National Security and Drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

President Bush and his friends in the Republican party and the oil industry (as if you could tell them apart) have long advocated opening the pristine wilderness of the ANWR to oil drillers. Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, essentially hated by the entire ecology/conservation movement, has stepped up the debate this week by arguing that such drilling is now a matter of national security (sorry, that link may not work after 11/28/01 due to shortsighted Knight-Ridder policies). Ecological arguments aside, on the face of it this is an absurd argument.

Back in 1972, the Club of Rome released a report called The Limits to Growth, which was about the depletion of the Earth’s natural resources. This book alarmed many people although it was ultimately proven to be far too pessimistic. Still, the report and the surrounding furor did make at least one point clear: the Earth does not have infinite quantities of natural resources. Be it 20 years or 120 years, there is only so much petroleum in the ground. My opinion is that we will get to a point where any and all oil in the ground will be fair game, although technology will allow us to minimize the impact on the terrain.

In the meanwhile, I believe that our real national security interest lies in preserving our own supply and allowing other nations to tap and sell theirs. What’s the big deal about giving them $19 (today’s price) or $35 (last year) a barrel now so that we have as much oil to tap years from now when it will be a much more precious resource. The oil industry, of course, isn’t really that concerned about the national security implications but are quite concerned about raising their nearterm revenues and profits. Could it be that the overwhelmingly close ties between the oil industry and the Republican party is causing the Republicans to miss the realities of this decision?