Oil or Polar Bears: The $200 A Barrel Question
May 12, 2008
We are a finicky nation. Gas prices are high. Rather than watching the traffic ahead, we look up for those highway signs that change the gas prices by the minute. Run inside the convenience store, grab a quick paper and a Gatorade, and more than likely you may be paying an added $10 for that tank of gas you just pumped.
We gather in small masses to discus our latest hatred of the oil industry. Everyday at work, it never fails–
“Did you see that Cubs game lastnight?”
“I actually missed that one. I was to busy downloading my paycheck into the fuel
tank.”
Perhaps it isn’t that bad, although my sarcasm does air a bit of truth. People are frustrated. Even though we still have the cheapest gas in the world, we are still frustrated that it costs so much more to fill up our boat, that is attached to our fully- rigged diesel RV. In Aruba, gas is $18 a gallon.
On the other hand, we also have the environmental and animal rights activists that refuse to consider the possibility of drilling in places that previously were unheard of. Our National Parks.
Whether your on one side of the fence, or the other, (or as most I have heard–straddling the fence), there is a slight possibility that change is heading our way. Either the government is going to open the park system to drilling, or we are going to be saving that American Icon, the polar bear. What? The Polar Bear? Do we even have Polar Bears? Perhaps a rare specimen here and there in Alaska, but for the most part, none of us will ever see one in the wild.
Kevin Hasett, who writes a column for Bloomberg News, has taken it upon himself to look at this very issue and the effects that one or the other could have on our current oil situation. I should also mention that Kevin is director of economic-policy studies at American Enterprise Institute, as well as an Advisor to Republican Presidential candidate John McCain.
The article is pretty informative and an interesting read. Many of us fail to see how everything co-relates between our wants and our needs in government, but this article actually lays it all out. It opens up the eyes a bit.
Go read the article, then come back and post your own thoughts. I am interested in hearing what my readers have to say on this issue, as it has been quite controversial in the press, and likely, will be so here as well. Just remember, keep it clean. We have families reading.
Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it,From The Adventurist Vault:
Written by Jason A. Hendricks · Filed Under Uncategorized |
Read your column and that by Mr. Hassett. I don’t understand what you mean by energy exploration in national parks. The Hassett column doesn’t mention it and you provide no documentation, just a statement. Where did you get your information that there would or could be oil exploration in national parks?
From mr. Hassett’s column:
If things go the right way this week, the local nature of this issue might change. An endangered species could have an effect on economic activity everywhere in the U.S., not just in a single locale. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken recently ordered the Interior Department to decide by May 15 whether polar bears should be listed under provisions of the act. There is a strong chance that the polar bear will be declared “threatened.” If so, then everything about the economics of endangered species will be turned on its head.”
This, in itself, does not suggest that there could be drilling in National Parks. If you Google “Oil Drilling in National Parks”, you will come across many resources for the debate regarding the Alaska Arctic Wildlife Refuge and attempts to have this opened to drilling. Many people are suggesting that the use of the Polar Bear may be an attempt to halt future drilling in these areas.