3/12/2005
Independence From Foreign Oil
(Note: this is really a continuation of Elephant #2, the misconception that ANWR is our way of fighting OPEC. When I combine the individual sections I'll do some editing and make a coherent whole out of it. I'll also note for you linux fans out there, the Open Office word processor allows you cut and paste text and images and export as a pdf. It's a really cool feature that I've been playing around with.)
I've spent a little time spying on our drilling-obsessed siblings on the right, and I think I can explain part of their viewpoint. Now, I'm not talking about the uber-phallic zealots, and I think you know who I'm talking about. In their case they just hate liberals. With all their talk about irrational Bush hatred, some of these folks would paint their house chartreuse if just a single lefty would be offended. But, as I say, I'm not talking about them.
The key phrase seems to be independence from foreign oil. Independence is a core American belief. More so than any other country, we prize our rugged individualism. Okay, maybe except for Australia, they're pretty independent, too. And of course, New Zealand, which we somehow lump in with Australia, even though they're two separate countries. And, to be fair, a lot of South America prizes independence. Same with Africa. And Europe. We definitely prize independence more than umh, I don't know, maybe China under Mao.
My point is that deep down we're a little embarassed that we depend so much on the Gulf region for oil. That makes us somehow... needy. And what's more pathetic than a needy superpower?
In the minds of the pro-drilling crowd, ANWR represents our ability to shake our fists at the oil barons and shout: Take that. Now go away before I taunt you a second time.
Where I grew up this was called: taking a piss in the wind. The mathematical reality is that unless we change our habits, we'll always be heavily dependent on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration looked into this, and here's what they found:
Using the mean case (which I believe is used in the sense of average, not the most cruel) we see that ANWR could account for 4% of imports in the year 2025. Imagine if you will raising a fist at the hypothetical oil baron and shouting: "In 20 years we can reduce our dependence on you by 4%. Put that in your hooka and smoke it." The point is that as far as taunts go, that's pretty lame.
What's weird is that the majority of this "dependence" is discretionary, i.e., our driving habits. And it would take almost no effort to avoid destroying the coastal area of a wilderness refuge.
Occasionally I hear someone throw out this faustian bargain: What if we open up ANWR for drilling, and in return we close the loophole for the most gas guzzling of the SUVs? Well, because if we closed that loophole, then we wouldn't need to destroy a wilderness refuge to begin with.
While it's trendy to blame the SUVs I'll note that the lighter ones, like a Toyota RAV4, are actually pretty fuel efficient. They even exceed the CAFE requirement of 27.5 mpg for passenger vehicles. Meanwhile, if you buy a 3 ton Hummer II, you get a tax cut.
As far as I can tell, I'm subsidizing the freedom of a minority to make us more dependent on foreign oil. That doesn't sound particularly American to me.
File under: ANWR.
|
