SouthernDemocrat

I am something of an environmentalist. No, I am not the hippie / hemp wearing / vegetarian / spend 2 years in the top of a redwood type, but I have contributed to various environmental organizations in the past such as the NRDC and Environmental Defense, I garden organically, recycle, bike to work weather permitting, go on backpacking and canoe trips, and the environment and conservation is a big voting issue for me.

That all said, I think the environmental community, liberals, and most Democrats are making a huge mistake now by opposing opening up ANWR and ending the moratorium on off shore drilling. I say this because there is a growing and fairly convincing evidence that worldwide oil production is peaking. If that is the case, then the oil prices we are burdened with today is only the tip of the iceberg. We may well soon find ourselves in a world where oil production does not meet demand. Oil prices will go through the roof, it will be a huge drag upon economic growth, and we very well could see resource wars as production continues to fall. I am not under any illusions that opening up ANWR and ending the ban on offshore drilling will avert any of this. However, it could make a difference, not so much in costs, but in perception and the future political will in this country. If oil production is indeed peaking, and in a few years there is a fairly large gulf between production and demand, then even small reductions in that gulf will make a big difference in public attitudes.

Furthermore, I find this whole argument about it taking 10 years to get the oil to market absurd. Of course it will. However, every solution to this problem will take decades or more. The arguments the Democrats and environmentalists are using against opening ANWR and ending the offshore ban are the same kind of hollow arguments the right has used against any kind of meaningful actions to curb carbon emissions. Let me lay this out for you, if we don’t open these areas up, and oil prices rise as much next year as they have this year, and the year after next as they have this year, then the most right wing / anti-environment / take and rape its yours Republicans and the dirty industries that back them will find themselves for the first time ever, in a very politically popular position. You see, the anti-environment / exploitationist right ‘s agenda has never enjoyed popular support. It’s why we have preserved wildernesses, protections for endangered species, and so on. However, if oil hits 200 a barrel and we have still not opened up ANWR or ended the Off Shore Ban and left the issue to the states, that anti-environment right will all of a sudden find itself with a huge amount of support behind them and don’t think for a moment that if that bunch got into power with actual popular support for their radical agenda that they would stop at simply opening up ANWR and ending the Off Shore ban. Let that happen, and you can kiss our national treasures that have any economic value at all to them goodbye. They will do away with endangered species protections, wilderness protections, the Clean Air Act, the EPA….basically every environmental protection enacted in the last 50 years will be on the chopping block. Believe me, these extremists are foaming at the mouth to do this. What do they care, better than half of them think the rapture will come before they have to deal with the consequences of their actions anyway.

So what environmentalists and Democrats need to do is get ahead of this. Open up ANWR and end the Off Shore ban. However, make sure that the most stringent environmental protections possible are in place for those areas once they are opened. Make that part of the bills that open them. Then if the anti-environment right tries to filibuster it, or our failure of a president threatens to veto it because of those protections, they will look like the obstructionists, they will look like the special interest sellouts. Moreover, once those areas are opened up, the issue is done, and we can move on to issues like alternative energy investments, further increases in CAFÉ standards, and sustainable initiatives that will make a huge difference because we will be able to say that we gave them what they wanted, and it did not make a difference, so we are trying it our way.

I have changed my mind on this issue, and I hope other environmentalists / conservationists do the same.

__________________
Charles Krauthammer describing Obama:

"He's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament."

DarkWizard12

YESS! YOu finally have some sense! Run for office in texas fast, I'll vote for you!

Although, you got to admit, that is very similiar to the NRA's "slippery-slope" arguement, eh?

SouthernDemocrat

Slippery Slope is always the argument of last resort when one no longer has reason and common sense behind them. Its not as though ending the Off Shore Drilling Moratorium will up and result in a huge swell of public support for turning Yellowstone into a golf course development.

However, like a say, doing nothing could very well lead to the kind of people that would do such a thing actually getting enough support to come to power.

DarkWizard12

True, but do you really think enough conservatives exist for that to happen at all? Even McCain against opening up ANWAR and kept that position well into the primaries(although to be fair, if hasn't flipped flopped already, he will.)

obvious Child

Of course the democrats are wrong about drilling.
But the Republicans are also wrong about drilling.

Both need to realize that we need to drill more solely to buy time till we can get off of fossil fuels. That oil drilling in itself is nothing more then buying time.

__________________
"Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them" - Jeffery Sinclair

DarkWizard12

Thats exactly why conservatives want to drill. At least, thats why I want to drill. There is no guarrentee we will have the technology in 10 years to be completely off oil, so we might as well drill everywhere we can untill then.

SouthernDemocrat

DarkWizard12

I've always thought that it would be more enviromentally friendly to open up all areas for drilling because then it would motivate the true enviromentalists to actually come up with ideas of renewable energy to stop this destruction, rather than just sit at home complaining how evil gas companies are.

I'm of the theory that, the threat of the destruction makes the best motivater. Call it the russian blood in me.

MC.no.spin

The right wing doesn't believe such a fairtytale. They simply want an "all of the above" approach to solving this crisis. There is no barrier coming from the right on moving alternative energy production forward.

"Strong environmental protections" unfortunately means "NO MORE DRILLING ON AREAS YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY BEEN LEASED" to the left wing. I don't see this changing, based on the debate on the Senate floor today. The Democrats bill only addresses speculation, and they refuse to vote on expanded oil drilling as it will expose them.

It's an issue that will not escape the American people, however. Hopefully, in November enough voters will consider this an important enough issue to vote Republican when choosing their congressional members.

__________________

The heart of human intelligence is pattern recognition ~ Ray Kurzweill

obvious Child

That's not what I hear. Mostly it's to bring down the price of oil as well as reduce payments to oil producers. Nothing about buying time to get off oil entirely.

Pickens didn't go far enough in his campaign. He wants to get off foreign oil. That's not enough. We need to get off oil period. Friedman in his new piece compares oil to crack cocaine. The problem is not the rise in price of one's addiction. It is one's addiction.