drilling: 17.5 million acres (92.1%)
• Coastal area within which exploration is proposed: 1.5 million acres (7.9%)
• Maximum total area allowed for drilling: Two thousand acres (0.01%)
• Industry estimates of maximum land need for full extraction: Four hundred acres (little tiny %)

And why is it that the environuts have a full-blown grand mal seizure over the thought of drilling for oil on 2,000 acres of wasteland in the ANWR--an area from which we could get an estimated 1,000,000 barrels of oil a day--but think windmills are a fine idea...2,000 acres of which provide the equivalent energy of 1,800 barrels of oil a day?
Hey, I'm just asking.
--Toren

Anonymous said...

Because oil, unlike wind, is a finite resource. A very optimistic assessment of ANWR is that it may -- may -- eventually produce enough oil over its lifespan to cover approximately 7 months' worth of United States oil consumption. The total projected capacity of ANWR is less than a third of the U.S. emergency stockpile. While half a year of oil is nothing to sneeze at, the effect wouldn't be felt until around 2020, and would have virtually no impact on the per-gallon price of gasoline. Short term or long, it's a blip. It strains reason to fantasize that ANWR can protect us from "oil shortages, oil blackmail, and soldiers dying."

Eric said...

Anon: you make some excellent points.

1) ANWR may hold 7 months supply. Or, like Prudhoe bay, it may hold 700 months supply. We just don't know. There's been just a single seismic test to explore for oil deposits which was inconclusive.

2.) The "it will take 10-15 years to get any oil" argument always cracks me up, even when John Kerry was delivering it. Isn't it the perfect argument to start development NOW before another OPEC-style embargo? The United States is now MORE dependent on foreign oil than in 1973 and thus more vulnerable to disruptions.

The responsible thing to do as a minimum is allow for a definite geological survey so that we can see what's underground and, if there's significant deposits, start to set up the infrastructure. Then, if oil hits $100/barrel, we can keep the billions of dollars a day we would normally be sending to the Saudis.

Anonymous said...

There aren't 700 months of oil in there. The "7 months" figure sits on the high median of the range of 4.3-12 billion recoverable ANWR barrels. A study that missed 99% of the reserve wouldn't be inconclusive, it'd be inept.

I was unclear in citing the 2020 date. It isn't to dismiss the wisdom of preparing for the future. That's the same inane argument for inertia that Laura Bush gave as the mouthpiece for her husband's disgraceful stem cell policy. I should have pointed out that the oil market is already at a crossroads in 2005. If all of the ANWR oil magically dropped into our hands today, it would only provide momentary relief. 15 years from now, with China dead-center in the demand, and with all known reserves substantially depleted, ANWR will be like adding a tenor to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir to get a richer sound.

It's living in the past. We will probably have to wait until the oil-friendly Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have left office, and there is a crisis far more painful than Summer 2005, to be forced into a more foresighted national energy policy than scrounging for leftover oil.