Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:42:12 PM
Why does ANWR inspire such bad reasoning by so many people?
One example: Given US consumption ANWR would only fuel our nation for 6 months (or various other estimates). First, who said that ANWR would entirely fuel our nation, it is but one source of supplemental oil. Second, are we that certain we know how much oil is there without additional exploration? As far as I know estimates have proven quite wrong in the past. And finally, the people making this argument must not eat, as each meal will only keep them going for a few hours, so why bother? Untilt hey can find that one meal which means they will never have to eat again, what's the point?
Another silly argument is that oil companies will just sell US oil overseas and it won't help at all. Well, no. They will put it on the world market, where it will reduce the overall price of oil. And that will help us. Or do they want us to declare oil socialism and refuse to sell any of our oil overseas? That is a bad idea for a nation which imports the majority of its oil, as any retaliation by other nations would cripple us while doing them little harm.
Finally, whenever something reasonable, such as nuclear power, is mentioned, they refuse to listen. Instead they say the
ONLY solution is to reduce consumption. Maybe supplemented with entirely unworkable plans such as biodeisel or wind. Why? Nuclear works, is clean, is safe, and provides a cheap and easy way to produce clean hydrogen to use as fuel for vehicles. What possible argument could one make against it? (Other than that it works, which
drives environmentalists crazy.)
I don't get it. Why do otherwise sane people seem to lose all common sense when discussing oil? I can't understand it.
But to end on a positive note, it appears that McCain has
finally realized he is never getting the green vote, so he is actually adopting something approaching a sensible environmental policy, at least as far as drilling is concerned. Now if only we could get him to forget about that Kyoto idiocy, combining his change of heart on the environment with his
recent pro-market statements, while
staying away from big government positions, he may be able to win back still more Republicans.