OPINION: A conservative case against ‘drill, baby, drill’

However, I seem to be in the minority. A recent Journal online poll showed that three in four people want to see more, not less, offshore drilling. And numbers elsewhere reflect that sentiment too. Did the shock of $4 a gallon gas hit people harder around here than the television images of an environmental catastrophe in the Gulf? Well, at least in one way, the answer is clearly yes. The price spike certainly caused more behavioral changes regarding oil use than the spill.

Our hearts are tied to our wallets. And while most all opposition to increased offshore drilling is rooted in environmental concerns, which many conservatives feel threaten our economic interests, I think there’s a very good fiscally conservative case against more U.S. offshore drilling now.

First though, let me state, I believe the “drill-baby-drill” contingent will ultimately get its wish. Yes, there’s a six-month moratorium on new offshore drilling, but I believe that’s more of a political cool-down strategy surrounding the spill than an ideological shift in winds regarding drilling.

If you really want a read on the future of drilling in this country, then I’d say look at what’s happening now in the Arctic. According to a front-page June 24 New York Times report, BP has built a gravel island in the Arctic in 22 feet of water. The island is considered “onshore” and thus exempt from the moratorium. BP plans to drill two miles under the sea and then horizontally six to eight miles to a projected 100-million barrel reservoir under federal waters. BP’s proposed high-pressure, “extended reach” method of drilling is untested and considered more prone to “the types of gas kicks that triggered the explosion on Deepwater Horizon.”

Do you see any irony in this? BP causes the moratorium, but they have an exemption to try a new kind of technology in the Arctic, while other more responsible oil companies have their hands tied because of BP’s catastrophe. The fact that this risky BP project continues seems indicative of where we’re headed, doesn’t it?

For decades, politicians have moved their mouths about “alternative energy” and the need to get beyond our dependence on petroleum. We know that we need oil now to live as we do. We know that we are at the mercy of the Middle East and that we want to shift away from our reliance on folks we can’t fully trust. We can pretty much all recite those tired, old talking points that never lead to action.

It’s important to note that those who favor more drilling now follow sound fiscal sense — at least in the short-term. If we can’t have the new energy source, then how about at least having more independence? Yes, that has a beautiful ring. You can’t be intellectually honest and dismiss the fiscal appeal of that.

But you can’t dismiss the deeper dollar and cents truths either, the fact that we will never be free from dependence on foreign oil, no matter how much we drill, because we don’t have enough oil under our own soils and waters to supply our own needs now. Even if we did, the oil under us goes on a global market, not a national one.

And here’s where I think fiscal conservatism comes into play as a long-term strategy. If we drill more now, that means we will use up a resource that could be even more valuable in 20 or 30 years if no viable alternative energies are found. Proponents of expanded offshore oil drilling get irritated at those with environmental concerns, saying they lack pragmatic fiscal thinking. But if pragmatism is your best attribute, you must also consider when to cash in your chips — now or later when they’re worth more? Do you drink your own milkshake now or drink someone else’s now and yours later when ice cream is more scarce? “Drink now!” is the mantra of the day.

But this hunt for fuel is going to get seriously tense in years to come as the global population explodes and demand rises. Unless we find new energy sources, nations will likely clash over diminishing resources.

If this happens, then the global oil trade will get much tighter, and may evaporate, with nations looking out for their own interests and not wanting to be part of a bigger market. For instance, you think Russia will sell us its oil when it runs short? You think China will start trying to control oil regions for its own use, cutting us out if possible? Likewise, suggest that the military occupation of Iraq has something to do with oil and you invite a fistfight from some, but exclude all the moral issues and look at pure strategy and that occupation makes a lot of sense from a long-term energy standpoint for the U.S. These energy issues are only going to get more territorial in the future.

While alternative energies may or may not come, it doesn’t seem too far fetched to believe that hybrid technology will be more and more affordable, meaning that perhaps we could get by with less gas consumption in a few decades and be more self sufficient with a limited oil supply at home.

No, I don’t believe an environmental catastrophe will change our nation’s outlook on energy or on offshore drilling. But, one way or another, the energy outlook will ultimately change on us.

And I’d prefer we look farther down the road, not just at today’s gas pump. I believe the truest conservative line of action is not “drill, baby, drill,” but is instead a commitment to conserving what we have now, knowing we’ll likely need those chips to cash in later when the market inevitably gets tougher, when the stakes are higher.

Zach Mitcham is editor of The Madison County Journal.