Spill Baby Spill
The catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has given rise to a small meme whereby people juxtapose images of the spill with the McCain/Palin campaign’s (now in?)famous slogan “Drill baby drill.” The implication is clear: this oil spill shows that the policies covered by “drill baby drill” are wrong, even reckless.
Here’s the thing, though: if you think this oil spill means “drill baby drill” is wrong, I assume this means you have a fabulous super secret plan to build a petroleum-free society? Because if you don’t, then your position boils down to “Oil spills are ok as long as they don’t happen near Americans,” which is pretty much the same thing as “Let them eat cake.”
I haven’t followed this very closely and so I’m very open to the possibility that this oil spill can be traced to negligence, which itself can be traced to poor regulation, which itself can be ascribed to what public choice economics teaches us about regulatory capture etc. In which case the lesson of the spill is not “don’t drill”, it’s “drill more intelligently.”
And perhaps the only lesson is “every human activity involves risk and sometimes things will go horribly, horribly wrong.” In which case — again, what is your plan for ridding our society of fossil fuels? Or turning Saudi Arabia into Sweden so that there aren’t massive strategic risks associated with importing fossil fuels from there? The track record of turning Arab countries into Western-friendly democracies is, shall we say, mixed.
Take nuclear power, which I support wholeheartedly. I visited Chernobyl on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the disaster. I visited Pripyat, the ghost town which was evacuated after the cloud made it inhabitable and is one of the most eerie, depressing places on Earth. This to say that my support is wholehearted but not lighthearted, nor glib.
But there’s a reason why Chernobyl happened but France, which probably runs the most nuclear power plants of any country, certainly per capita, has never had a serious nuclear incident. Some of it has to do with industrial engineering — the way the reactors are designed and built. A lot of it has to do with human engineering — turns out Soviet bureaucracies are not so good with the accountability and the enforcing standards (as long as those standards are not of the “political dissent” variety).
All of this is to say, basically: this is complex, dudes. And the fact that an activity carries risk does not mean it is ill-advised. It does mean that precautions must be taken. “Drill baby drill” is a simplistic slogan, but thinking “drill baby drill” is made wrong by one oil spill is equally simplistic — and we don’t want to be as simplistic as Sarah Palin, do we?
Let’s remember that “Drill baby drill” is one slogan but that the McCain/Palin campaign also described its energy platform as “all of the above,” meaning increased support for drilling but also for alternative energies, etc. Like most political slogans, the simplistic phrase refers to a more complex platform. And this platform makes a lot of sense given the strategic and technical constraints that the United States’ (and the whole world’s) dependence on petroleum places on it. An oil spill doesn’t mean “drill baby drill” is wrong. Doesn’t mean it’s right, either.
It does mean that, like everything else, energy policy is a set of complex issues that require difficult tradeoffs, many of which are of the “least bad” rather than “best” variety. To me the main takeaway is that catastrophes like this oil spill should mostly teach us to be humble about what we can accomplish through policy and technology, one way or the other.
Cap and trade and building mass transit reduces oil consumption at the margins while incentivizing alternative sources, including nuclear. The idea that unless we eliminate oil usage we must persue all economical means of oil production doesn’t hold either, afterall at the margins a smaller supply will mean higher prices and also accelerate the transition away from oil.
In addition, we should certainly share environmentally sensitive oil drilling techniques but across the board direct impacts on a nation’s citizens are given greater weight than the impact of second order effects that other countries may choose to cause of their own free will. Let then east cake is considered an outrage because the Queen was refering to her own citizens. I think on the whole we should be more concerned about the citizens of the world, but that implies a whole host of policy changes of fsr greater influence than this issue.
Of course low risk disasters make for odd debates. I certainly think we’re still over reacting to terrorism. But at the same time, this is noteworthy piece of evidence suppporting higher risk estimates of the chance of offshore oil spills. This was a known risk, it isn’t a if a wind turbine unexpectedly created a hurricane or something. The idea that correctly predicting a disaster means that environmentalist need to learn humility doesn’t follow.
In short of course it’s complex. Everything is complex, we should probably be more humble about everything. But on the whole this spill provides support for those who have relatively higher estimates of the risk. Is there a risk of going too far, as we probably have with nuclear safety. However, if you are going to say we’re overreacting then it’s necessary to present evidence about the comparative safety of these platforms, even including the latest spill.
— Greg Sanders · Apr 30, 11:35 AM · #
Payback’s a bitch ain’t it?
Where were you for the teatard ravings calling HCR a socialized takeover of medicine?
We are playing tit for tat, and your side cheated first.
Tit for tat is unbeatable for the last fair-move player.
— matoko_chan · Apr 30, 12:13 PM · #
Thanks, PEG. It’s good to see the rare TAS article that’s more than just bashing someone or some group. Which means it’s good to see one of your articles again.
— The Reticulator · Apr 30, 12:32 PM · #
PEG, your first paragraph is one of the most blatant setting up of a strawman (for you to ruthlessly beat) that I have ever seen. Seriously.
— Freddie · Apr 30, 12:43 PM · #
“if you think this oil spill means “drill baby drill” is wrong, I assume this means you have a fabulous super secret plan to build a petroleum-free society?”
No, it means that the Palin/GOP fantasies of a constless solution of oil dependence— to say nothing of global warming— was a juvenile imitation of policy.
Even if we had enough oil domestically to make a dent in our usage (hint: we don’t), the GOP rabble-rousing on this point was always irresponsible. We have difficult decisions to make regarding our use of oil. Chanting and fist-pumping really aren’t part of the solution.
The GOP’s eager oversimplification of this issue was an insult to everyone who cares about public policy.
— Elvis Elvisberg · Apr 30, 01:00 PM · #
If by “setting up a strawman,” Freddie, you mean a “refer to arguments being made by actual people ,” then I’d have to agree.
PEG may not be confronting the strongest anti-drilling argument (nor does he claim to be), but he’s describing an actual phenomenon.
— Ben A · Apr 30, 01:09 PM · #
“we don’t want to be as simplistic as Sarah Palin, do we?”
If that’s the way you feel, there is no place for you in the blogosphere.
— y81 · Apr 30, 01:41 PM · #
Nice piece PEG. One quibble:
bq.And perhaps the only lesson is “every human activity involves risk and sometimes things will go horribly, horribly wrong.” In which case — again, what is your plan for ridding our society of fossil fuels?
If that’s the lesson, then don’t we need to rid our society of human activity, rather than merely fossil fuels. (Assuming we want to eliminate risk).
IMHO, the reaction should be about the same as a plane crash or a mine collapse – figure out what went wrong, mete out punishment if deserved, and, if possible, reduce the risk of it happening again.
— J Mann · Apr 30, 01:52 PM · #
“we don’t want to be as simplistic as Sarah Palin, do we?”
alrighty…..now I’m mad.
y81, your side dug her up, propped her up, and continues to manufacture WATB grievance propaganda for her.
You fuckin’ own her now.
She’s your disease, not ours.
— matoko_chan · Apr 30, 02:10 PM · #
Greg Sanders: You certainly make valid points. Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I’m afraid I can only address parts of it.
I think it holds. I also think your point holds. I’m not sure oil prices should be held artificially high, and I’m not sure drilling or not drilling in ANWR would have a noticeable impact on world prices. Oil is important not just for environmental reasons but for strategic reasons as well. There can never be “energy independence” but there is certainly energy dependence right now, and mitigating it by exploring domestic sources of oil seems to make a lot of strategic sense.
I am certainly not opposed to the idea of a gas tax, given the “Pigou effect” and the US Government’s dire budgetary condition, although I have no illusions about its political feasibility and am uncomfortable with the arguments of those who would use gas prices as one nudge in a broader social engineering project (I want more people to live the way I live!).
I meant that we all need to learn more humility.
The Reticulator: Thanks for your consideration. I don’t think there are many (or any) TAS posts that are just about “bashing” anyone. Except perhaps some of mine.
Freddie: Ben A responded to your concern better than I could have.
y81: Ha!
J Mann:
Well, my point was precisely that we cannot, and should not eliminate risk, because it’s not just part of every human activity, but also because it is even more part of the great human activities, from entrepreneurship to new inventions to trying to find a route to the Indies through the Atlantic Ocean.
— PEG · Apr 30, 02:50 PM · #
I rather think that such images are a useful counterpoint to the hubris contained in “Drill, baby, drill.” There’s a certain uncaring mindset that uses that particular phrase, the kind of folks who don’t give a shit about animals or the environment.
Now, I happen to agree with the larger point that we need to do SOME drilling in order to better manage a transition away from a petroleum-based economy. But that doesn’t mean I don’t get a little thrill of schadenfreude when someone sticks it to those “Drill, baby, drill” morons.
— Erik Vanderhoff · Apr 30, 03:15 PM · #
Hey Chet, where else do you post/comment?
Again, I enjoy reading what you have to say.
— ChetFan · Apr 30, 04:02 PM · #
While LOLcats juxtapositions aren’t at all a substantive rebuttal to whatever policy points might lie behind “drill baby drill”, I think that a reasonable account of the substance of the drill versus spill debate (this is how it went in my head, and why, like Erik, found an enjoyable irony in the juxtapositions) could also go like this:
A. “Drill, baby, drill”: Objections to off-shore drilling are absurd.
B. “Spill, baby, spill”: This incident indicates that objections to off-shore drilling are not all absurd.
I don’t think “B” is substantively equivalent to either “I have ‘a fabulous super secret plan to build a petroleum-free society’” or ‘Oil spills are ok as long as they don’t happen near Americans’. Those are the strawmen that Freddie should have pointed to. (Though, in Freddie’s defense, I’m not sure that the links Ben A pointed to really say what Ben seems to think they do; the HuffPo link basically says “Sarah Palin wouldn’t be so glib about the dangers of offshore drilling now, would she?”, the third link is extremely brief and makes vague comments about how the disaster indicates we should pursue clean energy alternatives (which is closer to the viewpoint described in PEG’s first paragraph, but not equivalent to the viewpoints in the second paragraph) and the second link won’t load for me.)
That said, I do strongly agree with PEG’s conclusion, that “catastrophes like this oil spill should mostly teach us to be humble about what we can accomplish through policy and technology”.
— rob · Apr 30, 04:21 PM · #
I’m all in favor of holding oil prices artificially high — via a netzero gas tax.
I wonder if there are any articles about the oil spill that also mention the recent Russia-Ukraine interaction. The egg-throwing and wrestling in the Ukraine parliament the other day were about the way Russia first imposed an arbitrary increase on gas prices to Ukraine, then graciously offered to reset them to their original level if only Ukraine adopted a properly subservient role. Which it has now done.
You think Hugo Chavez wouldn’t want to do something like that to the U.S.?
I’m absolutely opposed to drilling in the ANWR just for the purpose of bringing down the cost of oil. It’s not just for environmental reasons, though those are important. But we should save it for a national security emergency — for example, if we were threatened with a Putin-like action like that in Ukraine, or a takeover by the likes of Chavez or Obama. Then I’d say we should plow up the whole place to get the oil so we could defend ourselves.
In the meantime, yes to a net-zero carbon tax. But cap ‘n trade? No. That would just institute a regime of corruption similar to what we’d get if ruled by Chavez, Putin, or Obama.
— The Reticulator · Apr 30, 04:53 PM · #
No, it boils down to “‘Drill baby drill’ was an empty political bromide, not a legitimate argument that took into account both the pros and cons of American offshore drilling.”
Which is totally true, and something that the proponents of “drill baby drill” need to face up. Predictably, they’re not. Thanks for demonstrating that, PEG.
— Chet · Apr 30, 05:24 PM · #
Ben, you liar. There’s not a single place in any of those links where someone offers the argument ““Oil spills are ok as long as they don’t happen near Americans”. PEG is flogging a strawman, and you’re lying in his defense.
— Chet · Apr 30, 05:26 PM · #
Well PEG is a liar too….has everyone forgotten the EPIC epistemic closure of TAS’s pathetic stem cell discussions?
“conservatives are more correct about stem cells”
it is to laff.
— matoko_chan · Apr 30, 05:56 PM · #
A firm commitment to a $50/barrel price floor would make coal gasification economical – using technology that’s been around for generations – giving the US a 1,000 year energy supply. $75/barrel makes oil shale economical with current technologies. Multiple millennia of energy security. Natural gas…
The only hitch is CO2 – which may or may not be a huge problem (and not just because of GW).
Last I heard it costs Saudi Arabia and others $2/barrel to take the oil out of the ground.
In the difference between $50 and $2, and the difference between $50 and $85 (today’s spot market price), is… lots, and lots, and lots of stuff.
— CK MacLeod · Apr 30, 06:35 PM · #
Matoko, Freddie says that the first paragraph is a straw man; Ben says that several people have made the argument PEG presents in the first paragraph.
The second paragraph is a separate issue – PEG argues that if you’re for oil drilling somewhere else but not here, then you’re for spills somewhere else but not here, even if you don’t admit it. That seems fair enough. (There’s a separate issue, which is what it means if you prevent drilling, coal mining, or building nulear plants here, but continue to use energy, but rationalize it by saying that you would prefer that your energy be produced by harnessing the limitless power of unicorns.)
Regardless, paragraph 2 isn’t what Freddie or Ben are talking about.
— J Mann · Apr 30, 07:52 PM · #
Going back to this –
“But there’s a reason why Chernobyl happened but France, which probably runs the most nuclear power plants of any country, certainly per capita, has never had a serious nuclear incident. Some of it has to do with industrial engineering — the way the reactors are designed and built. A lot of it has to do with human engineering — turns out Soviet bureaucracies are not so good with the accountability and the enforcing standards (as long as those standards are not of the “political dissent” variety)”
This paragraph is insightful in two ways:
1) it highlights the strengths of State bureaucracies, or State-authorized agencies, which are disciplined and “internally-accountable” (ie, to its own hierarchy not to citizen/taxpayers). The ARN in France and companies like Areva & EDF are global benchmarks.
2) the historical record, and limits of State bureaucracies or State-authorized agencies when confronted with contingency or the unforeseen (which happens all the time).
Memories of Chernobyl in France for many French evoke the infamous news reports in the wake of the accident, supplied courtesy of the government to its state-run TV stations. The weather fronts & the winds from the West defended France along the Eastern front as if they were airy Maginot line (!)
The rest is history – the controversy over the (false/inaccurate) news reports sprung almost at the same time and the French distrust of their gouvernants grew deeper.
Which is to say that even the most stream-lined, rationalized energy policy cannot do away with or “faire abstraction” of the fact that it is always in some part politicized, that’s an emanation, in very diluted form, of the will of the polis and all its pathologies. Pathologies like lying to the people for purported and/or imagined greater goods. Or not calling into questions policies in which so many important actors have a stake and important investments. Or substituting a serious policy guideline with a jingle “drill baby drill”.
— JCB · Apr 30, 11:49 PM · #
But we’re not for oil drilling, we’re against oil drilling. And do we have a “fabulous super secret plan to build a petroleum-free society?” Yes! Nothing secret about them; it was those very plans we were discussing, in fact, when conservative sloganeers derailed the conversation with “drill baby drill.”
The idea that it’s somehow liberals who haven’t done their part in trying to promote independence from fossil fuels really is completely retarded. PEG seems to remember “drill baby drill” but seems to have no idea why anybody was saying it. Hint – conservatives didn’t wake up one day, apropos of nothing, and think to themselves “hey, you know what? We should drill more stuff. I love drilling.”
But, yeah. Alternative fuels? Reduction of our dependence on fossil fuels? That’s what us adults were talking about before you idiots started shouting “drill baby drill”, which is why the Gulf Coast oil spill hangs so elegantly around your necks.
— Chet · May 1, 01:53 AM · #
The fact that it took 30 years to drill another oil well, not to mention build another refinery, while demand doubled, the same for nuclear. Because of Three Mile Island, there’s something I must be missing here. Then again what was the Senator’s solution to the oil price spike, brought about in part by Goldman and Citigroup oil trading unit, Phibro, oh yes, properly inflated tires. Meanwhile we have become more dependent on ruthless oligarchies of a nationalist nature, Putin’s Russia, or our
good friends the Sauds, never mind the carbon credit ponzi scheme.
— ian cormac · May 1, 02:47 AM · #
Agree with my man Chet. You see my earlier question bro? Any other forum where you post?
— CF · May 1, 02:49 AM · #
What Chet said. Isn’t the biggest point of energy independence that an energy economy based on petroleum will eventually be untenable? That’s to say nothing of climate change.
Expanding oil drilling was never really a great idea in the first place simply due to the above issues. The current oil spill merely highlights the risks associated with an already half backed half assed solution.
— Derek · May 1, 03:13 AM · #
As opposed to converting grain to ethanol, how well has that worked, or the carbon credits exchange, cooked up by Fannie Mae and Goldman Sachs. We need
all of the above, where practical, but we’ve seen how hard it is to site
large solar panel arrays or even wind farms,
— ian cormac · May 1, 03:52 AM · #
PEG: Thanks for the response. On a first easy note, no argument that we all do need to learn humility.
As you say, domestic sources do provide a measure of insulation from turbulence in the world oil supply. However, as you note given the impact of these sources on world prices, the magnitude of the insulation is not huge. I am glad to hear that you aren’t opposed to increases in taxes on gasoline, even if you expect that such increases are politically unlikely.
As to your concern with the motives behind the tax, I’d note that the U.S. government does subsidize all major forms of transportation, any balance you choose provides economic incentives for certain lifestyles. I think focusing on the motives of various political actors makes it harder to have positive-sum political outcomes. Based on your concern about social engineering, I’d say it would make more sense to evaluate not on motives but based on whether a policy increases or reduces options and whether it reflects or distorts the underlying economics.
Ultimately, we are doing a technical evaluation of this ongoing disaster and it will influence future drilling decisions. I do not doubt that we will find technical mitigation measures, but we can’t assume that this will make result in an acceptable level of environment risk at all offshore sites that would otherwise be economically viable. But, as with the gas tax, there are any number of other approaches to lower our vulnerability to the global price of oil. Some of these are unpopular, but that ultimately means that they do need advocates even if all the advocates don’t come at the issue with the same motivation.
— Greg Sanders · May 1, 12:49 PM · #
Maybe if they examine the original group that reviewed the bids,http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/04/oops-macondo-driling-plan-was-submitted-approved-under-obama-administration.html
Seeing as funds for transportation projects have been notoriously misused in the last few years, why encourage more of this that reduces consumer spending power, with little upside
— ian cormac · May 1, 02:13 PM · #
The Journal says, the oil well lacked a safety device which is mandatory in some other countries.
Of course it may not have worked anyway, depending on the precise nature of the fault.
— Keid A · May 1, 02:17 PM · #
The McCain & GOP energy slogan has been “All of the Above.” But it is a meaningless slogan. When push comes to shove, McCain and pals repeatedly refused to renew the wind and solar energy tax credits. Growth in those industries has therefore tracked as an up-down roller coaster ride. No business succeeds when the policy is one of orchestrated uncertainty, and that’s their real plan.
— Jay Alt · May 1, 03:12 PM · #
I haven’t followed this very closely and so I’m very open to the possibility that this oil spill can be traced to negligence, which itself can be traced to poor regulation, which itself can be ascribed to what public choice economics teaches us about regulatory capture etc. In which case the lesson of the spill is not “don’t drill”, it’s “drill more intelligently.”
“Drill more intelligently” is essentially the argument one hears from liberals on this topic, including the Obama Administration. While there are some people who are opposed to all offshore drilling, they are a small and ineffectual minority, and they certainly are not the ones crafting public policy on this issue. So the first paragraph is a strawman argument.
Also, this may well be an issue of negligence and an example of the need for more regulation. Regulation which is opposed by conservatives, as a rule.
— Mark in Houston · May 3, 01:07 AM · #
The first and second paragraph, I mean.
— Mark in Houston · May 3, 01:13 AM · #
I’m sorry but comparing those calling for an end to offshore drilling after this spill is not as equally simplistic as those who blindly chanted “drill, baby, drill.”
“Drill, baby, drill” is empty rhetoric designed to appeal to intellectually challenged zombies who necessarily ignored all the costs associated with drilling. It appealed to those people that don’t care about how much they consume or where their energy comes from…just as long as they can keep living their overly consumptive lifestyles.
Those who want to stop drilling because of this spill have a pretty good argument on their side. Look at what just one spill from one well can do, not just to the environment, but to a vast swath of our economy. And, perhaps more importantly, all the drilling off our coasts will not do a damn thing to make us independent from foreign sources since our consumption is simply way too much. So there’s actually a very good argument to stop offshore drilling.
Stopping all offshore drilling after this spill
— Ryan in Portland · May 3, 08:54 PM · #