Sunday, June 08, 2008

Time to drill more domestically?

So for all those who wish we'd been drilling all over Alaska and off all the coasts years ago, here's a question. If you could have sold your home a decade ago for $100k, and now it's worth $500k, would you regret not selling it a decade ago? I mean essentially what you're saying is you wish America had started selling one of its most valuable natural resources when it was cheap, rather than waiting until we can get a premium price for that resource. That doesn't seem like sound policy to me.

I've long opposed additional drilling in the US, for both environmental reasons and because I think we should simply be focusing on other energy sources and weaning ourselves from oil. But now I'm rethinking things. Let's say that by drilling ANWR and a few major coastal areas, we can generate at least 20 billion barrels over the next couple decades. If America chooses to sell that oil to the oil companies at a rate of no less than $80-90/barrel, and presumably the average rate over the next couple decades would be well over $100/barrel, then we're looking at generating over $2 Trillion over the next couple decades.

If, and only if, we were committed to using that $2 Trillion to aggressively pursue alternative energy and a more energy-efficient economy, then more domestic drilling might finally be a good idea. Over two decades, such a figure would work out to around $100 billion a year at least. I'd say we split that three ways.

One, provide grants for cities to make necessary upgrades to the infrastructure to support denser population patterns. (i.e. KC could apply for a few billion to finally fix the sewer lines as well as improve our mass-transit system. Over 20 years, every major city would get at least $5 billion or so.) One of the major ways we waste energy in our country is our sprawling population patterns. I realize this will be a tough sell because psychologically Americans are still pretty sold on the American dream of a big lawn in a quiet neighborhood. But really, is it all that great to have to spend 2-4 hours in your car every day? Wouldn't it be nice to have more time to spend with your family or friends? Is it really so terrible to live close enough to your neighbors that they could hear your cries for help in an emergency? If large numbers of people "sacrifice" two hours of commuting every day, that alone would make a tremendous impact on our national energy needs. But it will be expensive and take time to rebuild our cities to be more integrated and actually enjoyable to get around on foot or bike. Of course, the end result will not only save us tons in energy expenditures, but also health care costs as well. Not only would obesity rates and rates of heart disease and other expensive conditions improve, but there would almost certainly be a drop in rates of depression and certain other non-genetic mental illnesses as a result of people being "forced" to be less isolated from each other.

Two, implement a decent national rail network. Amtrak is a joke because it's century-old technology. Modern rail technology moves people at over 200mph, meaning trips of about 1000 miles or less are actually faster by rail than plane when you factor in the shorter loading and unloading time for trains. The airlines that are currently collapsing like dominoes with $100+/barrel oil are a testament to the fact the planes are hugely energy inefficient. They'll always have a place, but they shouldn't be our nation's primary form of long-distance travel, it's just too expensive.

Finally, major investments in renewable energy must be made. The most important technologies of the last 50 years would not have been possible without massive government investment. Microprocessors, satellites, and the Internet are what I'm referring to specifically. They all took massive government spending to reach the point of commercial viability. Renewable energy will be no different. In fact, it will require more government investment because it ultimately has to replace an existing, entrenched technology. But the payoffs will be even bigger than the three technologies mentioned above. Ultimately (and, yes, it may possibly-though unlikely-be over 100 years off, but it's still inevitable), the world will run out of easily accessible oil. We can either be prepared when we reach that point, or civilization will be wiped out and most of the human population will die and many generations will pass before a technological civilization emerges again, if it ever does. Seems like the choice here should be pretty obvious, but a lot of people are trying to make it a lot harder than it needs to be.

As an environmentalist, it's hard for me to consider that additional oil drilling in beautiful, natural areas of our nation is what's needed. But I usually find that I'm a pragmatist and a realist first. And realistically, this seems like the best way for our nation to fund the changes that we absolutely must make to remain a strong nation and help keep advanced civilization around on planet Earth.



Post a Comment

<< Home