Voinovich's tricky ANWR spin

Via the New York Times, Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) is using some slick spin to exaggerate the probable effect of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in a statement supporting President Bush's decision to lift an executive ban on offshore oil drilling:

If we had started exploring ANWR 10 years ago when President Clinton vetoed it, and coupled it with a comprehensive energy plan, we wouldn't be in this predicament today. But now the chickens have come home to roost. We can afford to wait no longer.

Even if ANWR were fully online today, however, it would only support a small percentage of US oil consumption, which means it would have a negligible effect on the price of oil in global markets. The way Voinovich gets around this inconvenient fact is by adding that if we had "coupled [opening ANWR] with a comprehensive energy plan, we wouldn't be in this predicament today." But that's like saying "If I had saved $10 more in the fifth grade, and also invested all of my savings in Google stock, I'd be a millionaire today."

Comments

[Rob]

Brendan, I reckon you're missing the slickest part of Voinovich's statement. When he says, "[T]he chickens have come home to roost," he's using the very phrase that made Jeremiah Wright a household name (accompanied, if memory serves, by a graceful little pirouette). Thus he reopens the Wright wound but does so in a way that insulates him from criticism for doing so. Pretty cute.

[Howard]

I think Voinovich wanted to remind people that Obama actually had a minister.

He was upset by that New Yorker cover and was standing up for a fellow Senator.

Oh, and I think he wanted to remind people how Clinton had created this dependence we have on fossil fuels.

[David]

Brendan calls it an "inconvenient fact" that ANWR could only support a small percentage of US oil consumption and would have a negligible effect on the price of oil in global markets. Apparently he believes that no step should be taken unless it would have a meaningful effect on the worldwide price of oil. That's an impossible standard.

Any single new wind, water, or solar power project would only have a negligible effect on total world energy -- in fact, much less impact than ANWR oil. Brendan's standard would eliminate all new wind, water and solar projects.

Similarly, any single CO2 reduction program could have only a negligible effect on global warming, yet Brendan wouldn't recommend doing nothing about global warming. No single wind, solar or water power project would have a measurable effect on the earth's temperature.

IMHO Voinovich was using a reasonable standard: Would ANWR drilling along with other other feasible actions produce substantial improvement? Voinovich says that combination would have a major impact on the US energy supply.

Voinovich's standard has more teeth than one might think. Kyoto fails it. Not only would any single action to reduce CO2 emissions have infinitesimal impact on global warming, but even all of Kyoto would have a fairly minimal impact. If fully complied with, the Kyoto emissions reductions would only delay the temperature increase about six years in 2100.

Requiring a meaningful impact is just an excuse to oppose something when one doesn't have a better argument.

[Howard]

David -

The point was that Voinovich was portraying off-shore drilling as though it was the cornerstone (or the centerpiece) of a comprehensive program that would have a sweeping impact. At least when looking at that one paragraph in isolation.

****

"Requiring a meaningful impact is just an excuse to oppose something" - no, it's a reason, not an excuse.

If my doctor is opposed to a course of action because it will not have a meaningful impact is he making an excuse?

Why was the ban introduced by the President's father, in the first place? I would hazard the guess that there were potential overwhelming environmental costs (damage to fishing stocks, for example) that were a factor.

The point isn't should the ban be lifted or not - the point is what are the costs, what will be the impact on actual energy independence or near term prices and what else can we do, with regard to an developing a meaningful energy policy.

You have to weigh the benefits against the costs and the consequences for both allowing the activity or for continuing to disallow the activity (both negative and positive). Voinovich seems a bit over-enthusiastic about the results of lifting this ban.

Oh, BTW, those oil reserves aren't going away - they are static, sitting below the surface (unlike climate change, which is an on-going phenomenon).

Speeding up our access to our existing oil reserves doesn't create more reserves. Incremental steps taken to slow climate change, on the other hand, are all we have. Comparing the two issues, as you have, is pretty meaningless.