By Request: ANWR Compromise

MikeS asks:

Under what circumstances would you support offshore oil drilling or drilling in ANWR? Is there a compromise position -- oil companies promise to follow certain environmental restrictions/expanded funding for public transportation/windfall taxes -- where you feel that giving oil companies access to explore and drill in these areas would be worth it?

I don't think there's a "compromise" on these topics that I'd support. What would be worth supporting, by contrast, is a logroll. If something resembling Barack Obama's climate change plan were poised to pass the congress but needed the votes of two additional Senators to clear a filibuster, and giving way on ANWR would get the Alaska Senators on board, then, sure, you strike the deal. In practice, I think offshore drilling would be a net loser of legislative votes in this context, since it's an issue whose opponents (representatives from coastal areas) care more about than do its proponents. Plenty of Republicans with middling-to-terrible environmental records are against offshore drilling. ANWR is probably the reverse -- a big deal in Alaska, where people tend to favor it, and not a big deal elsewhere -- so in theory one could imagine a deal.

Comments

Unless and until you get a super majority of Gwich'in Indians on board, then Big Oil can go fuck itself.

Posted by ed | June 20, 2008 1:03 PM

...Oh, and a shitload of other conservation measures are undertaken, I mean...

Posted by ed | June 20, 2008 1:07 PM

Shouldn't we use the energy resources in order of lesser carbon footprint?

I'm not sure of the exact efficiencies, but isn't coal much more carbon heavy than oil? (other factors being equal at least.)

If so, I'd consider opening up more oil drilling to replace existing coal mines.

Posted by MobiusKlein | June 20, 2008 1:13 PM

If McCain flip-flops on drilling in ANWR it will be fun to gratuitiously beat Joe Lieberman over the head with it. Lieberman supposedly joined the Gang of 14 in part because he hates the illiberal filibuster. At least that's what ubertoady Lanny Davis said when defending him. IIRC the only thing that Joe Lieberman has EVER said was worth filibustering was drilling in ANWR.

From Human Events, 3/31/03: "Is it worth desecrating...this magnificent part of America for oil, 6 months' worth of oil?" asked Lieberman. "To ruin the natural beauty of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge forever for six months' worth of oil which will reduce our dependency on foreign oil by the year 2020-if, God forbid, drilling is allowed-from 62% to 60%?"

From lieberman.senate.gov, 2/26/01: "One good, innovative idea is to offer tax credits for purchasing hybrid cars, which are already on the market and get 60 to 70 miles per gallon. In fact, if we just set a goal of increasing the efficiency of our automobile fleets by 3 miles per gallon, we would save the same amount of oil over the next ten years that will be drilled out of ANWR."

Posted by joejoejoe | June 20, 2008 1:23 PM

Thanks for the answer. It made me feel really webby inside.

Posted by MiksS | June 20, 2008 1:41 PM

Wouldn't it be great if there a National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska? I mean, oil companies could explore there and leave the national wildlife reserve untouched. If we only had that kind of reserve, think of how much oil we'd be pumping from there today . . . .

Posted by jlw | June 20, 2008 1:46 PM

Hey Matt, I was wondering if any reporter has asked McCain about those recent airstrikes that killed 11 Pakistani soldiers? It seems, given his critique of Obama, that he'd have to renounce the attacks as "naive" or "destabilizing" or something. Has he even acknowledged that Obama's stated policy is exactly the one that Bush has been following? Some analysis of this muck, please!

Posted by Sam | June 20, 2008 1:49 PM

Yes, we should "compromise" on ANWR just like Steny Hoyer "compromised" on FISA.

What the heck, let's compromise on everything. The Democratic Party doesn't really stand for anything anyway.

Posted by Travis Mason-Bushman | June 20, 2008 1:49 PM

Yes, we should "compromise" on ANWR just like Steny Hoyer "compromised" on FISA.

What the heck, let's compromise on everything. The Democratic Party doesn't really stand for anything anyway.

Posted by Travis Mason-Bushman | June 20, 2008 1:50 PM

Drilling in ANWR, with the guarantee of environmental drilling practices, in exchange for a serious climate change/energy policy sounds like a fabulous deal to me.

Posted by RM | June 20, 2008 1:52 PM

Drilling in ANWR, with the guarantee of environmental drilling practices, in exchange for a serious climate change/energy policy sounds like a fabulous deal to me.

Posted by RM | June 20, 2008 1:55 PM

environmental drilling practices

I'm not necessarily opposed to this logroll, but be aware that this is pretty much an oxymoron.

Posted by Antid Oto | June 20, 2008 2:03 PM

logroll, eh? funny, I never read this phrase anywhere until today and now it's cropping up everywhere... wonder if it has to do with that Jack Shafer column in slate. Funny how people are reminded of bits of vocabulary they've forgotten and start using them on the spot.

Posted by mikem | June 20, 2008 2:18 PM

logroll, eh? funny, I never read this phrase anywhere until today and now it's cropping up everywhere... wonder if it has to do with that Jack Shafer column in slate. Funny how people are reminded of bits of vocabulary they've forgotten and start using them on the spot.

Posted by mikem | June 20, 2008 2:20 PM

ANWR is itself a compromise. This is with problem with calling for compromise when it comes to land use.

Imagine a hypothetical 1000 acre parcel of government-owned land. Industry wants to mine titanium. Environmentalists want to preserve habitat. A compromise is reached. We'll mine titanium on 500 acres and protect the remaining 500. Thirty years go by. The titanium in the mined areas is all gone. Industry wants to mine the remaining 500 acres. Pretty soon politicians start to call for compromise. Can't we just mine responsibly on part of the 500 acres?

Every single acre of preserved land in this country got that way through compromise. Drilling or mining on such land means rolling back previous compromises.

Posted by Rob Mac | June 20, 2008 3:08 PM

I suppose I was being too subtle. There actually is a National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska that could be explored for oil and gas. It's 2.3 million acres--far bigger than the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve--that the USGS estimates contains 9 to 10 billion barrels of oil. That's the same as the estimate for the much ballyhooed 1002 area of the wildlife reserve.

So if we are so hot to drill our way to freedom, why aren't we pushing oil companies to fully exploit the National Petroleum Reserve--just as Warren G. Harding would have wanted us to when he established the damn thing? Why, instead, are conservatives so hot to drill in the wildlife reserve? Maybe, just maybe, the whole ANWR obsession has nothing to do with oil and has more to do with fucking over something that nature lovers might hold dear.

Posted by jlw | June 20, 2008 5:14 PM

Apropos to this discussion, there was a column in todays' Washington Post by Mr. Yglesias' favorite columnist demanding that McCain reverse himself and support drilling in ANWR (see attached link).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061903022.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Posted by SLC | June 20, 2008 5:16 PM

I've been trying to propose a compromise for years, but the liberal side isn't buying in. Firstly ANWR is an excellent starting point for right wing demagoguery. Secondly, as long as Joe Sixpack thinks gas would be cheap and plentiful if only..., we can't get down to the serious business of transitioning away from oil.

So if we can get a deal, that uses the (supposedly) significant financial value of the oil
(100 to 200 dollars per barrel for several billion barrels), to fund a serious program to wean us from oil ( plug in cars, mass transportation ...), AND we also extract significant concessions on say climate change, it would be worth it.

Posted by bigTom | June 20, 2008 7:29 PM

Grover Norquist and Karl Rove, who have as much influence on the modern Republican Party as anyone, have both stated explicitly that their goal is not to beat, not the defeat, not outpoll, but to /DESTROY/ the Democratic Party and every liberal ideal that it has accepted and passed into law. And to do so over a period of 50 years if necessary. So why would anyone trust any "compromise" on any subject offered by any Republican, much less one based on a powerful trope of the Radical Right?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 21, 2008 3:14 PM

> So if we are so hot to drill our way to freedom,
> why aren't we pushing oil companies to fully
> exploit the National Petroleum Reserve--just as
> Warren G. Harding would have wanted us to when he
> established the damn thing? Why, instead, are
> conservatives so hot to drill in the wildlife
> reserve? Maybe, just maybe, the whole ANWR
> obsession has nothing to do with oil and has more
> to do with fucking over something that nature
> lovers might hold dear.

The second part is unquestionably true, but as I am sure you know the purpose of the strategic reserve, now as when it was created (in 1910?), is to ensure that the United States can win the Last War.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 21, 2008 3:18 PM