The (Ir)relevance of ANWR

Of course we should drill for oil there. And yes, McCain's resistance to doing so is a good small-bore example of what's wrong with his style of reformist conservatism: It deviates from right-wing orthodoxy on boutique issues that please the media (see also campaign-finance reform, tobacco legislation, etc. etc.), rather than issues that connect with actual voters, and draw usable contrasts with the Democrats.

But it's a small-bore example. On the level of policy, drilling in ANWR isn't going to make more than a small dent in America's energy difficulties over the long run. On the level of politics, meanwhile, the idea that pushing for drilling is going to be some sort of major difference-maker in the fall campaign is just silly. And it's the sort of silliness that makes me dread a McCain presidency, frankly, because it will set up a situation in which the debate over the future of conservatism gets defined as a struggle between McCainism on the one hand and Limbaughism on the other, when both are a poor basis for a viable conservative party in America.

Comments

I'm pretty sure ANWR stands for "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," and that it is, in fact, a National Wildlife Refuge. But I could be wrong.

Posted by ed | June 13, 2008 5:07 PM

Hmm. Turns out that lot of heathen non-believers are dead set against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Huh. What's up with that? Why can't those Redskins understand that this is all in the name of Progress. Really, and after all we've done for them.

Posted by ed | June 13, 2008 5:18 PM

Of course we should drill for oil there.

On the level of policy, drilling in ANWR isn't going to make more than a small dent in America's energy difficulties over the long run.

Ah.

And it's the sort of silliness that makes me dread a McCain presidency, frankly, because it will set up a situation in which the debate over the future of conservatism gets defined as a struggle between McCainism on the one hand and Limbaughism on the other, when both are a poor basis for a viable conservative party in America.

Your problem, my friend, is that for the vast majority of people who self-identify as conservatism, this is what conservatism is. Limbaughism is a very handy term to describe the people you vote with.

Posted by Freddie | June 13, 2008 5:29 PM

With two quotes so disparate, Mr Freddie pinned our host in the first period.

What Ross calls McCain-ism and Limbaugh-is are what the conservative movement is, if you add Falwell-ism. There you have it, a political party custom made for saving us from gay marriage and budget surpluses and excess liberties.

Heck of a job, conservatives!

Posted by JohnMcC | June 13, 2008 6:00 PM

On the level of policy, drilling in ANWR isn't going to make more than a small dent in America's energy difficulties over the long run.

Drilling in ANWR to solve the gas price problem is like solving your heroin price problem by hanging out on a different corner to meet a new dealer.

Posted by SDM | June 13, 2008 6:10 PM

Of course we should drill for oil there.

-and-

On the level of policy, drilling in ANWR isn't going to make more than a small dent in America's energy difficulties over the long run.

How is it possible for someone aware of the latter to write the former?

Posted by Tom Hilton | June 13, 2008 6:33 PM

Having only been coming here for a weak or so, Ross never disappoints by failing to disappoint about the state of "intellectual" conservatism.

Posted by Pooh | June 13, 2008 6:38 PM

Drilling in ANWR to solve the gas price problem is like solving your heroin price problem by...

Sending a package of poppy seeds to Afghanistan.

And, hey, Ross made a substantive policy claim! We should drill in ANWR! Why? Well, it wouldn't make a difference in our energy situation. That seems sort of like the opposite of a reason.

Posted by DivGuy | June 13, 2008 7:03 PM

the idea that pushing for drilling is going to be some sort of major difference-maker in the fall campaign is just silly

The Obama pivot suggested by the emailer in the first linked Corner post actually seems like it would be pretty savvy.

Posted by right | June 13, 2008 7:03 PM

It seems as if Ross is slowly becoming another generic GOP muppet: self-contradictory, no new ideas, and a willingness to do longterm environmental damage for limited short-term gain. How long before he joins Malkin in denouncing people for wearing.. shudder.. black and white scarves? Sad thought, but increasingly plausible.

Posted by morzer | June 13, 2008 7:36 PM

I'm beginning to think they should drill in Ross's head to let the evil spirits out.

It's called "trepanation," Ross. Check it out.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 13, 2008 9:44 PM

Drill Anwar, Tax Gas, Go Nuclear

Posted by Lisso | June 13, 2008 11:06 PM

I, for one, really would like to hear why Ross thinks that ANWR drilling is worthy of an "of course". At the very best, it seems to me, it's worth an "all things considered, the benefits may, over the long term, outweigh the costs..." But an "of course"? I'm just not seeing it, unless one thinks that nature, wildlife, etc., and moreover the value that many people find in them, just get zero standing in such calculations.

Posted by philosopher | June 13, 2008 11:58 PM

I, for one, really would like to hear why Ross thinks that ANWR drilling is worthy of an "of course"

Let me help you out: Because that's the right-wing position. That's it; that's all.

Posted by ed | June 14, 2008 12:04 AM

Really, Ross, I thought better of your judgment. If 'conservatism' means anything of value then one of the things it should set itself to 'conserving' is wilderness areas like the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.

If we can't protect an area like ANWR, with all the resources that our country has, how can we ask poor countries in Africa to protect their wildlife?

Posted by Hector | June 14, 2008 12:43 AM

Hector asks: "If we can't protect an area like ANWR, with all the resources that our country has, how can we ask poor countries in Africa to protect their wildlife?"

Hector, Rosservatives don't "ask" poor countries in Africa to do anything. They make strong suggestions backed up by the strongest military on Earth.

And don't you forget it, Buster!

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 14, 2008 1:13 AM

"Let's do what's politically expedient and popular in the short term, even if we know it will it be ineffective/damaging/counterproductive in the long term."

Moral bankruptcy made easy.

Thanks for making plain and public what all the other supporters of ANWR drilling are no doubt thinking to themselves.

Posted by Travis Mason-Bushman | June 14, 2008 1:43 AM

"On the level of policy, drilling in ANWR isn't going to make more than a small dent in America's energy difficulties over the long run."

The previous commenters need to develop their reading comprehension. The key phrases in the above sentence are "on the level of policy" and "over the long run." I'm sure you'll agree that we need a POLICY to reduce our oil consumption OVER THE LONG RUN, since there's not much we can do to reduce it immediately w/o catastrophe and eventually it will run out.

Posted by warrior | June 14, 2008 7:46 AM

The comments are about equal for and against the drilling in ANWR. Instead of squandering billions upon billions of dollars, think again, and invest in renewables, solar, wave, wind etc etc. These new forms will benefit both mankind, the atmosphere, and the wallet in the long run. Americans, take off your blinkers, and see that there are alternatives to oil, gas and coal. You are still the only major industrial country that has not signed up to the Kyoto Treaty, shame on you!!

Posted by George Robinson | June 14, 2008 8:12 AM

Oh no. Let's not get the goofy idea that we can end the supply/demand problem re oil and natural gas by providing more oil and gas. What a silly idea.

Posted by Fred Beloit | June 14, 2008 9:14 AM

Warrior,

Comprehension? You couldnt comprehend yourself with both hands.

Even if it was approved today, it would take a minimum of several years for it to actually enter the energy system.

In the long run, it would only make a small dent in America's energy difficulties.

See if you can make a coherent thought from the two sentences above. Given your parents didnt make a coherent human being despite having sperm and egg, I think it's a long shot.

Posted by Douthat the Hack | June 14, 2008 10:41 AM

Odd that people think we can invest billions and come up with magic technological solutions to the problem of providing large amounts of energy via wind and solar, but think that it's impossible to improve oil drilling and transport without spoiling the environment.

Ross said it was silly to think that ANWR drilling would make a difference in the fall campaign, not that drilling in ANWR was itself silly or would make no difference.

Interesting that people think its environmental impact would be enormous, but its economic impact trivial. Seems to me a proposition best determined experimentally: drill and find out.

Why do people think drilling in the US would make a difference? Maybe because the US is the third largest producer of oil in the world (7.8 million bbl, compared to Saudi Arabia at 9.0 bbl and Russia at 8.4 bbl). Maybe conservatives think we can solve our oil problem because we're in the habit of solving our problems (used to be called Yankee ingenuity).

And arguments made about ANWR also apply to offshore drilling. A majority of us Floridians favor offshore drilling, but unfortunately, not the guv, nor either two Senators (1 R, 1 D).

Posted by Bob White | June 14, 2008 11:01 AM

Bob White:

I looked it up and "ANWR" does indeed stand for "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." Also, it is, in fact, a National Wildlife Refuge.

Please let me know if I can perform any more research for you.

Posted by ed | June 14, 2008 11:17 AM

Bob White,

The Romans were once in the habit of solving their problems too. So were the Babylonians. Seems to me there's a great big desert where Babylon used to be. The faith in continued technological progress that will 'solve all our problems' is just that, a faith, and an uncommonly silly one.

I could easily imagine a society that chops down all its forests to build golf courses. The economic impact would be trivial but the environmental impact would be very serious indeed. And drilling first and waiting to see what the impact is later, makes about as much sense as jumping off a building to see if you can fly.

I will say this again: if 'conservatives' want to 'conserve' things of lasting value then it seems to me that they would start by conserving natural wilderness.

Posted by Hector | June 14, 2008 11:59 AM

I, for one, really would like to hear why Ross thinks that ANWR drilling is worthy of an "of course".

This kind of use of "of course," complete with italics (the typographical equivalent of pounding the desk with your fist), is a way of saying "I don't have an argument."

Posted by guyx | June 14, 2008 12:12 PM

Douthat the Hack,

"In the long run, it would only make a small dent in America's energy difficulties."

"IN THE LONG RUN": That's exactly Douthat's. (And we also agree that you are a hack.) I don't consider "several years" the long run.

In any case, you and others make no argument on why not. There's a lot of oil there. Why deprive ourselves? The Canadians certainly aren't while they drill than 100 miles away.

Of course we should drill. Just like we should eat the last small morsel even when we are starving.

Posted by warrior | June 14, 2008 12:21 PM

Many of the postings here, for the drilling for oil in ANWR are obviously in psychological denial, thinking it does not matter, drill anywhere as long as "I" can get my 4x4 filled up, not worried one iota about the environment. It is obvious that you think that consuming fossil fuels is necessary to maintain a healthy environment.
When will you ever learn???

Posted by George Robinson | June 14, 2008 12:36 PM

The Washington Post said that ANWR "is one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent, and there is hardly any other where drilling would have less impact on surrounding life. . . . " So, who's in denial?

Posted by warrior | June 14, 2008 2:34 PM

The Washington Post said that ANWR "is one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent, and there is hardly any other where drilling would have less impact on surrounding life. . . . " So, who's in denial?

The first part of the quote is precisely why it should be left alone, and the second part is just question-begging.

Posted by guyx | June 14, 2008 2:40 PM

The Washington Post said that ANWR "is one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent, and there is hardly any other where drilling would have less impact on surrounding life. . . . "

The Washington Post supported the Iraq Invasion, publishes Richard Cohen, and continues to run "Sally Forth". It's a useless right-wing birdcage liner.

Posted by ed | June 14, 2008 3:16 PM

I find it amusing that ideological liberals on this blog rant like pouty children regarding Ross Douthat's moderately conservative views. Ross fortunately pays scant attention to them.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | June 14, 2008 3:53 PM

Warrior,

It's clear that if we get to starvation, we should eat you first.

This much stupidity must mean you'll have a lot of protein.

Posted by Douthat the Hack | June 14, 2008 3:53 PM

And ed is the name of a talking horse who appears to be an extreme left-winger who cares less about human life than he does of mosquitoes in place he's never been and never will be. Talk about useless! At least the Post can be used to collect bird droppings.

Posted by warrior | June 14, 2008 3:56 PM

Peter,

Conservation/Conservative

note the similarity?

Damn that liberal Teddy Roosevelt

Posted by Douthat the Hack | June 14, 2008 3:58 PM

Dan Henninger in a Wall Street Journal piece, Drill! Drill! Drill!, summarizes this issue Well:

The goal shouldn't be "energy independence," a ridiculous notion in an economically integrated world. It's about admitting the need to strike a balance between the energy and security realities of the here-and-now and the potentialities of the future. Some of our best and brightest want to pursue alternative energy technologies, and they should be encouraged to do so, inside market disciplines. But let's at least stop pretending the rest of the world is going to play along with our environmentalist moralisms.
The Democrats' climate-change bill collapsed last week under the weight of brutal cost realities. It was a wake-up call. This is the year Americans joined the real world of energy costs. Now someone needs to explain to them why we – and we alone – are sitting on an ocean of energy but won't drill for it.
You'd think the "national security" nominee, John McCain, would get this. He's clueless – a don't-drill zombie. We may mark this down as the year the U.S. tired of being a serious country.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | June 14, 2008 8:13 PM

QUOTE FROM Mr. Ed:
The Washington Post supported the Iraq Invasion, publishes Richard Cohen, and continues to run "Sally Forth". It's a useless right-wing birdcage liner.
END QUOTE

Eddy-boy, Eddy-boy....

The WaPo a right-wing rag? Hahaha. See, I love it when you lefty loons just come right out and say such foolish stuff. It lets me know right away who I'm dealing with and that there's zero capacity for rational thought there.

Posted by Buenas Dias | June 14, 2008 11:04 PM

Peter Leavitt:
The climate bill wasn't the Democrats bill. It was sponsored by John Warner and Droopy. Last time I checked, neither were Democrats.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 15, 2008 12:09 AM

JKC tells the Dumbest Man On Earth: "Peter Leavitt:
The climate bill wasn't the Democrats bill. It was sponsored by John Warner and Droopy. Last time I checked, neither were Democrats."

In Petey's world anyone who doesn't agree 100% of the time with Dickless Cheney is a Dem. And Petey's into his 3rd childhood now - he's so old he can remember what Lou Gehrig's, uh, bat tasted like, so he doesn't give a damn about global warming. It won't affect him, and he hates everyone that will outlive him, anyway.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 15, 2008 1:16 AM

Actually, this bill was mainly a pet of Reid and Boxer who managed to attract a few feckless
Republicans including Warner and Coleman. Reid plans to introduce it again on the forlorn assumption that he will have 60 votes next year.

As Henninger remarks, these politicians don't get it that we're the only nation on earth sitting on an ocean of energy but won't drill for it. Even those terrible polluters of the world, the Norwegians, are shamelessly drilling in the North Sea.

Meanwhile Moe is driving his Vespa around Boston with his head in the wrong place.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | June 15, 2008 8:28 AM

Hector points out one of the main distinctions between right and left: Conservatives believe that America will solve its problems and will prosper. The Left envisions America as a Babylonian desert and wish to prohibit solutions to her problems (in hopes of destroying her prosperity). I can't explain that. I think it is fatalism and some kind of neurosis.

Ed keeps reminding us that ANWR is a national wildlife refuge, as though that proved that oil drilling would harm the wildlife refuge. It does no such thing. His thinking is simplistic.

Oil is being drilled not far from ANWR under nearly identical conditions. Photos of the two areas are indistinguishable. If drilling on one side of the Canning River has not harmed that area what reason is there to believe that drilling on the other side would hurt the biosphere there?

BTW, google "jonah goldberg" "canning river" photo and you will find photos of ANWR where the drilling takes place: photos Jonah took himself when he went to ANWR.

Posted by Bob White | June 15, 2008 9:51 AM

Bob White,

I don't deny that I strongly dislike modern, liberal-capitalist civilization, and I believe that its collapse will better allow the human virtues to flourish. I think the association of the United States with Rome and Babylon is accurate in many particulars- and you're correct in saying that in some respect I don't _want_ present day America to solve its energy and natural resource problems, at least not completely, since that would simply allow modern society to continue on its terrible road.

However, that is irrelevant to my belief that natural resource crises _will actually happen_. Simply, I see no reason to believe that we will find a good replacement for oil. We were lucky enough to find a chemical source of easily extractable energy, there probably won't be another energy source that is as easily available. You can't simply make up natural resources from scratch, technology or no technology. There are lots of biological processes in nature that are terribly inefficient (nitrogen fixation, carbon fixation, and others). They continue to be inefficient, and haven't been improved over millions of years of evolution, simply because there is no alternative process that's more efficient. Evolution is not able to overcome the basic physical limitations of the universe, and neither is your precious Yankee ingenuity.

No one can be certain whether the future will bring continued technological progress, or natural resource crises leading to a collapse of modern civilization. You prefer to believe the former, I prefer to believe the latter. It's strange to me that anyone can look at modern American, late-capitalist civilization and _wish_ that it would be able to solve its problems and continue, but I suppose there are people like you who believe that very thing.

Posted by Hector | June 15, 2008 11:27 AM

Interesting that people think its environmental impact would be enormous, but its economic impact trivial. Seems to me a proposition best determined experimentally: drill and find out.

This is not the turn of the 20th century, friend. Methods other than direct drilling are able to discern, in a crude sense, if sizeable oil deposits are present prior to drilling. Also, the investment required to 'experimentally drill' is substantial, both economically and environmentally.

Posted by really? | June 15, 2008 2:39 PM

Peter Leavitt, quoted
As Henninger remarks, these politicians don't get it that we're the only nation on earth sitting on an ocean of energy but won't drill for it. Even those terrible polluters of the world, the Norwegians, are shamelessly drilling in the North Sea

Please note what Henninger said about the Norwegians, 100% untrue. The Norwegians are extremely aware of their obligations regarding pollution, and any CO2 emissions are captured and stored. Pollution in the North Sea and The S Arctic ocean is minimal. The only true polluters in this world is the USA, over 20 tons of CO2 per capita/year

Posted by George Robinson | June 15, 2008 2:52 PM

George, in a List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita 1990-2004 Norway ranks slightly behind the U.S. at 19.01 [metric tons] compared to 20.4 for the U.S.

My earlier remark about Norway as a polluter was meant ironically. On the subject of this thread both the U..S. and Norway have very high standards for drilling oil on and offshore.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | June 15, 2008 4:21 PM

Peter worked on an oil rig.

This was after harvard graduate and marine officer, but before go-go dancer at Studio 54 and investment banker.

Posted by Douthat the hack | June 15, 2008 8:33 PM

Peter Leavitt,
Sorry Peter, I was mixing up figures, late evening for me in Europe. Your figures are of course correct, whereas the figures I was having in mind were CO2 figures from Energy production. Not really fair to compare these 2 countries, with Norway almost 100% hydro, have only 42 kgs CO2 per cap/year. Mind you, when one is in Norway, its very much like the states, 4 wheelers everywhere, and their gas prices are something around $10-11 a gallon.

Posted by George Robinson | June 16, 2008 2:05 AM

Mr. Douhat worries about the future of conservativism.

What conservativism?

Less taxes? No. Lower deficit? No. Less government intrusion into our lives? No. More personal freedoms? Uh-huh.

Seems to me conservativism has been dead for a long time.

It was killed by those who now call themselves conservatives.

Posted by immortal | June 16, 2008 3:38 PM

"Why do people think drilling in the US would make a difference? Maybe because the US is the third largest producer of oil in the world (7.8 million bbl, compared to Saudi Arabia at 9.0 bbl and Russia at 8.4 bbl)."

At one time the United States was the largest producer of oil in the world. What happened? By and large, we used it up. U.S. production has been falling since 1970, and not for lack of drilling. Better to use up others' petroleum, and keep ours in reserve for when it's really needed. Plus, conserve and develop alternative sources, renewable when possible.

Posted by Selden | June 16, 2008 3:58 PM

The "of course" is because the oil companies want to drill there. That's what they do, of course. But is it sound public policy? No, because it really won't make any difference to the country if we get that oil, and it just might screw up a wildlife refuge. If we're ever at the point where we *need* the oil in ANWR, it will already be too late. Oh wait, maybe it already is . . .

Posted by Steve Perrin | June 16, 2008 4:36 PM

Ok, so after reading the comments here, I can see that we need to lower the price without increasing supply in any manner, because increasing the supply won't make any difference on the price.

Can I ask how this works economically? Do we use McCain's other plan of a tax holiday to temporarily lower the price, hoping that the increased demand from this will lower the long term prices?

Really, if increasing supply is irrelevant, and increasing demand is acceptable; what economic theories are this group (and McCain) working from?

And why did we bother asking Saudi Arabia to increase their pumping by 1 million barrels per day? Since this is a useless number with no real-world effect, why bother going hat in hand to ask for it?

Or is Saudi oil capable of reducing prices and fixing the issue, while U.S. oil can't do anything useful? And how silly is it now to see that between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia we will be increasing supply by 500,000 barrels per day; of which we are willing to supply 0 barrels of that increase.

Go team. Obviously when we have a problem that requires more supply, we need someone else to fix the problem without our help. What a brilliant plan... next we need someone to fix our Social Security and Medicare budgets.

Anyone got a way to make India pay for that? Since our "solutions" involve having other people fix our problems while we sit on our thumbs doing nothing, isn't that the correct methodology for fixing Medicare?

Posted by Gekkobear | June 16, 2008 5:09 PM

What ever happened to turning lights out, including commerical buidlings and auto dealerships, buying fewer large plastic toys for children, not buying soft drinks and water in nplastic bottles, reducing heating and cooling of houses and building, etc. Very basic things everyone can do and estimated to save more energy in both the short and long run than drilling in ANWR and other places. Let's wake up and reduce our carbon energy consumption immediately by doing these things. Oh, by the way, if Americans did these things they actually may have more disposable income to plan for retirement and house payments insteading of waiting for a government bailout or handout.

Posted by Jon Rupp | June 16, 2008 5:29 PM

You guys are idiots, and Ross's post isn't especially difficult to make sense of. Drilling in ANWR would be beneficial, but by itself wouldn't make a huge difference (though it would be a part of any realistic comprehensive solution). Of course we should drill there, because it would be helpful, and there are no reasons not to that don't amount to blatantly irrational, misplaced piety.

Posted by The Deuce | June 16, 2008 6:30 PM

What are Conservatives conserving the natural resources for? I suppose the baker can simply shut the doors and leave his bread inside, conserving it naturally for tomorrow’s retail sales. But what do customers matter when starving masses are huddled outside and catch a whiff of what’s being “conserved’ for later use? It is only natural to conserve when one has an abundance. When things get scarce the scramble to get the last scrap turns ugly in a hurry.

Posted by David Brown | June 16, 2008 7:43 PM

The WaPo a right-wing rag? Hahaha. See, I love it when you lefty loons just come right out and say such foolish stuff. It lets me know right away who I'm dealing with and that there's zero capacity for rational thought there.

In all fairness, to someone accustomed to reading the New York Times, the Washington Post looks like Human Events.

But how is Richard Cohen a sign that the Post is right-wing? How, fer crying out loud, is *Sally Forth* a sign that it's right-wing? Lame, yes, but right-wing? (And, no, "right-wing" is not found in the thesaurus next to "lame.")

Posted by Seamus | June 17, 2008 9:46 AM

ymhqlx guyfpjov tlhb dfqzepm qhtj qywgiplc beyusmt

Posted by msublw jtaviflhm | June 18, 2008 11:44 PM