Posted by Todd Zywicki:
ANWR:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_06_12-2005_06_18.shtml#1118844712
Peter Huber and Mark Mills, authors of [1]The Bottomless Well, weigh
in [2]today on the question of drilling for oil in ANWR:
What We Could Gain in Alaska
Wednesday, June 15, 2005; Page A24
People who love nature, as Jonathan Waterman clearly does ["[3]What
We Would Lose in Alaska," op-ed, June 6], harm their cause when
they get key numbers wrong.
Mr. Waterman noted that Americans consume about 7 billion barrels
of oil a year. Then he said that 1 million barrels a day of new
Alaskan oil would represent only a "0.5 percent annual increase in
domestic supply." Our domestic production is just over 9 million
barrels a day; the increase therefore would be more than 10
percent. Moreover, Mr. Waterman offered his erroneous 0.5 percent
figure to refute the argument that Alaskan oil would make the
United States "less dependent on oil imports." The imports that
concern everyone are those from the Persian Gulf. The United States
imports about 2.5 million barrels of Persian Gulf oil a day, so new
Alaskan oil would cut those imports by 40 percent. If the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge contains as much as 16 billion barrels of
oil, as Mr. Waterman acknowledged it might, that would be enough to
cover 100 percent of current Persian Gulf imports for the next 18
years.
PETER HUBER Bethesda
MARK MILLS Chevy Chase
Given that vanishingly few Americans have the time and money to
replicate Waterman's 1,700 mile kayak trip across the Canadian Arcti
to enjoy the spectacular views, surely Waterman's original column
should have been titled "What I would Lose in Alaska," rather than
"What We Would Lose in Alaska."
On the other hand, everyone gets to pay for Waterman's trip through
higher energy prices, especially lower-income consumers because demand
for enery consumption is highly income inelestic. Now don't get me
wrong--I am perfectly happy to pay a bit more at the pump in order to
preserve parks and unaltered landscapes. On the other hand, I can't
see why I should be allowed to force others to subsidize my
preferences. It is hard for me to justify as either a matter of
efficiency or equity forcing low-income consumers to give me free or
heavily subsidized environmental amenities, when they will never have
the opportunity to experience this amenities (but still also have to
pay higher energy prices to subsidize my preferences). So it seems to
me that it is time to get off this question of "what upper-middle
class kayakers would lose in Alaska" and start seriously thinking
about doing something about the shameful subsidies by poor people for
those like Waterman and me.
We need to think about taking some of the politics out of these
decisions by coming up with some scheme for pricing these goods in
such a manner that the opportunity cost of various different uses is
more transparent. The goal, I think, is to make all of us who enjoy
the outdoors to put our money where our mouths are and make us pay for
our entertainment, just like everyone else has to pay for tickets to
movies, football games, and Disney World. Its all fine and dandy for
Jonathan Waterman to take a 1,700 mile trip across the Canadian
Arctic, but it is hard for to see why I should bear the cost of that
at the pump while receiving no benefit. I'm going to the DC United
soccer game tonight--maybe Mr. Waterman wants to send me a check to
subsidize my entertainment as well?
References
1.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465031161/qid=1118842671/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-5390802-0456765
2.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401386.html
3.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/05/AR2005060501243.html
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
