ANWR: Any Nitwit Will Rant

Seattle Times columnist Bruce Ramsey wrote a column a couple weeks ago supporting drilling in the ANWR. As can be expected, the loonies came out of e-mail-land, telling him Ramsey how wrong he is. Today, in a follow-up column he presents the illogical and incorrect arguments against drilling he received.

Here's the best the good, green people of Seattle can toss up against the sensible idea of defying Middle East tyrants and Venezuelan psycho-presidents by drilling our own oil (and my comments in red):

Several asserted that drilling would spoil the refuge, but not one argued that it would kill the animals. The "if a tree fell in a forest and no one was there to see it ..." argument. No one goes there, so would it be spoiled? Besides, the drilling is in such a small area, you'd have to hunt for it.

"The bulk of this oil will go to China, Korea and Japan," one reader wrote. "Regular U.S. citizens (and taxpayers) get nothing from this." What? They'll come in and take it and we will get no revenues from it? Seems odd. Oh, and by the way, have you ever heard of supply and demand?

Several readers argued that we don't need ANWR oil because the world has enough. If that's your line, don't complain about $3 gasoline.

But a number of readers argued that the world is running out of oil, so therefore don't look for any more. We are running out of everything, so we should look for nothing. A 35-year-old woman is running out of chances to have a baby, so she should stop trying. A student only has one more test left to lift his grade, so he should stop trying.

Many readers [argued] that if a solution wasn't "sustainable," meaning that it wouldn't solve our energy problem forever, we shouldn't consider it. Follow this logic, and the obvious thing to do is to just park our cars today and lock up the keys until we don't need them any more, anyway.

Of all the rebuttals, the one [Ramsey] heard the most was that we shouldn't drill for any more oil until we quit wasting it. The favorite argument of SUV-wielding moms on their way from oversized, energy-guzzling homes to soccer fields that yield no usable vegetable harvests. Who is going to define what constitutes "waste?" Is it waste if we burn fuel to keep our hospitals warmer than one in Omsk? Is it waste if we use petrochemicals to produce hospital supplies that save tsunami victims and treat African AIDS victims?

Hat tip: Real Clear Politics