| By Superduperficial - Jun 11th, 2008 at 11:15 pm EDT |
Unless there are some really great arguments I'm not aware of, this article (yes, from the National Review) pretty deftly lays waste to most of the arguments against drilling in ANWR.
One issue he doesn't address, though, is the timing -- and it's there that I think we (and the Obama campaign) should differ from the conservatives. In terms of our overall oil appetite, ANWR has a pretty tiny amount of the stuff; a 6-month supply, essentially. With oil prices consistently rising and energy security an issue, shouldn't we save the oil in ANWR for when it'll actually matter, or at least, when we'll get a better price for it in the future if the growth in demand for oil continues to outstrip supply growth? The idea that drilling in ANWR *today* is a good idea strikes me as a cheap Republican political ploy, even if drilling there *tomorrow* makes perfectly good sense.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
1) Which war are you referring to as having been 'started over oil'?
2) Assuming you meant Iraq, if it were about the oil, why wouldn't we just keep getting it through the Oil For Food program like everyone else was doing? Do you really think the Iraq war is a financially preferable way of obtaining oil to that?
3) To say that there would be 'no more wars started over oil' assumes that we're the only ones who start wars over oil. I seem to recall a certain war back in '91, which was started due to oil, but not by us...