by Larry Caswell

These days we frequently hear government officials argue that we must remove bans on oil drilling in areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in order to combat higher gas prices that Americans are presently confronting. Using this argument to promote drilling in protected areas is dishonest and is not relevant to long term solutions to our oil dependency and the climate change crisis.

Any increased oil supplies from these proposed projects would not be available to help during the present period of high gas prices. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) states that it would take ten years for any new oil to flow. This new oil would not have an effect on prices until 2027, according to the EIA. And what effect on prices would this new oil have?

The U.S. has less than 3 per cent of the world’s oil reserves. At the same time we use almost 25 per cent of the world’s oil production. All oil produced in a free market is subject to the going world price per barrel, and the new production from drilling ANWAR and other areas would be so small compared to total world production that it would have a negligible effect on the going market price. The EIA estimates that new oil from drilling the refuge would lower prices no more than a few cents per gallon in 2027.

Some will argue that the mere fact that we are talking about drilling these areas has already had a downward effect on prices. Rather, recent data indicate that for the first time in many years there has been a decrease in oil usage spurred by recent gas prices. This decrease has certainly been felt by the market and is one in a mix of complicated causes, which include oil speculation, for short term price fluctuations. This supports the contention that conservation measures are the quickest and most effective short term way to reduce our inflated energy budgets.

When considering the supposed drilling panacea we need to keep several other important facts in mind. First, the world production of economically recoverable oil has already peaked or will soon peak. This, coupled with increasing demand around the world, especially in Asia, insures that with the exception of short term fluctuations, gas prices are only going to continue to increase in coming decades.

Second, the worst thing about current calls for oil drilling in protected areas is that they divert our attention from the real solutions we must initiate at present and in the long term to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. As has happened several times in the past, an expectation is created on the part of consumers that high prices might only be temporary. This coupled with the belief that the problem is solvable by more application of past solutions such as drilling has the tendency to encourage people to put off the necessary choices that we are going to have to make. These choices include where to live in relation to work, the necessity of other lifestyle changes, what types of transportation and energy are appropriate, what kind of personal vehicles should be purchased, and what should be the role of our government in encouraging these changes.

We also need to accept the fact that there is scientific consensus that our carbon emissions are a significant contributor to human caused climate change, and solutions that encourage us to continue using gasoline at present rates only put off carbon reductions that we must make in order to insure a livable future for coming generations on this planet. Even if drilling were able to induce a significant reduction in prices, this would work against our efforts to mitigate climate change.

A third factor worth consideration concerns the type of uses we choose for our remaining oil reserves. Oil, the stored past energy of the sun, has a tremendous list of potential uses from plastics to food production to medicine. Using oil to power the internal combustion engines of our private automobiles is like washing our autos in champagne. Oil is much too valuable for this use. At present, in addition to the previously mentioned uses, we must consider the need to use remaining oil and other fossil fuels to manufacture the infrastructure we are going to need in order to convert to sustainable energy. Wind generators and photovoltaic cells will require oil for their manufacture in the quantities that we are going to need in coming years.

Finally, places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge have a right to exist on their own terms. Great migrations of birds and animals such as the caribou in these areas are already facing obstacles. The 130,000 strong Porcupine Caribou herd relies on the coastal plain, the proposed site for drilling, for its calving season. Our country’s longstanding efforts to preserve our special places for all present and future Americans have been hailed as one of our best ideas. Future generations of Americans will surely thank us for not sacrificing the integrity of our sacred places, and will value the continued existence of biodiversity much more highly than we would value a reduction of a few cents in gas prices twenty years down the line.

In conclusion, we might say that the “drill us out of high prices” solution panders to short-term and short-sighted emotions and desires, while ignoring the important long-term issues that humanity is facing. We must leave these wishful solutions behind and concentrate on real solutions such as conservation, efficiency in manufacturing, mass transit, renewable energy, lifestyle changes, and government policies and regulations which will make a difference in meeting our challenges.