Ben Shapiro Shapiro is a first-year philosophy
student bringing reason to the masses. E-mail him at [email protected]. Click
Here for more articles by Ben Shapiro
Oil companies are more compassionate than environmentalists.
Exxon treats the world with greater care than does the Sierra Club.
And, shockingly enough, the conservatives are more sympathetic to
human life than the liberals are.
Of course, environmentalists claim their mission is to enlighten
the world to the danger of oil drilling in a section of frozen
wasteland in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a 19-million acre
reserve fenced off by Congress for preservation. Without these
activists, the masses might not understand the significance of the
Arctic bumblebee, the collared lemming, and the liverwort. And
heaven knows how empty life would be without permafrost!
Without the enlightened environmentalists, the world might come
to believe that children dying of starvation in Iraq are more
important than the population of the collared lemming. They might
think that Israeli soldiers being lynched in their own country
should take precedence over the growth of liverworts. But these
compassionate environmentalists know best.
Oil companies think differently. They know that without drilling
in the refuge, America will continue to be reliant on foreign oil,
which will mean softer foreign policy and eventually cost lives.
They even realize that drilling in the refuge would be a wise move
environmentally.
These issues come to the forefront of the public consciousness
with OPEC’s 5 percent crude oil output slash, which will
inevitably push up prices and slow the economy. OPEC, the
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Companies, is composed of
11 member countries, most of which are located in the Middle East.
Their oil exports comprise roughly 60 percent of the oil consumed
by the countries of the world, so the 5 percent reduction means 1.5
million barrels per day. This reduction, in turn, has caused oil
prices to jump almost $2 per barrel, and prices will continue to
increase. And some members of the cartel say OPEC is not done
reducing their output yet.
OPEC’s control over the economies of the world allows its
member countries to get away with policies that would otherwise be
deemed deplorable. Iraq exports $461 million worth of oil, about
3.5 million barrels per day. Oil exports account for about 81.3
percent of Iraq’s total export and about 11 percent of
OPEC’s total export. Iraq’s gross domestic product per
person is $823, an amount which would easily be enough to feed the
people. Yet they continue to starve, as Saddam Hussein uses this
money to build himself shrines and to manufacture nuclear arms. And
economic sanctions continue to fail because the world needs Iraqi
oil more than Iraq needs the world’s money.
 Illustration by CASEY CROWE/Daily Bruin In 1973, Egypt
and Syria attacked Israel with massive force. They were quickly
beaten back, with Israeli forces coming within 30 miles of Cairo.
Israel was supported mainly by the United States. OPEC created an
embargo to punish the western countries that had supported Israel
in its defense. The embargo caused a monumental recession in the
American economy. At that time, imported oil supplied 28 percent of
the total oil used in America. Presently, 58 percent of oil
consumed in America comes from foreign sources.
The truth is that America could function almost completely
without Middle Eastern oil for the next 25 to 30 years if we
drilled in the arctic refuge. So why this huge reliance on the
Middle East? The answer can be traced back to the environmentalist
groups dominating American politics today. They say that drilling
in the refuge will destroy natural wildlife, disrupt the
environmental flow, and do damage to Mother Earth, not to mention
have a horrible effect on natives of Alaska. Much of this is
completely without basis.
1.5 million acres of the arctic refuge were left open for later
consideration of oil drilling. The beautiful pictures of lush green
valleys and rolling hills usually associated with the refuge are
pictures of the Brooks Range, located in the 17.5 million acres
already designated as refuge. The 1.5 million acres left open for
drilling, land the environmentalists call “America’s
last true wilderness,” are actually a coastal plain with few
features and less wildlife.
The other major oil field in America is also located in Alaska,
in Prudhoe Bay. This is a valid comparative example, showing the
type of environmental damage drilling in the arctic refuge would
cause. The caribou populations “devastated” by the oil
fields drilled on Alaska’s North Slope in Prudhoe Bay have
increased since drilling began. And those polar bears in danger of
losing their homes? Polar bears almost never inhabit the coastal
plains, and no polar bear has ever been so much as scratched due to
extraction of oil in Prudhoe Bay
(http://www.anwr.org.features.lessrefuge.htm).
With new technological advances, the area necessary for drilling
has been reduced dramatically. Drilling in the arctic refuge would
affect only 2,000 acres ““ an area approximately one-sixth the
size of Dulles Airport in Washington, D.C. Even this small area
would benefit from new methods of drilling that minimize potential
dangers to the land. And environmentalists’ claims that 95
percent of Alaska is open for drilling are unfounded because,
actually, the number is less than 14 percent.
The environment would benefit as a whole from drilling in the
refuge. Instead of having to import oil from overseas and risk the
chance of oil spills, oil can be transported through pipelines.
The recent 160,000-gallon spill near the Galapagos Islands,
which endangered wildlife within a 37-mile radius, is a perfect
example of the type of damage oil shipping can do. In the words of
Coast Guard Capt. Edwin Stanton: “The bottom line is, once
oil gets out of a ship it’s virtually impossible to remove it
or contain it on the ocean.”
The Sierra Club, an organization that is at the forefront of the
environmental movement, has suggested that Alaskan pipelines be
built overland to avoid shipping.
The idea of drilling in the arctic refuge is not an extreme one.
Alaskan citizens agree with the prospect of oil drilling. Over 70
percent of Alaskans support drilling
(http://www.anwr.org/features/lessrefuge.htm). The state of Alaska
itself would receive $1.3 billion in lease sale revenues, meaning
greater wealth for the people of Alaska. Drilling would also
provide between 200,000 and 700,000 jobs across the country, 98
percent of those jobs being in the 48 lower states. Alaskans
aren’t the only ones who approve of drilling ““ a poll
in the Christian Science Monitor shows that other Americans favor
drilling by a percentage of 54 to 38
(http://www.anwr.org/features/csmpoll.htm).
Environmentalists usually decide policy by taking the opposite
opinions of those of the oil companies. In this case, their
intentions are flawed. Even though it is clear that big oil
companies are out to make profit from drilling in the arctic
refuge, that fact should not invalidate the idea of drilling in the
first place, which means a better environment as well as a better
life for millions of people. Americans will get their oil one way
or another.
The truly compassionate and sensible people are those who
realize it is better that they should get oil at the least cost to
the environment and the people of the world.