Watermelons and ANWAR
George Will tackles two topics well in a recent essay. He first addresses the no-brainer that allowing drilling in ANWAR is.
The increase in oil independence is good for the nation. While ANWAR may not be the single answer to this problem, it is a step in the right direction.
Flowing at 1 million barrels a day -- equal to 20 percent of today's domestic oil production -- ANWR oil would almost equal America's daily imports from Saudi Arabia. And it would equal the supply loss that Katrina temporarily caused, and that caused so much histrionic distress among consumers.
There is, frankly, no single act that will solve energy problems in this country. We must do multiple, positive things, and ANWAR is part of equation. And the environmental cost is negligible.
Ice roads and helicopter pads, which will melt each spring, will minimize man's footprint, which will be on a 2,000-acre plot about one-fifth the size of Washington's Dulles Airport.
ANWAR is a desolate (except to man and caribou) wasteland.
Those who have and think it is ``pristine'' must have visited during the 56 days a year when it is without sunlight. They missed the roads, stores, houses, military installations, airstrip and school. They did not miss seeing the trees in area 1002. There are no trees.
It was set aside, originally, for oil exploration. To date, that is the one thing that has not been done.
On a related topic, Will points out the true goal of most "environmentalists." They are, in actuality, displaced Marxists who found a home after the fall of the communist bloc in the environmental movement.
For some people, environmentalism is collectivism in drag. Such people use environmental causes and rhetoric not to change the political climate for the purpose of environmental improvement. Rather, for them, changing the society's politics is the end, and environmental policies are mere means to that end.
This observation is full of clear examples. Environmentalists couple their often questionable environmental concerns with an argument for more government (the right kind of government) control over scarce resources. This supports their goal of increased government intervention in society, as that end supports more collectivism, more regulation and more"equality" in outcomes. These Watermelons (green on the outside, and red on the inside) argue against foreign dependence on oil. Then they argue against using ANWAR to reduce the problem. Then they argue that coal in too dangerous. Then they argue that nuclear power is too dangerous. When their oppositions are done, they offer no solutions except wind tunnels off the coast of the Kennedy compound, which is then stopped by the leading hypocritical Watermelons of all, the Kennedies.
Watermelons oppose modernization in every form. They realize that progress comes from freedom and capitalism, not socilaism. They fight against increased quality of life and support always a step backwards -- for everyone.
Will adds this observation:
Therefore, one of the collectivists' tactics is to produce scarcities, particularly of what makes modern society modern -- the energy requisite for social dynamism and individual autonomy. Hence collectivists use environmentalism to advance a collectivizing energy policy. Focusing on one energy source at a time, they stress the environmental hazards of finding, developing, transporting, manufacturing or using oil, natural gas, coal or nuclear power.
There is no satisfying a position that seeks not to limit but to destroy. Collectivism is the process of destroying. It destroys freedom, innovation, and the spirit of the human soul. It would also destroy the economic machine that makes this country's poor overfed and with a higher quality of life than the average European.
The environment needs to be protected within our system that honors freedom, private property and innovation. The environmental movement is not the place to find that philosophy.