Because You Never Asked

ANWAR

          With regard to drilling for oil in the heretofore protected Alaskan wilderness --- Anwar --- once again, the debate has taken place far from the epicenter I consider the real one. Unlike what I discussed in the Enron case, which received even less play than Spiro Agnew's contribution to western society, it has entered the debate somewhat, but only as a utility player, without glory and barely recognized.

            Before explaining what should be the real meaning of the Anwar controversy, let's quickly dispose of the truth because it has had almost no participation in the debate, although the American people might have a dim intuition of it: the Bush Gang is in the oil business. There's money to be made in Anwar (and the next Anwar) and they will be amongst those making it. This is the motivation for their policies. Everything else is a fake hand off meant to focus our attentions in the wrong direction while they run to "paydirt". How long are we going to go for the fake?

                The Anwar debate has revolved almost exclusively around two issues: 1) using our domestic oil reserves as a way to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and, 2) the protection of the pristine wilderness which could be compromised if oil extraction is permitted.

            With regard to the first issue, please . let's not enter the realm of the absurd. Our consumptive addiction has grown to such extremes that our bodily silhouette, as a nation, could now be described as Faroukian obese. If oil is to be considered the primary food to feed this appetite, there is no way we can domestically nourish this diet. Foreign food sources will have to be pivotal in satiating such an eating disorder. No amount of Anwars can rescue us from this dependency.

            Most of the politicians now advocating oil extraction in Anwar have also stood in the way of every attempt to mandate better gas mileage on American vehicles. Please . to press for drilling in forbidden places as a way to lessen our dependence on sheik Ali Ali's oil, while actively allowing the size of the average American car to grow to that of an armored military vehicle, is an act of hypocrisy that should insult us all. I remind the reader, as I gaze out at the blue Mediterranean, that I write from a country as much engaged in a neo-liberal, free market, high tech economy as the United States. In spite of this, it accomplishes the tasks necessary for such an economy in vehicles that seem toys compared to the beasts we drive . and it's not just a question of gas mileage. It takes more energy and materials to manufacture these behemoths, to provide the extra steel, plastic concoctions, aluminum, expeditionary size tires and who knows what else. The Hulk Hogan weight of these vehicles put more stress on our infrastructure, decreasing the shelf life of roads, bridges, tunnels, etc. All this conspires to need more petroleum resources and an Anwar here and there will do nothing to lessen foreign dependency. Please . don't talk to me about lessening foreign dependency without getting serious about more efficiency. There is no debate here, even if I considered this the focal point of it all, which, as we shall soon see, I don't.

        With regard to the second part of the debate, that being the ecological damage that could take place in the Alaskan wilderness, although it is a relevant part of the controversy and should be discussed, once again, this writer sees it as a peripheral aspect of the issue. What's more, as one who obviously opposes the proposed drilling, we shouldn't let the oil people drag us into a prolonged discussion of this. Why?

            Before going any further, I feel compelled to state the following: I would not favor sacrificing half an antler of one horned beast in exchange for a million gallons of oil. But restricting the ecological debate to the Alaskan wilderness, is not only not the real issue, it is a tactical error. The defense of the environment in Anwar is more difficult to explain. It is not obvious. Only professionals, dazzling us with scientific concepts and jargon, are really capable of seeing and understanding how the ecology of this far off wilderness might be affected. These concepts are more subtle, more esoteric, more difficult for the rest of us to grasp. In contrast to this, the oil people can defend their side of the story in simpler terms. "It's a huge area, there's nothing there, we're only going to use a fraction of it, we have the technology, we're the Disney Oil Company, we love you Bambi." For the average American, living in a densely populated area entangled in an infinite web of highways, housing tracts, shopping centers, electric grids, sewer systems, stadiums, skyscrapers, subways, bridges, tunnels, communication towers, schools, libraries, restaurants, movies, cell phones, internets, stock markets, airports, woo! it is hard to relate to the damage being done to an ice covered, wind blown, treeless, rock-strewn expanse of empty terrain, 4,000 miles from NFL Control. Most people hardly give a damn for anything beyond their own families, let alone a bunch of caribou, polar bears and red nosed reindeer.

            The scope of the Anwar debate has been far too stingy. It should go way beyond the geopolitics of oil dependency; it represents much more than a wilderness at the end of the world. If the anti drilling forces can somehow prevail in this struggle, generations from now it might be looked upon as that moment when the line in the sand was finally drawn. "No more!" From here on out we are making a commitment to weaning ourselves of the fossil fuel habit.

            "To drill or not to drill" should not be debated with regard to domestic or foreign dependency. The debate should be centered over oil dependence, period! This is the only way to eliminate the political tension associated with controlling this source of energy. With regard to the environment, we should not get bogged down in an elaborate confrontation over a wilderness ecosystem almost 0% of us will ever see. By refusing to exploit a proven, substantial reserve of petroleum, we are not saving caribou and such; we are saving ourselves. We are cleaning up the environment right where we live. We are saving the planet, not just Anwar, from fossil fuel crud. This is where the true epicenter of the environmental debate should be.

            The Anwar debate is a more important moment in history than we are being led to believe. The conscious rejection of a proven source of oil would mean an important attitude change. In the past, oil exploitation was generally shrouded in the mists of back room politics. This is an excellent opportunity to air this all out in public. We have the necessary oil reserves to get us through the transition to more logical sources of energy. Let's not belittle this issue with the same old, tired songs of oil politics. Let's not belittle the environmental debate by confining it to a microscopic section of the planet. This is really a fight for the Earth's environment, not Anwar's.

            Let's not go for the fake.                                  

back to the Table of Contents

Email: JerryG@postcman.info