Archives

All,

I wrote this little diatribe in response to an email I received from a relative. The email described how stupid that it was that we weren't already drilling in ANWR, that the place was ugly, drilling wouldn't disturb caribou, etc. It was just a forward but hit me in a sensitive spot that I think several of you probably share. I thought I'd post my response here and hope for some feedback from some of you well-informed folks. If you think I'm off-base, please tell me why. And if you think I'm right but can improve my logic/writing, please do. Finally, go ahead borrow from this freely in your own arguments/discussions if you think it will help. Thanks.

-----------------------------

I agree that we should do whatever is necessary to eliminate, or at least decrease our dependance on Mideast oil. However, the only way I would be for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling is if the legislation approving it was accompanied by a serious, funded initiative to wean Americans off our "addiction to oil" (addiction line quoted from President Bush.) This has nothing to do with caribou and everything to do with the scope of the problem. I am totally deaf to the knee-jerk whining about $4/gal gas. This possibility raised its ugly head in the 1970s and as soon as it passed, Americans went back to being fat, dumb and happily pretending like oil would be a cheap infinite resource. I hope and pray we don't repeat that mistake this time around.

Here is what I fear: $4 gas gets everyone crying to their congressmen. Congressmen, of course always wanting to take the easiest way to re-election, authorize drilling in Alaska, N Dakota, off-shore, etc. and building of more refineries. No real effort towards renewables since "that's way off into the future" or towards conservation since that might mean a citizen/voter might have to actually sacrifice something. The price of oil/gas comes down a bit...for a while. The media goes back to tracking the hottest young starlet's every move and the public goes back to driving Hummers, commuting an hour each way solo to our jobs, building neighborhoods with no sidewalks, etc. In 15 years, our newly discovered domestic oil begins to dry up and we have today's problem again only 100 times worse. China and India have 2 billion car commmuters each. The Mideast is even crazier than it is today and now has us completely by the u-know-whats. I can only imagine the strife and violence that would occur.

Here is what I hope: We drill when and where we can do it without completely destroying God's creation. We quickly become more efficient in our use of energy: CFLs -->LEDs, better fuel economy, public transportation, etc. Coal plants adopt strategies to burn coal cleaner and more efficiently (see Fuel Tech, Inc.) We build new nuclear plants using the latest safest technology and put smart, well funded people on the issue of figuring out waste disposal. The US govt and industry treat the development and implementation of renewable energy (hydrogen, solar, wind, methane) with the kind of priority that we did putting a man on the moon in the 60s or developing the A-bomb during WWII.

In my humble opinion this is one of the greatest issue of our time and simply opening up Alaska for more drilling is putting a Band-Aid on a giant arterial hemorrhage. We need a comprehensive energy package that eliminates the problem instead of simply delaying it.

I mostly agree with you.
I've been to Alaska (not ANWR), N Dakota and they are beautiful places that we should respectfully preserve.

I'm actually for drilling in ANWR and everywhere else we can but the more I watch people's reactions to gas prices I wonder if they would even realize the sacrifice we would be making on our environment to do so.
Drilling in ANWR wouldn't make a lot of sense without refineries to do something with the oil when we get it.

Its either do this right or don't do it at all.

If we are going to drill just to lower the price I vote no then. Just so everyone can drive 90 in their SUV?
Drill to so **ck off to those countries that hate us and supply a large % of our oil.

Recall that it only takes a few calls and letters to your representatives to constitute a majority of their communication with their constituants.

We could make a concerted effort at this, and maybe, just maybe, get our "representatives" to do what is proper.

Drilling for more oil, lowering the price, and simply doling it out to whoever can afford it, will just waste it. But, how do we provide the "priviledge" of driving to most people, while generating revenues for alternative fuels and energy sources? I think rationing is best.

Great letter, TRun. There are three numbers that can help make the point, too. 3, 8, and 24. We posess 3% of the world's oil, produce 8% of the world's oil, and use 24% of the world's oil producion. (Looks like I need to add a 4th number, our % of the world's population).

Half of the US population thinks we posess over 40% of the world's oil. If you think that, "drill more" makes perfect sense.

All,
Here is what I hope: We drill when and where we can do it without completely destroying God's creation. We quickly become more efficient in our use of energy: CFLs -->LEDs, better fuel economy, public transportation, etc. Coal plants adopt strategies to burn coal cleaner and more efficiently (see Fuel Tech, Inc.) We build new nuclear plants using the latest safest technology and put smart, well funded people on the issue of figuring out waste disposal. The US govt and industry treat the development and implementation of renewable energy (hydrogen, solar, wind, methane) with the kind of priority that we did putting a man on the moon in the 60s or developing the A-bomb during WWII.

I agree with all of the above except the public transportation (as it is practiced today). Usually public transportation works well inside of cities and to commute in/out of them to their suburbs, but a lot of us live/work out in the wide-open spaces of the USA or Canada.

Here is my story. Sixteen years ago I got a great job in a financial firm in Boston. I bought a house in the suburbs, right on a commuter rail, got rid of one of my cars and took the train to work every day. That worked great for me. About 5 years ago, my employer relocated my job to cheaper office space in Merrimack, NH (56 miles from my house). Since I have roots in my community and the economy was uncertain, I decided not to move my family to New Hampshire. I bought a fuel-efficient, fun car and carpool as much as I can. Public transportation isn't going to help me. I'm commuting from a Boston suburb to a more distant Boston suburb.

I think some improvements to public transportation can be made (more/better buses), but another way to improve the situation would be to reduce congestion on the roads by building more of them where needed and adopting "smart" toll roads (HOT lanes) where the price to drive varies by the amount of congestion on them.

One of the fundamental issues in the gas prices of today is supply and demand. With China and India driving up demand, supply needs to rise too to keep the prices stable and that means drill, build more refineries, etc. Remember that there is a global energy market though - so just because we get more oil out of the ground here in the US, doesn't mean it's going to go into our gas pumps.

Another thing worth doing is emptying out the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at it's maximum rate. The US Government could get a lot of revenue out of it in the short term and it should help keep the gas prices down too. It's probably the only thing the government can do in the short term that won't cause more damage then good.

Two points in the original that I'd disagree with. Coal is not clean, no matter what you do, and hydrogen is not a renewable resource. Indeed, it's not a resource at all. There aren't any hydrogen wells out there waiting to be discovered :-)

hydrogen is not a renewable resource. Indeed, it's not a resource at all. There aren't any hydrogen wells out there waiting to be discovered :-)

You have heard of electrolytic cracking, correct?

water (cracking=>) hydrogen + oxygen (combustion=>) water