Blogcritics Comments on More ANWR ranting

Comment by gonzo marx

Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:20:27 EST

ej sez... *we need to thimk* quoted fer Truth, if not fer spelling i just couldn't resist... Excelsior!

Comment by ej

Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:45:23 EST

I'm reminded of that TV commercial where all the guests at a dinner table are discussing the hymlic maneuver while one of the dinner guests is gagging and choking in the background. Too much information...now is time for action. We have the technology do drill safely We have the support of the local peoples to drill We want to remain a world-leading country...and to do so requires economic strength...not pristine material things we can look at and admire from afar... But, on the other hand slipping the anwr into a budget bill setup for war against terrorism is sneaky and unacceptable As a professional truck driver, I can see a point of diminishing returns...we can't handle much more traffic out here!...Truckstops fill up by 9pm and there are no safe places to park the trucks that bring life to the distribution of the products we all so conveniently have at the local store...so continuing to 'fuel' this ever increasing transportation nightmare is futile; we need to find alternative transportation we need to preserve areas of wilderness or mother nature will turn her back on us we need a million more jobs...but jobs that don't inherently add to more fuel consumption: that is...wont add to the commuter parking lots, we need intelligence, patience and detailed planning we need to stop rushing ahead due to political pressure and/or on the whims of money-controllers we need to thimk

Comment by JR

Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:34:33 EDT

ANWR won't make us energy independent. ANWR won't appreciably delay the exhausting of our petroleum supply. ANWR won't significantly reduce energy costs. In short, drilling in ANWR won't much change anything but some pristine wilderness and the pocketbooks of a few oil company executives. Since I'm not an oil company executive, I vote to leave at least this small fraction of the Earth the way we found it.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:28:46 EDT

Sartresson, I think that is an excellent idea, and answers JR's objections, among others. However, people are screaming right now because gas is $2/gallon (or so I hear, it never got above $1.88 here in Dallas), so imagine how much they would shriek if we imposed a tariff of several dollars per barrel of oil. Then realize that when we impose tariffs on imports from other countries, they tend to retaliate by imposing tariffs on our exports. Moreover, the imposition of tariffs is now in some case illegal, a violation of international trade laws. Basically, before imposing a stiff tariff, we would need to be sure that we could do without foreign oil if needed, and we couldn't do that, even with ANWR, for a while. And even then we would face retaliation. I don't think anybody is saying the solution to this is simple, but keeping ANWR off the table makes it even more complicated, needlessly so.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:20:46 EDT

yes, Kerry's old and never-acted upon proposal to raise gas taxes was so well received

Comment by Sartresson

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:12:20 EDT

Why aren't the commentary on this blog emphasizing that there is a market solution to the problem of oil dependency. The government can propose a "Freedom Tax" on all oil that comes from dictatorships. This will cause the over all price of oil to rise, decreasing consumption and providing incentive for people to conserve oil. They can conserve oil by developing more energy efficient technology, substituting other energy sources, and of course just by driving less.By my estimates this tax eventually total at least two dollars. But in the beginning, it should be 25 cents, increasing by 50 cents every year. This will allow industry to adjust to a now explicit cost of oil consumption. The cost of our dollars being sent to the Arab Sheiks who have a tendency to reinvest it in terrorism.

Comment by J. Burns

Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:10:34 EDT

I think both Phillip Winn and JR are making valid points. However, I may just be more radical in that P. Winn's arguement is flawed concerning his information. The new hybrid cars are around twenty thousand dollars, and the future savings in gasoline is abundant. My brother drives a Honda Insight, which can go from Alabama to California on about $40. In contrast, my car, a GMC Yukon will eat $40 in about 350 miles. Furthermore, the main reason that the hybrids are not popular is not b\c of cost. The main factors are style and size. If car companies made a larger more stylish hybrid vehicle, comparable to what most Americans drive, sales would go up. One in six Americans drive SUV's because of the perception that "bigger is better." People, even in large cities, drive SUV's b\c of the style and knowledge that they can "haul" things or use 4WD, whatever. If you compare cost with the typical SUV and a hybrid, and the mpg you will see that price is definitely not a concern with most people in our "consumer economy." Also, it sounds like Winn needs a bus, not a van for car pooling the people he does. Which is good. ANWR is not an issue of conservation. It is not an issue of when to use the resources that are there. It is a WILDERNESS PRESERVE. This means preservation of habitat, species, and land for their inherent good. It is NOT to be used in wise-use conservation practices. THAT precisely is the debate. The fact that it is the largest tract of land in America unspoiled by human development, human interferrence, and human garbage that civilization produces is why it should not be drilled. Congress said that only 2000 acres of the 1.2 million in the 1002 area could have development on it. However, this only includes the area that touches the ground, not pipelines. So theoretically, industry could "develop" the entire 1.2 million acres. It's like a fishing net, the line doesn't take much space, but the area of coverage is much greater. As for "coddling" dictators for oil, the United States has coddled more dictators, especially in the 1970's and early 1980's, for more superficial reasons. We, the U.S. Gov't, also trained many of the most notorious human rights violators of Latin America, including General Noriega, at the School of Americas in Ft. Benning, GA. In addition, we have supported terrorists, including the much sought after Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. So honestly, I think that the government needs to leave well enough alone, worry about the world politics that they are in, and save some of the world, just a small piece, undestroyed. Just once...

Comment by JR

Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:20:30 EDT

I can argue with it quite easily: It won't work. How would drilling in ANWR stop us from buying oil from the Saudis? The fact is that they can produce it cheaper than we can. If OPEC feels threatened, they can cut prices to the point where we'd be drilling at a loss. Do you really think that once we start pumping oil out of ANWR we're suddenly going to stop using Saudi oil, despite the pressures of the market? Do you have a PLAN for how the U.S. is going to guarantee that none of our energy use will depend on Saudi oil, or should we just start drilling and hope it all works out for the best? Not only is ANWR oil insufficient to change our foreign policy, I don't see why it's even necessary. We don't HAVE to coddle the House of Saud. After all we didn't feel the need to coddle Iraq's murderous dictator, and he was sitting on the world's second largest oil reservoir. And I'm sure there are much better ways to promote human rights without jeopardizing our energy supply OR drilling in ANWR. So again, why do it? Personally, I am one of those who would like to see parts of the Earth preserved from humanity's footprint just on principle. I don't see conservation as something that needs justification; to me it's a value in itself. I notice not everybody feels that way, so that's why I made the point about conserving oil for future generations. And you still haven't shown that there's no need to conserve oil (or wildlife). Future generations are "less likely" to need oil, but there are still no guarantees. We don't HAVE those future technologies, so we don't know that they really exist or will work. I guess I just prefer to err on the side of caution, and lack of ANWR oil hasn't exactly left us in dire circumstances yet - I still see people commuting in Hummers.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:38:33 EDT

JR (#19), no, "dependence" is not like "uniqueness." Can something be 5% unique? 50% unique? 90% unique? No, something is either unique or it is not. And yet dependence can be measured in degrees, and it is important. If we are 5% dependent, we can simply trim our needs for short-term crises, or more likely, other oil-producing companies can step in to replace the ones that cut us off. If we are 50% dependent, that is more difficult. How many countries out there can single-handedly make up for a sudden loss of 20% of our oil consumption? How about 30%? 40%? And so on. Right now there is excess oil capacity available, though most of it is being kept off of the market to keep the price high. Russia and OPEC nations are cooperating to ensure this. If all domestic sources suddenly dried up on us, we'd pay through the nose, but the world market could handle it. The oil is out there, but it isn't under our control. Again, the good is not the enemy of the perfect. It is a step in the right direction. Is there a danger that, having taken that step, the urgency will be reduced and progress will stop? Sure. Does that mean that no steps should be taken unless a giant leap can be made all at once? Of course not. I asked about conservation only to highlight what empty rhetoric it all is. "We must conserve." Why? "To save oil for future generations." Why? If we save that oil by converting completely ail from burning oil, why do we need to save oil for a future that doesn't need it? You want to take options away from us to preserve them for future generations that are less likely to need them? It's empty and nonsensical. We do need to conserve, but we need to know why, too. We need to get off of oil because we cannot meet our needs domestically after the next 20 years, and society will grind to a halt then. Does that sound right? I don't think so. There are a lot of assumptions there, including that we will rely on domestic oil for the entire 20 years, that no foreign oil will be available, and that no new technologies will be developed in the next 20 years to make extraction of oil from sources that are currently not very feasible economically. I don't want to count on technology saving the day, but 20 years ago Ted Danson was still telling everybody we would all be dead within ten years. How about this one? I think it's far more reasonable: We need to reduce our dependence on oil so that we no longer have to coddle murderous dictators like the house of Saud. Who can argue with that?

Comment by debbie

Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:42:25 EDT

I'm looking forward to the Escape, how exciting, a fuel efficient hybrid SUV. How cool is that!!!

Comment by JR

Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:33:13 EDT

Dependence is like "uniqueness", there are no degrees thereof. Suppose we did import only 5% of our oil. Then we might be able to conserve, or we might be able to make up for it by exploiting more domestic deposits. In that case, we would not be "dependent". If on the other we import 50% of our oil, then chances are we wouldn't be able to conserve that much. Or perhaps we could never even squeeze the 5% out. In that case we are "dependent". Even if ANWR could make a difference, there is the question of for how long. I think 18 years is pretty optimistic, especially since it's based on the high-end of the USGS estimate of how much oil is actually there. Furthermore, that ANWR oil is not easy to get to; the reality of the market is that the "private sector" will still find it cheaper to dictate foreign policy than to get all our oil from Alaska. As things stand, we still have to deal with all the foreign policy consequences of oil dependence. Since ANWR will not bring us the benefits of energy independence, the argument for drilling there is not compelling. And by preserving I mean preserving for possible FUTURE use. If we pump it, we'll use it. The oil companies will guarantee that because it's their business to sell the stuff, not pump it and store it. How do you know we won't have a need for oil in 50 years. I expect we will find alternatives, but how do we KNOW? In addition to leaving our children national debt, are we going to leave them without energy options?

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:51:46 EDT

All of these comments sound very reasonable and I am glad to hear them

Comment by Mark Saleski

Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:50:31 EDT

for more information on how the government has been in bed with the auto industry...to the detriment of both clean air and fuel efficiency, take a look at the book High and Mighty

Comment by Phillip Winn

Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:44:46 EDT

Unfortunately, I have three kids and regularly transport others, so that even my seven-passenger minivan often leaves one person trailing in another vehicle. Still, the minivan is new, has a very healthy emissions level (relatively speaking), and it will be many, many years before I can do anything about that. My truck, on the other hand, usually carries one person. But I paid $10k for it, and specifically wanted the ability to haul things. As rarely as I haul things, I could rent a truck every now and again, but I still couldn't get a hybrid for $10k. Still, I'm optimistic. Whether LNG or hybrid or fuel cell or whatever, we're getting closer to something good, though more slowly than I'd like. Maybe soon I'll be able to get rid of that truck and get a practical vehicle for under $20k!

Comment by Joe

Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:33:36 EDT

I've been looking at hybrids for a while due the the length of my daily commute. Honda has a Civic Hybrid, which is pretty much the same as the regular Civic but with , and the Insight, a kind of funky looking CRV-esque thing, which both run around $20K, Ford will be rolling out the Escape hybrid next summer, which is a scaled down Explorer, comparable to a RAV-4, I think. It will also be about in the same price range, $19-25K. So baby steps are being taken, but I'd say it'll still be at least 5 years before we'll have enough options for hybrids to make even a minor impact.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:31:41 EDT

"We" have no warm fuzzy feeling that those specific acres in ANWR must be left alone at all costs, but are concerned that the action must not be taken alone. As I said above, "Personally, I don't have a problem with drilling in ANWR, but only if we are taking serious steps to reducing our dependence on petroleum, foreign and domestic." Debbie, that's more or less my point. We all talk the talk of wanting to reduce our dependence on oil, but nobody buys the cars! This is one of those cases where the government should step in if it truly is important. A more hardcore libertarian than I am would say that technology has an inexhaustible supply of solutions, and we will make more efficent use of oil, or find ways to extract it from new sources, or make really really cheap cars that use renewable resources, or whatever, and that even if technology fails us in that regard, the market should always decide. In most cases, I tend to agree, but sometimes that does just leave the problems for other people to deal with after we're dead, and pollution is killing people today, right now. My county just instituted smog checks for the first time this year, and Dallas has "orange" and "yellow" ozone days all summer long. I think that the evidence that CFCs or car exhaust causes the hole in the ozone layer down south to be weak, but there is no question that auto exhaust is making people sick right now, today, where I live. At that point, I'm willing to see government, whether local or state or federal, help out with subsidies and tax breaks and so on to hasten adoption of cleaner vehicles. Hybrids are a good start.

Comment by debbie

Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:21:01 EDT

The hybrid cars cost more now (up front costs, but the savings in gas help recoup the extra money) but technology gets cheaper the more people buy it. The cost will always be higher if nobody is willing to buy it, it is mass production that lowers the cost of technology. I have a family of 5, they don't have a hybrid car that will seat all of us so I don't own one (at this time) however I do have one leaving for college next year so I am seriously considering buying the Toyota (4 seats). We pay more for electric windows, automatic transmission, air conditioning, etc. We as consumers determine what we want, if we bought the hybrid vehicles then they would make them.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:16:18 EDT

I am frankly confused here: are we for or against drilling in ANWR? This is one of my "liberal" areas - I don't care how much flipping wilderness is up there, I don't want to see any of it fouled up with drilling. In addition to being pointless as far as fulfilling our needs in the big picture, there is plenty of oil already available until we get the next generation of energy going, and leave dirty, smelly, polluting, nonrenewable oil in the dustbin of history.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:47:15 EDT

JR (#9), there is a big different between getting 5% of our oil from the Gulf and getting 50% of our oil. Dependent is not dependent in the sense that 5% dependency is less than 50% dependency. It's simple math. As is often the case, you're essentially stating that good is the enemy of perfect. I'm not happy about accepting half-measures, but every little bit helps. For all of the statements that we should be less dependent on oil, most people still drive. Practically speaking, cutting of the oil supply means death and destruction in the here and now in exchange for what later? Preserving oil for what, if we're not going to use it? I would like to see practical alternatives to petrol usage. Telecommuting would be great, if many telecommuters didn't see it as a license to hang out in their undies and have kids babbling in the background on important conference calls and so on. Carpooling can be helpful, but the circumstances there are very limited. Debbie (#10), that would be nice indeed. Right now the hybrid cars cost several thousand more than a "regular" car, and not too many people are buying them. So few people bought Honda's electric that they quit selling it. We all went a better future, but how many of us are willing to pay good money for it? Apparently, not many. As liberatarian as I would like to be, there are some times when enlightened self-interest just doesn't seem to be enlightened enough.

Comment by debbie

Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:36:23 EDT

I would prefer to see the private sector come up with a solution instead of the government. The government screws up everything it touches and it ends up costing more money and time because there isn't any competition involved. We have made great strides in this area, we now have two mainstream hybrid vehicles with Honda and Toyota. If we show that we mean business and start purchasing them then GM, FORD and CHRYSLER will follow to get in on the sales. Not only that, they will try to one-up the competition so consumers will want to purchase theirs and not the competitor's. This will also create private funding for research (so they can get a bigger piece of the pie) and not cost us in extra taxes. We just have to "put up or shut up" and buy the hybrid vehicles out there, write to the auto makers saying that you won't be buying their products until they come up with something similar or better. I don't believe that the government needs to keep us on the "bottle" from cradle to grave. We need to step up to the plate and do what we believe in. If it is a good idea, it will catch on and consumers will line up for it. There is a lot less resistance if you are not force feeding it.

Comment by JR

Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:30:43 EDT

"you have to build ROADS for people to be able to get out there to observe that primordialness." Uh, didn't YOU get there without a road? "And why not have the road be built by the oil companies, who could take advantage of the oil while they were up there?" Well, actually, those oil company roads are supposed to be ice roads – they won't be there for tourist season. So that argument is completely bogus. "While they were at it, they could get some money to the native alaskans who could use it." If they want money, they can move to where the jobs are. That's what the rest of us have to do. And I find the claim that we can drill oil without leaving much of a footprint rather optimistic. It's only environmentally friendly technology until some drunken bozo comes along and shoots a hole in the pipeline. Let alone someone actually blows up a pipeline, which coincidently seems to happen a lot nowadays. Since we're all concerned about preservation, how about maybe trying to preserve some petroleum for future generations? If it's so important to us, we should consider the possibility that our grandchildren will need it too. We're still going to be dependent on foreign oil even if the oil starts coming out of ANWR tomorrow. What difference does it make how much oil we need to import? Dependent is dependent. The only way we're going to become self-sufficient is through conservation. Any other "solution" is just a distraction from what really needs to be done. If after actually TRYING to reduce our consumption, and perhaps after the Middle East runs out of oil, THEN we should resort to ANWR. That would be the CONSERVATIVE thing to do. In the meantime, what's the hurry?

Comment by Phillip Winn

Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:10:16 EDT

My understanding is that after talking about research into non-petroleum alternatives during SotU, the funding was later trimmed in the actual budget. If we're serious about weaning ourselves from oil, we're going to need to seriously push alternatives. Tax breaks for people who use hybrid or non-oil vehicles, open grants for university research, matching grants for corporate research, that sort of thing. Of course, that's more of our tax dollars, but with $87+ billion going to fight a war in Iraq, apparently there is money lying around already. ;)

Comment by debbie

Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:55:02 EDT

What action do you want to see to back it up?

Comment by Phillip Winn

Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:06:17 EDT

Mark (#4), from this advocacy page comes the claim that:

Oil exploration in ANWR could approximately replace what we currently import from Saudi Arabia for 30 years or replace one-half of what we import from the entire Persian Gulf for 36 years.

Presumably, then, we could replace all of what we import from the Gulf States for 18 years. Personally, I don't have a problem with drilling in ANWR, but only if we are taking serious steps to reducing our dependence on petroleum, foreign and domestic. President Bush talked a decent talk on that front during the SotU speech, but I'm not seeing the action I would like to back it up.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:01:38 EDT

ANWR was a topic of debate before 9/11 and the subsequent "war on terror." For example, on 9/10/01, August 2001 (when an ANWR-related bill passed the US House of Representatives), January 2000 (in the footnotes), and so on.