One problem with any survey is that it matters why a candidate believes what he does.
For example, I favor drilling in ANWR. I don't consider it a remotely close question based on the level of environmental risk and the potential economic gain (an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil extractable at a $25/bl world price even according to http://www.wri.org/climate/anwr.html which does not favor drilling). Of course, this is in the context of a fairly limited (2000 acres of actual drilling) and environmentally sensitive plan (e.g. attempting to restrict most activities to avoid migration patterns).
Now let's look at some background. States which were more recently admitted to the US have a much higher fraction of federally owned an controlled land than those which were in the country for longer. This reaches an extreme with Alaska which has a sizable majority of federal land. I happen to believe that this whole approach to environmental conservation is wrong and that Alaskans should have far more of a voice than they do in making this decision since they will be most strongly affected by the consequences both good and bad (incidentally, the little I've heard from Alaskan politicians and surveys suggests that they would strongly favor drilling). In some ways, I see the very existence of this as a purely Federal decision as a sign of poor environmental policy.
ANWR has also become a litmus test issue for environmentalists signaling the degree to which politicians regard the environment as more important than economic or other considerations. By that standard, I also favor drilling, and would still favor drilling if the available extraction technology made those 2,000 acres (but no other area) look like they had been hit by a nuclear weapon (don't worry -- the actual process isn't remotely like that and will probably leave those 2,000 acres looking much as they do now: like an uninhabited lunar landscape). Alaska has about 375 million acres of land. Opening 2,000 of them to drilling is not that significant an environmental impact even if we allow for the roads and pipelines which will be build and increased shipping necessary to support the drilling.
None of this is to say that I don't regard protecting the environment as one of the interests which is legitimately a part of development decisions. I'm just very disappointed at the way that cost/benefit analyses are typically done on environmental questions. Just because we happen to be starting from a baseline where Alaska mostly consists of wilderness doesn’t mean that we should automatically prefer that. Perhaps we don’t have enough wilderness on the East Coast, but that doesn’t mean that Alaska’s people might not be better off with less.
A politician could be a strident environmentalist in his general attitude towards the tradeoffs which are appropriate between economic development and environmental protection while still favoring drilling in ANWR (based on my perception of the gains and losses). The fact that I don't know of any such politicians may be a question of this being a litmus test issue. So, litmus tests aside, I'd want to understand his reasoning before I assumed that someone who supported drilling agreed with me.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Details Matter
Date: 2004-01-31 04:33 am (UTC)For example, I favor drilling in ANWR. I don't consider it a remotely close question based on the level of environmental risk and the potential economic gain (an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil extractable at a $25/bl world price even according to http://www.wri.org/climate/anwr.html which does not favor drilling). Of course, this is in the context of a fairly limited (2000 acres of actual drilling) and environmentally sensitive plan (e.g. attempting to restrict most activities to avoid migration patterns).
Now let's look at some background. States which were more recently admitted to the US have a much higher fraction of federally owned an controlled land than those which were in the country for longer. This reaches an extreme with Alaska which has a sizable majority of federal land. I happen to believe that this whole approach to environmental conservation is wrong and that Alaskans should have far more of a voice than they do in making this decision since they will be most strongly affected by the consequences both good and bad (incidentally, the little I've heard from Alaskan politicians and surveys suggests that they would strongly favor drilling). In some ways, I see the very existence of this as a purely Federal decision as a sign of poor environmental policy.
ANWR has also become a litmus test issue for environmentalists signaling the degree to which politicians regard the environment as more important than economic or other considerations. By that standard, I also favor drilling, and would still favor drilling if the available extraction technology made those 2,000 acres (but no other area) look like they had been hit by a nuclear weapon (don't worry -- the actual process isn't remotely like that and will probably leave those 2,000 acres looking much as they do now: like an uninhabited lunar landscape). Alaska has about 375 million acres of land. Opening 2,000 of them to drilling is not that significant an environmental impact even if we allow for the roads and pipelines which will be build and increased shipping necessary to support the drilling.
None of this is to say that I don't regard protecting the environment as one of the interests which is legitimately a part of development decisions. I'm just very disappointed at the way that cost/benefit analyses are typically done on environmental questions. Just because we happen to be starting from a baseline where Alaska mostly consists of wilderness doesn’t mean that we should automatically prefer that. Perhaps we don’t have enough wilderness on the East Coast, but that doesn’t mean that Alaska’s people might not be better off with less.
A politician could be a strident environmentalist in his general attitude towards the tradeoffs which are appropriate between economic development and environmental protection while still favoring drilling in ANWR (based on my perception of the gains and losses). The fact that I don't know of any such politicians may be a question of this being a litmus test issue. So, litmus tests aside, I'd want to understand his reasoning before I assumed that someone who supported drilling agreed with me.