If you haven’t heard already, a rebel faction of House Republicans torpedoed the big spending drill over the issue of ANWR.
Two dozen moderate House Republicans on Thursday pledged to defy party leaders and vote against the final budget bill if the legislation resuscitates a plan to allow oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
The Bush administration has sought to open the wildlife refuge to drilling, saying it may hold up to 10 billion barrels of crude oil. Democrats and environmental groups want to keep the wilderness off-limits, saying stricter automobile fuel efficiency standards could save the same amount of oil.
Republican leaders in the House of Representatives dropped the controversial ANWR drilling provision late Wednesday because it threatened to sink the entire bill that aims to cut $50 billion from federal spending.
However, drilling supporters and some opponents believe the Alaska measure could be inserted again when House and Senate negotiators work out the terms of a final budget bill.
“If you want the (final bill) to succeed, you better keep ANWR out,” said Rep. Charles Bass of New Hampshire.
“If a (budget bill) conference report comes back with ANWR in it, then we will vote against it,” said Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland.
Gilchrest and Bass were among 24 moderate Republicans who told Republican House leaders they would vote against the budget bill if it gave oil companies access to the refuge.
This represents a huge black eye for the new House Majority Leader Roy Blunt and invites unwelcome comparisons to the erstwhile Hammer. DeLay was a world-class prick, sure, but nobody pulled this shit on his watch. The defeat suggests that the Democrats’ move towards relevance, and the Republicans’ slide away from it, is picking up steam, but there are dangers in celebrating this victory too soon.
What I mean is illustrated by the lawmakers’ smart decision to talk about conservation rather than caribou. Even then they’re missing the point, since we could theoretically save twice as much money if we drill and impose economy standards. The real danger is if this issue gets framed as fuel prices versus caribou. Gas prices won’t go back to $1.50 a gallon in our lifetimes and $3 per gallon may become routine, at which point those caribou and their frozen, barren habitat will become an albatross around Democrats’ necks. Preserving essential habitat is an honorable goal, but people need to understand the simple fact that when oil hits $200 a barrel we will cut off George Washington’s head and drill Mount Rushmore.
I know that ANWR most likely can’t produce more than three months’ worth of US fuel consumption, and you know that, but gas prices have a way of killing logic. Deal with it. The same principle works against Bush whenever fuel goes up and, magically, his polls tick down.
The ‘conserving’ angle works a little better, but as I said we could always drill and conserve for twice the benefit. If you want a truly convincing counter-argument you need to resort to economics rather than ecophilia, and you need to have a good reason why we shouldn’t do X and drill ANWR. My simple answer is to point out that the ANWR petroleum is worth a hell of a lot more to us in the ground than it is in a barrel.
Think about it this way. If we drilled ANWR today we’d make about $57 a barrel. That would make sense if oil prices were on their way down, but obviously they’re not. Demand and supply have reached the point where they’re practically equal, and what’ll happen when the trands trends cross for good is anybody’s guess. Will $200 a barrel sound reasonable? $400? Will a free market for petroleum even work at that point? Nobody knows for sure. Whatever happens you can bet that the petroleum under ANWR will be worth a hell of a lot more right where it is, in its entirety, than it would be belching out of the ass end of a late-model Hummer two or five years from now. That’s not even taking into account how important the reserve will be when you can’t just go out and pick up petrol on the free market anymore.
If you think of our ANWR reserves as an investment the question becomes a lot simpler. It’s hard to imagine a portfolio manager who would look at a stock that won’t go anywhere but up, and may not even be available to buy some years down the road, and recommend you to sell.
John Cole
First.
salvage
Damn, I never even began to think of looking at it like that. Neat!
Gamer
Ah, the drain the mid-east dry theory. Get them to sell the oil to us on the, relatively, cheap, and save our own for when prices get pricey. The trick then is for there to still be a market for oil rather than some cheaper source at that point in the future.
smijer
Great point… ‘Course if China decides that it is time for some “pre-emptive war” against Alaska, there’s a possiblity that ANWR won’t be there for us when we really get to needing it… but I guess that’s why they call investments “risks”…
By the way… you’re way off on this WP thing… It’s not the John Cole I know… I hope you’ll start giving this the attention of that fiercely analytical mind, together with an application of that platinum conscience you apply to topics like torture and civil rights.
Gamer
Sorry, that should have been “drain the mid-east dry first theory.
All your rig belong to us.
Sine.Qua.Non
Check these links to see how wrong you really are about ANWR: (By the way, ANWR is not a deserted wasteland tundra as many try to describe the area… it is a pristine wilderness and ecosystem full of plants and wildlife and their habitat.)
ANWR MAPS & OIL WELLS
MORE FACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT: Ethics and Nature
Read and learn. It would be nice for once if people would try to think outside of their own petty human needs. The whole mentality pisses me off. If humans have to believe and act like they act king of the jungle, it comes with responsibility.
And, why aren’t you promoting alternatives Tim? Between the Senate, House, Bush, this and
Jeff Goldstein
I’m about to literally have an aneurism this week.
jaime
The oil in ANWR may not make a bit of difference to the price of oil. By the time we start to see oil we should be well on our way to kicking the habit if we know what’s good for us. This is the pet project of a failed oilman who couldn’t find oil in Texas. Will a failed ANWR project be rescued by Saudis like they did with Arbusto?
On the other hand, we wouldn’t want Ted Stevens throwing another hissy fit.
Sine.Qua.Non
Followup: Tim, I get your point, however. I was too po’d about a couple of other posts to read your’s rationally the first time around. Take my previous post in that vein please.
Jaime: I wish they would have called Stevens on his bluff to quit…what a horse’s ass.
JonBuck
We’re on track for proudcing 75 million gallons of biodiesel this year. That’s three times as much as last year. In 1998 we produced 500,000 gallons.
We presently have 45 operating plants and 53 planned or under construction that will come online in the next year (if we can get feedstock…). In total, the capacity will be 800 million gallons per year. That’s about 2% of current nationwide diesel demand.
jaime
Seriously. How can we trust our national defense to such wussies?
Jon H
” since we could theoretically save twice as much money if we drill and impose economy standards. ”
Er, except that it won’t even start producing for about a decade, and the oil might not be that good anyway.
And after a decade of serious economy efforts, we might just end up having opened up ANWR so that we can sell the oil to China.
Frankly, we shouldn’t be drilling in ANWR while anybody’s buying big SUVs. It means we don’t actually need the oil enough.
It should be saved until we *really* need it. ANWR is our REAL strategic petroleum reserve.
Paddy O'Shea
Watching Republicans in Congress take stands that coincide with majority opinion in this country is a strange kind of novelty to be sure. But I suspect it has a lot more to do with anxiety over the upcoming 2006 elections than anything else.
It looks like running around and claiming to be more patriotic and Godly than everyone else just isn’t cutting it with the voters anymore. Which is forcing some Republicans to *gasp!* actually do the sorts of things that people actually want them to do.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Jon H
Ah, crap.
That’ll show me not to read the whole damn post.
Wait. I did it again, didn’t I. Last time, it was thinking you were John. Now this. Foo.
BIRDZILLA
They will still leave us at the mercy of OPEC then we just vote the lilylivers out of office we show were tired of the timid elephant and the bully donkey both
Tim F.
That’s about right. Get it from them while they’re still giving it to us.
Oberon
Speaking as a relative liberal with family in Alaska, I say open up ANWR for drilling. It’s friggin’ Artic Circle. But damn if we should spend tax money to subsidize the oil companies’ efforts up there.
stickler
Um, apparently someone hasn’t been paying close attention to how, exactly, the oil bidness has functioned for the last fifty or so years. No tax dollars? Bwaa, haa, haa.
Gosh, the fall weather is playing tricks with my mind. What bidness was most of this Administration part of, before they got
appointedelected back in 2000? Was it widgets?John Cole
Yeah, Tim! You suck!
:)
my cat
Yes, it’s above the Arctic Circle. It is not a wasteland. It’s worth protecting because creation,whether nature’s or god’s, shouldn’t be distroyed by the shortsightness, wastefulness and hubris of people.
By the way there was an even worse provision in the budget that didn’t get much publicity: the Radical Right had attached a provsion that would have allowed the sales of up to 20 million acres of public land, National Forest and National Park, to mining companies for two dollars and fifty cents an acre.
All the publicity over the Republican party’s corruption and this adminitration’s incompetence, devotion to torture, and cronyism has overshadowed their absolutely appalling record on public policy as regards management of our public lands.
Tim F.
Dork. :p
Perry Como
If it had passed I would have set up Perry Como Mining LLC. and dropped a cool $1000 for some retirement property. Pick a few girls up from this commercial and voila — my own strip mine!
p.lukasiak
Tim, this is really getting annoying.
Everytime I read a post here, and think “gee, Cole is having another one of his episodes of lucidity”, I suddenly realize I now have to check the authorship, and inevitably its you.
space
Contrary to CW, most moderate Dems are willing to drill in ANWR if it is part of a larger — and sane! — energy policy. What they are not willing to do is pretend that it opening up ANWR would remotely solve our long term energy needs. I will continue to oppose any half-assed plan that actually undermines the public pressure to start being honest about our problems.
Jon H
“Yes, it’s above the Arctic Circle. It is not a wasteland. ”
As I always say, ANWR is like my ass. You probably don’t think it’s pretty, but it’s pristine, and I’ll be damned if anyone’s going to start drilling.
Jcricket
Worst…image…ever.
But good metaphor. Seriously, based on what I see I just can’t understand why drilling in ANWR is such a priority. Spend the same money on biodiesel, wind, improements to CAFE standards, fuel cells, hybrids. As others have pointed out I don’t think ANWR will be a drop in the bucket if the big oil problems hit. Combined with the potential for destroying a large piece of unreplacable environment, I fail to see a compellin case.
There’s a limited about of money to go around to invest in energy, and possibly a limited amount of oil (cheap oil, anyway). Let’s start spending on the alternatives now.
This reminds me of lots of debates in US politics. ANWR is basically the absolute fringe of the energy debate, a nearly trivial issue made national because no one is willing to confront the hard issues at the root of the problem. Yeah, I know, getting cars to double gas mileage isn’t going to happen tomorrow. But it’s never going to happen with the people who insist ANWR drilling is “the answer”. In this case I feel pretty comfortable with the Democrats “protest vote” on this issue and I doubt it will be an albatross around their necks in years to come.
Beej
Okay, let’s be honest about our problems. We have allowed ourselves to become addicted-again!- to big, gas guzzling vehicles, and the auto companies have been only too glad to sell them to us as long as we’re willing to pay for them. Research into alternative fuels is starting to show promise, but right now, there is NOTHING that makes any sense to replace gasoline. Ethanol? Uses more oil to produce than it saves. Hydrogen? Kaboom! Solar? Sure if you’re willing to wallpaper every piece of unused land in the U.S. with solar collectors. Wind power? See solar, but think wind turbines.
There will come a time, I hope, when new technologies make one or all of the above practical as a substitute for oil. But right now, the best bet is to keep researching and CONSERVE. Tim’s got a good point about ANWAR, and there are some pretty good hybrid cars out there. Say, how about a sales tax break on every purchase of a hybrid? Cutting taxes right before an election year? How can the politicos resist?
JonBuck
Beej:
Cellulose ethanol. You can use the entire plant, significantly increasing the energy return. Frankly, I don’t like ethanol very much (low energy density), but this goes a long way to solving certain problems using corn for ethanol.
We have a ways to go. But investment in alternatives is booming right now.
Pb
You know, I think more ethanol would be a welcome addition to our energy resources. I hear the naysayers yammer on about how much energy it takes to grow food (and that just depends on how you do it too), but there are tons of waste that could be used for ethanol. It isn’t like we have to designate a corn field and say “We’re going to use this all for energy production”–you could use corn husks, or as you say, the rest of the plant too–and still eat the corn! Have your corn and eat it too–amazing!
Slide
albatross around the Dems neck? huh? You really think Americans are clamering to drill in ANWR? wow you are out of touch. Gotta get out of your right wing circles John and talk to some real Americans from time to time.
I think the Dems will take their chances opposing drilling in ANWR.
Slide
Correction. I see this is a Tim post so I retract my comments directed towards John. You guys really should have different fonts or something, can be confusing who is writing what.
neil
Damn, I like it. And the best thing is it can be used indefinitely!
Another Jeff
Yeah, because it’s not like it says the name of the perons who wrote it right under the title or anything.
Jon H
Jcricket writes: “Worst…image…ever.”
You don’t know the half of it.
Jcricket
Honestly, I think of drilling in ANWR largely as a Republican strategic issue, not a tactical one. Like the fact that Roe v. Wade is still on the books. Good grist for the mill. Republicans don’t want to drill in ANWR as much as they want to kill alternative energy or conservation as the focus of the energy “debate”. ANWR more about painting the Democrats as anti-business or crazy-tree-hugging liberals for their hatred of gas.
I do wonder if people understand just how much of the price of gas goes to oil companies. In WA state the voters almost “revolted” over a 9.5c gas tax (hey, a direct use tax, only for roads, should be a shoe-in), mainly because of the high price of gas. So, rather than directing their anger at the people “responsible” for the $1 increase over 2 years in the price of gas, they try and take back the only gas money that stays in the state. Silly voters. Luckily, the repeal of the gas tax failed.
(for a counter-example, see Ted “Give me a bridge to nowhere or I’m taking my pork and going home” Stevens.)
Bill Hicks
Tim, you have a taken a very simplistic view of oil and energy. One problem with your idea, when gas hits $3/gallon, synfuel from coal, shale and other hugely avaiable fossil fuel resources (compared to oil) is economically feasible. There is currently a huge synfuel plant being built in WV to take adavantage of cheap coal and expensive gas. The Saudis have hit peak output and can not pump any faster. Peak oil has arrived. Gas and oil are going to stay expensive allowing other fuels to be used competitively. ANWR would never under the best scenarios affect prices even if the maximum effort and area were used to pump ANWR oil. I forget if you are at WVU but WVU has a whole group of folks working on these issues, you should check out their info.
Tim F.
Bill,
That’s an example of the argument where we will do X and drill. You are correct that increasing prices will push alt-fuels past the break-even point. That won’t stop the stuff under ANWR from getting that much more valuable at the same time. We could either just-more-than-break-even with coal gasification, or get a bajillion-fold ROI with a drill and some barrels.
Sine.Qua.Non
John: I never said Tim sucked. And, I apologised for my tone.
John Cole
Sine- You have nothing to apologize for, I was just poking fun at Tim because it is nice to see someone else get flamed in the comments for a change.
Bill Hicks
Tim
My point wasn’t completely clear, energy prices will go up but will eventually settle at a new high like $3/gallon for gas; $80-$100/barrel are some estimates I have seen. Even the best estimates indicate there is so little oil under ANWR that it will have no influence on gas/oil prices or national security (many analysts assume the oil will be sent to Asia because of lower shipping costs). So, democrats are unlikely to suffer any backlash from preventing drilling in ANWR assuming they are politically adept enough to make this point (admittedly the most problematic assumption in my argument especially considering the not quite completely honest arguments of some promoting drilling in ANWR) . The recent defections of moderate republicans concerned about drilling in ANWR indicates that this is a very safe issue for democrats to pursue. Because of synfuel, biodiesel (see post above), wind, tidal, nuclear, solar and other current technologies oil is unlikely to hit $200/barrel. The demand for oil will ease as these new technologies make up for it. And new technology is rapid when prices rise high enough. the biodiesel example above explains exactly how this works (from thousands of gallons to close to 100 million in a few years; and estimates of billions possible in a few more, enough to replace 30% of our gas needs). Synfuels using the Fischer-Tropsch process could theoretically replace all of our need for oil, but only at $3/gallon or higher. These really aren’t even my arguments but the arguments of folks who work in the energy industry (although they may be arguing for drilling in ANWR also primarily because they do not put a cost on loss of wilderness).
Sine.Qua.Non
That’s because they are never allowed to make the comparisons for loss of habitat and ecosystem. Good post.
John: Sorry, I am too serious lately and the environment is also deeply ingrained in me and always has been, predominantly due to my childhood in Alaska.