Um… every single ounce of oil used in the world is pumped up from a well, isn’t it?
GEU sounds like a noise of disgust. Like the sound I’d make when coming across some particularly gruesome roadkill. “Geeeeuuuuuuu, did you see that deer smeared across the center line?”
Two great tastes that taste great together.
I think the essence of why many people believe the calculation fails on water drilling is that the risks are fantastically large.
We don’t ban air travel or boxing because though there is a local-level horror, the overall risk on the societal level is acceptably—and relatively—small. That is, it’s only the intentionally abstruse that argues that it’s hypocritical to seek a ban on only some risks.
This incident bolsters the claims that an accident is inevitable (there are too many ways things can go wrong—even the fail-safe device failed); that the locale the drilling is taking place in is so inhospitable as to hamper mitigation efforts (only so much can be done remotely under water); that the environment itself exacerbates the impact of the incident (cleaning up on land is much different than cleaning from the water); and that the extent of the damage can be unimaginably large (I’m not putting a level on this particular incident, as it may be curtailed before massive impacts occur, just that the potential for a Valdez-dwarfing amount of harm is not unrealistic).
In the C/B/A, these factors increase both (the perception) of the likelihood of a future incident and (the perception) of the extent of the harm. For many, then, prior to and now (and I dare say this incident pushed many towards a similar conclusion), the veritable inevitability of a major incident taking place and the utter devastation likely to accompany it far outweighed the benefit of lessening reliance on foreign and ship-borne supplies of oil. (Note: it doesn’t mean those calculations come out all chummy, just that those are not as bad as offshore drilling.)
While the OP is a basic form of “see, I told you so!” and only the most cynical believe this is a good thing (or planned, or whatever the Beckians would put forth), it is a dramatic example of why it is rational and not necessarily political to be against drilling in coastal waters.
That it has become a politicized chant, “drill baby drifour legs bad, two legs good” on either side of the aisle is a by-product of the more malignant aspects of a two-party democracy. That it has become a partisan issue is based much more on Gotcha-Ya politics than due consideration of the risks and benefits—whereas small v. large government approaches and the like are inherently political, there is no inherent reason why this is a Democrat or Republican issue.
The math for that is completely wrong and a false choice as well. It completely ignores diminishing returns, alternatives, etc.
To wit we have plenty of energy already. Maybe instead of further destroying an already stressed fishing industry, we could, you know, use energy more wisely.
Well, except that it is. Who is more likely to promote Earth Day, a Republican or a Democrat? Environmental concerns must involve regulation of business, and the tighty righty community instinctively responds with suspicion, contempt and derision.
If you guys had listened to the dirty fucking hippies forty years ago, and really put some money and effort into alternative energy and all that other pie in the sky nonsense we were pushing for, mightn’t you be in a lot better shape now? Well, only if any of that were actually possible, of course. But if it isn’t possible, then nothing is lost, but if it is, then you would have had a forty year head start, rather than trying to play catch up ball out of sheer necessity.
But no! Hard headed realists don’t listen to hairy colorful people who probably don’t even know a good brand of scotch! So instead of something stupid, we got Hummers, and SUVs with tax breaks, and oils spills and war. We got the business. As usual.
We were right, and the white guys in suits were wrong, and you didn’t listen. When we told you so. And they’ll do it to you again, give them half a chance. They got money, and they can buy smooth advertising, and credentialed mouthpieces to tell you how wrong we are. And hey, who wants to be so stupid as to listen to a bunch of dirty fucking hippies? Just because we told you so?
“We could have saved it, but we were too stupid and lazy”
- Kurt Vonnegut
So it goes.
– I don’t know just how much oil is there is to be had by us in off-shore drilling.
– I don’t know to what extent said oil would reduce our dependence on foreign sources.
– I don’t know to what extent it might drive down prices or otherwise help the economy.
– I don’t know how likely future spills at off-shore rigs are to occur.
– I don’t know how severe we might expect any such future spills to typically be.
– I don’t whether or to what extent spills such as this one could be made less likely by refined and/or expanded government regulation.
I do know, however, that the ignorance of most people who have strong opinions one way or another on expanded off-shore drilling is comparable to mine. And I do know that this catastrophe, this extra piece of information, will, ironically, make it harder for us to come to a decision that is informed by facts and expertise (instead of by only the most recent and sensational data point). Ideally, we should wait at least a couple of years to make any long-term policy decisions about drilling, so as not to blinded to context.
Sorry, thought the context would make clear that I meant “domestic offshore well”, but reading it again it is a little unclear.
My point is that you seem to suggest a one-to-one ratio between the risk of a serious costal oil spill whether the oil is gotten from domestic offshore oil wells or taken from somewhere else and brought here in a tanker, since both tankers and offshore rigs are obviously vulnerable to spilling. My admittedly rough guesstimate is that this isn’t true, a gallon of oil gobtained from an offshore rig is more likely to get spilled then one brought in a tanker.
I’m gonna take a WAG and guess that the places we’re currently drilling were considered less environmentally risky than those areas we haven’t yet opened up to drilling.
Of course, one thing about a tanker spill is that there’s a clear upper bound on how much oil can spill. As the current disaster shows, there’s something to be said for that.
I could name you a few dozen GOP Senators, and a gross of GOP Representatives as well, who don’t believe we should be doing anything to reduce our dependence on oil.
The Dems ain’t perfect. But at least most of them are cognizant that there’s a problem, and would like to do something useful, but undoubtedly far from ideal, about it.
If the minority party would lead, follow, or get out of the way, rather than simply obstruct, we might make some progress on this issue as a country.
Someone check my logic here.
Domestic oil isn’t necessarily used domestically. It is sold on the open market. So all we do by drilling domestically is add some amount to the world supply of oil. How does that make us less dependent on foreign oil?
If the entire world other than the US makes 10,000 widgets a day. And we consume 5,000 widgets a day. Why does us adding 25 widgets a day to the world amount help us any more than a tiny bit? Wouldn’t other producers lower their production by 25 widgets a day to keep the price high?
I think the average drill-baby-drill proponent is thinking that this oil is put directly into America’s pockets and we save money somehow, but it seems like all we do by drilling is make American oil companies a lot of money (which we do tax, so it does help the economy to some extent.)
Am I completely wrong here?
Well, not completely. “*t seems like all we do by drilling is make American oil companies a lot of money (which we do tax, so it does help the economy to some extent.)”
However, Exxon Paid No U.S. Income Taxes in '09.
It makes us less dependent on the price of oil, not the supply of oil. Everything has a natural price point, so if the foreigners hoard oil and only sell us a thimbleful, then the price of that thimble of oil is very expensive. Add the cost of refining that oil into Gas and Diesel and other petrochemicals and the street price of gas goes up even further.
I think if I remember from last years thread on the oil bubble, The USA buys the majority of its fuel from Canada, Mexico , Venezuela and only a small percentage comes from the middle east. So I doubt that the supply is in a precarious position, but the rest of the world requires oil as well and keeping the price in check is a good thing.
Declan
Exactly. If they hadn’t set us straight on nuclear, who knows what kind of a shit hole this place would be.
Depends how you define “environmentally risky”. Florida’s beaches aren’t exactly a pristine wilderness, but a 90-mile oil slick would certainly be a risk to the local economy.
Which is better: to take the risks of nuclear power, or not need to take the risks?
No, you guys are responsible for the lack of nuclear power, so I’d lower my “I told you sos” a few decibels.
Oh, horseshit! Out total onslaught of political power crushed the puny resources of Money? Big energy interests wanted it, but cowered in fear of our wrath? Right. Sure. Hugh Betcha.
It’s a good thing we listened and scaled back on nuclear plants. I hate the cold and all, so this global warming thing is just awesome. Thanks hippies!
Well someone was, and it wasn’t those guys in the white suits you were deriding above…
Col. Sanders? Tom Wolfe?
no, but you had the ear of Hollywood. one China Syndrome later…