[Foreword: Having been well-trained on the importance of inclusiveness, I have proofread this article several times prior to posting it—and am now satisfied that it contains a sufficient diversity of facts and opinions such that every reader, regardless of political persuasion, will find something to dislike about it. Enjoy.]
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge presents us with a policy dilemma: To drill, or not to drill, that is the question.
It pretty much comes down to those two basic choices, no matter how you analyze it. And even though you might call my reasoning process “iconoclastic,” I’ve nevertheless ended up at the same quandary: Should we save the caribou, or hasten the arrival of oil independence day? I don’t yet know which choice I prefer; as Robert DeNiro’s character said, I’m conflicted.
Click to enlarge.
I’m also at a disadvantage, in that I do not automatically subscribe to any particular ideology; if I did, there’d be no quandary. If I were an automatic “liberal” I’d automatically subscribe to keeping the ANWR closed; if I were an automatic “conservative” I’d automatically subscribe to opening it up. Then, with that decision taken care of, it would be easy to settle into the typical mode of left-vs-right argumentation, which was summarized neatly by Iowahawk in his article How to Blog Good:
Liberal blog: “Man, that Bush is stupid!”
Conservative blog: “Man, that blog that called Bush stupid is stupid!”
Unfortunately I’m not an automatic subscriber to any ideology. Consequently I’ve spent some time weighing the evidence on both sides of the ANWR question—but to my disappointment, the proper choice is still not evident. As I said, I’m conflicted. Shortly, I’ll explain each side of the argument, but first I’ll summarize my conclusions:
1. Should we save the caribou? If so, we should open up the ANWR to modern technology—the sooner the better.
Alternatively . . .
2. Should we hasten the arrival of Oil Independence Day? If so, we should ban modern technology from the ANWR and leave the oil in the ground.
It’s a tough choice. As much as I like the idea of helping a fellow mammal-in-distress, I also relish the vision of an energy-independent America.
The two arguments—“save the caribou” versus “oil independence”—are as follows . . .
The argument for saving the caribou
In a nutshell: Those caribou are in a life-and-death fight; it’s arguably a losing battle. They need our help, fast.
I realized their plight after reading Jonah Goldberg’s article, which is based on his firsthand experience from a visit to the region in question. Goldberg was startlingly vivid in his description of the struggle faced by the ANWR’s indigenous caribou. Those beautiful mammals are fighting a pitched battle for survival against several mean, ugly, voracious enemies. [Warning: do not follow the next three links if you just finished eating dinner.] The caribou is literally being eaten alive by incessant swarms of giant mosquitoes, by insidious flesh-eating warble fly larvae [see the ¾-inch-long adult here], and by caribou-snout-loving nose-bot maggots. Young caribou die more easily due to these flesh-eating attackers, but adults frequently lose the life-and-death battle as well.
I try not to get emotional when analyzing these things, but the pictures of what those poor caribou are going through are an eerie reminder of something my 8th grade biology teacher told me forty years ago: the battle for biological supremacy on earth could very well be lost by the mammals (including humans of course), and won by the insects. Scary, isn’t it?
Could we help the caribou win their battle? Of course we could. We know how to invent defenses for ourselves against insects such as mosquitoes, and we will undoubtedly bring some of these with us—should we decide to open up that small section of the ANWR. We’re also getting better at going on the offense; for example, a temporary, extremely thin coating of light oil on a few of those mosquito-breeding pools would abort billions or trillions of mosquitoes in the larval stage, because their snorkels couldn’t make it to the air—another fact I remember from that biology class. Moreover, technology-equipped humans, soon after arrival in the ANWR, would quickly invent additional offense and defense measures against life-threatening insects, and our caribou cousins would reap the benefit of such technological innovations.
Therefore, if we want to help the caribou in the ANWR, we should open up at least that one small portion of it to our technological know-how. I’m sure the local caribou would learn to love us for the help we’d be giving them, even if they might not initially welcome us with open hoofs […I looked it up, it’s an accepted form for the plural of “hoof”].
The argument for oil independence
In a nutshell: Alternative-energy entrepreneurs could use a motivation boost, so let’s give them one.
First I need to define my terms. What do I mean by “oil independence”? It’s simple; I mean this:
“Hey OPEC, guess what: We don’t need oil any more, and we think you already have enough dollars. You keep your oil, we’ll keep our dollars, how about that? By the way, here’s a suggestion: Invent something useful.”
We need some kind of policy change that would speed things up. The American Thinker agrees:
We need an energy policy to jump-start the process of investing in smart technologies which reduce our dependence on oil imports and protect our environment from harmful pollutants.
Now, I’ll admit it, I am the only person I know of who would be happy to see the price of gasoline go to $5/gallon ($10/gallon would be twice as nice, but I’d settle for $5). Why? Because that, my friend, would give the alternative-energy entrepreneurs a huge kick in the rear—one that would be far, far more effective than any new law, regulation, or government edict. One reason I strongly prefer the free market over the government as a change agent was expressed well by Peter Huber in his book Hard Green:
Central planning is always fairer, at least when the planners remember not to look after themselves first, a detail they sometimes overlook. [Hint: "sometimes" = "always"]
By my estimate, five-dollar gasoline would subtract years, maybe even decades, from the time it will take us to achieve oil independence. I’m selfish; I’d like to see it happen in my lifetime. Moreover, it will have to be driven by high prices, because the planet will not run out of oil any time soon (doomsayers notwithstanding). As Sheikh Zaki Yamani is fond of saying,
The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.
It will not end because of oil scarcity, it will end when we get sufficiently tired of being dependent on oil. My best guess: "sufficient tiredness" begins right around $5/gallon.
What kind of technology do I envision? Frankly I don’t care; I trust the free market and the profit motive to drive us to the best solution. Controlled fusion, hydrogen fuel cells, stirling engines, mini-windmill-farms-on-car-roofs, harnessing cosmic rays—I simply do not care which one wins out. I trust free market incentives to wean us off the fossil fuel habit somehow, and I will be happy to vote with my consumer’s dollars for the anti-oil alternative that seems best to me—just as soon as entrepreneurs start offering them up.
But the free market would work more speedily in that direction if the price of fossil fuel burning doubled or tripled. So, here’s our chance to help that process along, just a little, by banning oil drilling in the ANWR. That would help restrict the supply of oil, which in turn will boost the price of gasoline. Time to move faster, energy entrepreneurs!
Conclusion
I assume you can now understand my conundrum. Which goal is more compelling: Saving our mammal-cousins, the caribou? (If so, let’s get up there and get going.) Or kicking the oil-guzzling habit? (If so, let’s keep out and leave the oil in the ground.)
Each goal is very attractive in its own way, and I’m really having trouble making up my mind. If you think you can help resolve this dilemma, I would welcome your thoughts.
