Today, George Cardinal Pell delivered a lecture at the invitation of the Global Warming Policy Foundation titled “Eppur’ si muove, or ‘yet it moves:’ One Christian Perspective on Climate Change.” He insisted that a scientific consensus is a lazy basis for the making of policy, and that before states impose drastic environmental regulations, an analysis of their demonstrable costs and benefits must be undertaken.
Galileo is supposed to have muttered the lecture’s title after recanting his heliocentrism in the face of a “scientific consensus.” Cardinal Pell spent a large portion of his lecture demonstrating the historical existence of a Medieval warm period which in the last ten years the green movement has tried to explain away, since it’s rather inconvenient to find that pre-industrial man lived in a hotter climate when you want to assert that carbon emissions must be causing current global warming. “And yet, it was warm,” the Cardinal is saying.
Cardinal Pell began with the Tower of Babel, and quoted Leon Kass’s description of that project as “the all-too-human, prideful attempt at self-creation.” Before making any sort of climate policy, the Cardinal warned,
we should ask whether our attempts at global climate control are within human capacity, (that is, the projected human imperium); or on the other hand, are likely to be as misdirected and ineffective as the construction of the famous tower in the temple of Marduk, Babylon’s chief god.
Where is the borderline separating us from what is beyond human power? Where does scientific striving become uneconomic, immoral or ineffectual and so lapse into hubris?
Even more dangerous than ineffectual scientific striving is ineffectual unscientific striving, which what we have when policy is made based not on scientific finding, but on scientific consensus. Of this consensus, Cardinal Pell says it “is a category error, scientifically and philosophically. In fact it is also a cop-out, a way of avoiding the basic issues.” He goes on:
What is important and what needs to be examined by lay people as well as scientists is the evidence and argumentation which are adduced to back any consensus. The basic issue is not whether the science is settled but whether the evidence and explanations are adequate in that paradigm.
The complacent appeal to scientific consensus is simply one more appeal to authority, quite inappropriate in science or philosophy.
Thomas Aquinas pointed this out long ago explaining that “the argument from authority based on human reason” is the weakest form of argument, always liable to logical refutation. [Summa I, 1, 8 ad 2]
Then the Cardinal goes into his lengthy defense of the Medieval warm period, which you may read for yourself in the full text of his speech.
After poking a hole in the green lobby’s weather balloon, Cardinal Pell makes his appeal to lawmakers and bureaucrats.
A final point to be noted in this struggle to convince public opinion is that the language used by AGW proponents veers towards that of primitive religious controversy. Believers are contrasted with deniers, doubters and sceptics, although I must confess no one has dubbed me a climate change heretic.
The rewards for proper environmental behaviour are uncertain, unlike the grim scenarios for the future as a result of human irresponsibility which have a dash of the apocalyptic about them, even of the horsemen of the Apocalypse. The immense financial costs true-believers would impose on economies can be compared with the sacrifices offered traditionally in religion, and the sale of carbon credits with the pre-Reformation practice of selling indulgences. Some of those campaigning to save the planet are not merely zealous but zealots. To the religionless and spiritually rootless, mythology — whether comforting or discomforting — can be magnetically, even pathologically, attractive.
For this reason (among others) I support the recommendation of Bjorn Lomborg and Bob Carter [in The Australian] that, rather than spending money on meeting the Kyoto Protocol which would have produced an indiscernible effect on temperature rise, money should be used to raise living standards and reduce vulnerability to catastrophes and climate change (in whatever direction), so helping people to cope better with future challenges.
It is folly, the Cardinal says, to rush into climate regulation efforts of little proveable benefit when their cost will be extreme. The city of Athens spent half its GDP building the Parthenon, and after eleven years of work had a fantastically beautiful temple to show for its expense. Al Gore hasn’t yet called for a 50 percent green tax, but when he does, will a two degree drop in summer temperatures be worth it?
The text of the speech was released at 3:15 ET and will soon be on the Archdiocese of Syndey’s website. We’ll link it here when it’s up.
The aggrandizement of the European Union’s powers, particularly of its regulation, has had a steady growth within Europe, and is now looking to move outside European borders. Namely in one American industry, the airline industry, passengers may soon be paying higher air fares, not because of factors within the American financial market, but because of a carbon emissions tax that the EU will be imposing on American airlines which service flights to EU member countries.
For example, if an American carrier flies from New York to London, only a small percentage of the flight would be in the EU, but the U.S. carrier would be held responsible for the emissions from the entire flight. Just a few weeks ago, the European Court of Justice ruled that the EU is justified in levying fees on American flights than enter Europe. According to Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, “Starting next year, the EU will tote up all the miles a plane flies to or from any European city, factor in the fuel usage and charge a ‘”carbon levy”‘ for all emissions that are more than 85 percent of 2002 levels. No airline is going to eat that cost, so you’ll get the bill, perhaps listed as an ‘”environmental surcharge.”‘
Even though some analysts are predicting a steep decline in airline profits next year, American carriers expect that the EU’s carbon plan would cost them more than $3 billion over eight years. Up until this point, Europeans have been content to go it alone with their climate taxes, thinking this will somehow serve to save the world. But now, Europe is seeking to force this mentality on other corners of the globe. These taxes are indeed costly, and even within Europe, their implementation is not gratefully accepted by all. In the UK, the Financial Times reports that there are concerns that the government is “in retreat from its green agenda.”
Noting that the EU’s Climate Action and Renewable Energy Package will cost the UK economy an exorbitant £ 20.2 billion by 2020, Open Europe, an independent European think tank, argues that the EU could find a much more cost-effective way to address climate initiatives. It argues that a much more effective and righteous approach would be for the EU to set overall carbon emission targets and then allow for individual member states to decide how best to reach them. At least in this approach, the EU would not be imposing direct government regulation on its members.
Within the issue of climate taxes within the EU, and their proposed extension into the United States, it is important to note the role that the government should and should not play. The main role of government should be to promote the common good, that is, to maintain the rule of law, and to preserve basic duties and rights. Free actions should not be overtaken by the government. The principle of subsidiarity is violated when governments over reach, usurping the ability of perfectly capable human beings, by way of the market, to operate effectively. The EU’s climate regulations on member states are indeed dubious, but it is particularly egregious when these regulations are allowed to extend to other countries.
As citizens await state decisions on new state EPA “fracking” regulations, many are worried radical environmentalist may compromise a promising opportunity in the development of gas reserves.
Natural gas advocates say radical environmentalists have long demonized the oil industry in their fight against free enterprise. Environmental groups claim fracking techniques to extract natural gas threatens the cleanliness of ground water, but their attacks contradict EPA studies that report there are no proven cases where fracking has contaminated water.
Extreme environmental groups have teamed up with some in the media to push their anti-growth agenda. A Heritage Foundation blog reports,
Environmentalists […] have hijacked media outlets like The New York Times to run biased reports against fracking’s key contributions to America’s current and future energy supplies that would be a tremendous catalyst for the country’s economic recovery.
Though more EPA fracking studies are currently underway, environmentalist accusations contradict solid facts and studies. With almost any human activity, there will be some sort of environmental effect, but the benefits of shale drilling blows the costs out of the water. According to experts, a typical Marcellus Shale well can generate up to $4 million in economic benefits while only creating $14,000 in environmental damage.
If given the chance, the Independent Petroleum Association of America suggests the oil industry has the potential to lift our economy back on its feet again:
Petroleum powers the economy of this nation overall, evidenced by [a] strong correlation between states that have high petroleum use and high output. Petroleum is integral in our daily lives, not just as a fuel, but because it is present in common objects that are crucial to living a high-quality life.
But radical environmental groups often stand in the way. Some of these groups insist on “biological egalitarianism” in which all life forms are considered equal. An Acton publication titled A Biblical Perspective on Environmental Stewardship explains the dangerous connotation of this faulty environmental philosophy:
Instead, this philosophy negates the biblical affirmation of the human person’s unique role as steward and eliminates the very rationale for human care for creation. The quest for the humane treatment of beasts by lowering people to the level of animals leads only to the beastly treatment of humans.
Extreme environmental groups should remember the oil industry is not evil. They fail to see that their radical ideology is hurting the nation’s poor. Increasing oil production can fuel economic growth and provide jobs for the unemployed. To attack the oil industry in such a way is indirectly attacking human development. Cited in Ray Nothstine’s commentary on high gas prices and its impact on the poor are these words from John Paul II,
Besides the earth, man’s principle resource is man himself. His intelligence enables him to discover the earth’s productive potential and the many different ways in which human needs can be satisfied.
Of course, any human action has some effect on the environment; and so we have the responsibility to exercise environmental stewardship rather than prioritizing the fish in the Chesapeake Bay over the welfare of the human person.
As Japan basks in the success of its World Cup champion women’s soccer team, the impact of the recent tsunami on the country is still very real. Although it has been over four months since the tsunami struck Japan, and one may assume clean-up efforts are going smoothly, restoration progress has actually been greatly hindered. Not one organization or person is to blame for this slowing of progress, but one theme that stands out is the strict regulation the Japanese government has put on relief efforts.
Ishinomaki, in northeast Japan, was one of the cities hardest hit by the earthquake and tsunami. According to the city’s mayor, Hiroshi Kameyama, “On a recovery scale of zero to 10, some parts of Ishinomaki are at zero and some are at one.”
The government has actually made moves to prevent receiving assistance. In order to prevent jam-packed roads in the days following the disaster, citizen volunteers were discouraged from delivering aid themselves. Aid packages from the U.S. military have been accepted by the Japanese government, but some international organizations have been told they’re not needed.
When the government does accept financial or humanitarian assistance, the process of actually getting this aid to the people is very slow. In Hannah Beech’s Time article titled “Is Japan’s Bureaucracy Strangling Humanitarian Aid,” an international NGO representative in Tokyo explains, “Everything has to go through government emergency centers.” “But they’re very slow to respond and can’t keep up with the flow of aid.”
And in the midst of this struggle came another curveball, the recent resignation of Japanese government minister of reconstruction, Ryu Matsumoto. Matsumoto’s resignation came after a chain of controversial comments not well received by Japanese citizens and victims of the disaster. He arrived in Iwate, Japan in early July and according to Gavin Blair’s Christian Science Monitor article, “Japan’s Kan feels pressure after disaster reconstruction minister quits,” told the prefecture’s governor, Takuya Tasso, that the government would, “give aid to those areas that come up with ideas for reconstruction, but not to those that don’t have any.”
Although Matsumoto was seen by many to lack sympathy towards the Japanese people, he actually brings up a very good point, that the government should only contribute to those areas of Japan that want to actively contribute to the restoration process, if not manually, at least through ideas. And in addition, many non-governmental organizations (NGOs), if not strictly regulated by the government, can step up to fill this void.
Christian volunteer organizations are some of the NGOs that have been most successful in recent disasters in the United States. In his Spring 2011 Religion and Liberty article, “The Church and Disaster Relief: Shelter from the Stormy Blast,” Ray Nothstine affirms the importance of Christian volunteer organizations, saying, “With government assistance often bureaucratic and slow to respond, Christian charity and church organizations are a vital source of relief and comfort.” Nothstine’s article outlines three major recent natural disasters that have struck within U.S. borders. One of these was the tornado which caused great damage in Tuscaloosa, Alabama this past spring. However, relief and restoration efforts have proven very successful.
In Nothstine’s article, University of Alabama professor David T. Beito called the relief efforts in Tuscaloosa “extremely decentralized” and added “I don’t know if a more secular city would fare nearly as well.”
Although much of Japan is not Christian, there are many international Christian charities on the ground in Japan. Caritas International is one such organization. As of the beginning of May, they have provided food and other aid to 10,000 survivors following the earthquake and tsunami. Now their aim is to provide trauma care services and help restore small communities, like fishing communities in the coastal areas.
As long as the Japanese government continues to exercise considerable control over restoration efforts, the organizations that do wish to help will be less effective than they otherwise could be. Government deregulation allows NGOs to play a bigger role in disaster relief, and overall, hopefully offers people a more stable footing so they can move forward to restore their local communities.
Last week, Pope Benedict XVI addressed the annual conference of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and expressed particular concern over rising food prices and the instability of the global food market. In his 2009 encyclical Caritas in Veritate, the pope issued this challenge: “The problem of food insecurity needs to be addressed within a long-term perspective, eliminating the structural causes that give rise to it and promoting the agricultural development of poorer countries.”
Acton’s Director of Research Samuel Gregg has done much to illuminate those structural causes and their effects on the agricultural capacity of developing countries. In an interview with EWTN two months ago, he talked about two of the most important drivers of high food prices: farm subsidies and energy costs.
“All the subsidies that go into agriculture—through things like import taxes and tariffs, as well as direct subsidies—have the paradoxical effect of reducing the incentive for investment in agriculture in developing countries,” said Dr. Gregg. African farmers cannot compete with their counterparts in the first world who are able to sell their produce at artificially low prices, and so developing countries end up turning away from food production. In the long run, this decrease in supply causes prices to rise.
Energy prices also affect the cost of food: the more a farmer pays for gasoline, the more he has to recoup from the sale of his crops. Again, market imbalances are causing prices to rise—OPEC, the cartel that controls a substantial amount of the world’s crude oil, determines its supply, and so “there’s a disparity between supply and demand,” Dr. Gregg explained. “OPEC and other oil-producing countries introduce a whole range of price distortions into the energy sector, resulting in higher prices”
U.S. energy policy is also to blame: from drilling moratoriums to ethanol subsidies, the federal government has effectively introduced inefficiency to energy markets.
Developing countries must be allowed to produce food without being undercut by Western protectionism and too-costly energy. When free markets are hindered, the poor suffer most.
The green movement has had a dramatic, long lasting impact on public policy, individuals, and even religion. But many people of faith have criticized supporters of the green movement, equating its strong followers with those who practice a pagan religion in support of Mother Nature.
As Christians we are called to be environmental stewards and to care for God’s creation. However, putting aside the perceptual paganism of a too dedicated support of the green movement, one must ask, is the green movement really accomplishing its mission and gaining support or is it actually turning people away from protecting the environment?
Reflecting upon my time spent at college I remember many of my Christian and conservative friends would throw a plastic water bottle in the trash when a recycling bin was right next to it, smirking and saying that’ll show all the environmental hippies. They admitted they were turned off by the aggressiveness and rhetoric of the green movement while also saying it fails to take into account that human beings also reside on the planet. Instead, they felt the green movement communicated that plants and animals were more important than people.
Many green movement policies seem counterintuitive to protecting the environment. From wind mills killing birds, which according to the Wall Street Journal, it is estimated 75,000 to 275,000 birds are killed by wind mills in the U.S. per year including the golden eagle in California which taxpayers spent a large sum of money on to protect. Now there are plans in the works for killing feral camels in Australia. Why? They damage vegetation and produce a methane equivalent to one ton of carbon dioxide a year.
Green movement policies have many unintended consequences. However we must decide whether the consequences are worth enacting the policy. Are killing feral camels going to save the planet, and is that even responsible? Are we to decide what part of God’s creation is a “productive” contributor to the earth, and if it isn’t do we really have the right to decide what part of God’s creation is to live and die?
Many Christians are now seeking a more positive expression of being an environmental steward and also a follower of the green movement. Marvin Olasky states in an article published by World Magazine that in the call to environmental stewardship, “The Bible teaches that human beings have an obligation to be stewards and gardeners in a way that benefits other men and women and also other creatures.”
While they are full of good intentions, green policies may alienate the centerpiece of God’s creation: the human person. Failing to take into account the person, green policies put a burden on people in order to protect the environment and the creatures of this planet; the green movement needs to recognize that people are just as much a part of this planet as the trees, flowers, bugs, polar beers, and every other creature and planet we are blessed with. Environmentalist Peter Harris explains in Christianity Today that the green movement often fails to take into account the human relationship with creation:
There is a radical environmentalism that wishes people were not on the planet. That’s not the biblical view at all. A Rocha in the United Kingdom actually works in the most polluted, urban borough of the country, because creation isn’t absent just because people are there. The Challenge is how to restore a right way of life, rather than escaping to some wilderness paradise. Fifty percent of the planet now lives in cities. That is where we live out our relationship with creation.
Yes we need to care for creation. The environment is a gift and we are responsible to care for and preserve God’s creation. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that we ourselves are a part of God’s creation and we are called to more than just environmental stewardship. We are called to be financial stewards and many forms of alternative energy are not cost efficient or financially responsible. We are also called to care of the poor, understanding that stringent environmental standards may make it harder for the poor to rise out of poverty. And finally, we are called to live as images in the likeness of God.
Marvin Olasky states that, “The Bible teaches that human beings have an obligation to be stewards and gardeners in a way that benefits other men and women and also other creatures.” Such an obligation to environmental stewardship can be as simple as being responsible, from not littering to recycling old cell phone batteries. We know the negative consequences that littering and cell phone batteries have on the environment, even though they may strike some as small things. When we are knowledgeable of such negative consequences we are responsible to act in the correct manner to preserve the environment. Not only are we taking care of God’s creation, but we are also showing our love for our neighbors by taking care of the same planet that they too call home.
The blame game in Washington is heating up on skyrocketing gas prices. Republicans are criticized as being in the back pocket of the oil industry and partaking in crony capitalism. The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee is even cashing in by hosting a fundraiser that is based on what has been the House Republicans “decade long relationship of protecting Big Oil taxpayer giveaways, speculations and price gouging…” However blame is also placed on Democrats, with accusations of placing barriers to prohibit domestic drilling. The debate has also centered around how we can be better environmental stewards. We may find ourselves asking questions such as whether green energy promotes environmental stewardship, and if oil drilling results in a dramatic harm to the environment?
An article published by the Washington Examiner contains disturbing numbers that will not be received very positively. Oil production in the Gulf was lower than predicated by the Energy Information Administration (EIA); however, imports were up:
While oil production in the Gulf is down more than 10% from April 2010 estimates, net crude oil imports are up 5%. At $83 dollars a barrel (the approximate average price of oil in the fourth quarter of 2010) that means Obama’s oil drilling permatorium increased American dependence on foreign oil by about $1.8 billion dollars in the fourth quarter of last year alone. The numbers only get worse as Obama’s permitorium further cuts into production. A Wood Mackenzie study predicts that for all of 2011 the permitorium will result in the loss this year of about 375,000 barrels of oil a day.
More imported oil also means higher prices at the pumps. The EIA explains: “Retail gasoline prices tend to be higher the farther it is sold from the source of supply.” It costs more money to transport oil to your gas station from the Persian Gulf than from the Gulf of Mexico.
On April 26th, President Obama wrote a letter to Congress calling for “immediate action to eliminate unwarranted tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, and to use those dollars to invest in clean energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.” The tax breaks President Obama is asking to be removed are worth $4 billion per year. This isn’t the president’s first call to action. His 2012 budget proposal also calls for the removal of the “subsidies.” But some have pointed out that the oil industry does not receive direct subsidy payments in the way that some farmers do. The president’s proposal specifically states:
Eliminates Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies. Consistent with the Administration’s Government-wide effort to identify areas for savings, the Budget eliminates inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that impede investment in clean energy sources and undermine efforts to address the threat of climate change. Approximately $4 billion per year in tax subsidies to oil, gas, and other fossil fuel producers are proposed for repeal.
Here at the Acton Institute we have spoken in opposition to true subsidies, such as subsidized farming (articles can be found here, here, and here) and health care policy (a related article can be found here). In the past we have articulate the problems with subsidization. The language in President Obama’s budget proposal appears to be vague and does not specify where the oil industry will no longer be, in his words, subsidized. Is it in drilling? Does it affect gas prices? Ray Nothstine notes in his commentary, “High Gas Prices are Devastating to Poor” our moral obligation to the vulnerable and how the high gas prices are affecting them. With gas prices continuing to climb precautions should be taken to prevent even higher prices.
Brian Johnson, the American Petroleum Institute’s senior tax policy advisor, provides insight on the proposal in the president’s 2012 budget. Johnson explains that the president is proposing to remove the intangible drilling cost provision, which is the oil industry’s ability to deduct drilling “costs associated with labor, architecture, design and engineering; basically the building of an oil rig, a platform or any structure that allows the industry to get into the ground and find oil or natural gas.” Johnson claims this process helps in planning for the next stage of development and construction. Furthermore, Johnson claims the oil industry is already paying its fair share in taxes with an income tax rate at 48 percent. Whereas other S&P Industrials average a 24 percent effective tax rate. Stephen Comstock, also from API, responded to President Obama’s State of the Union Address in January, articulating problems with the president’s call to end subsidies for the oil industry.
While the call to end the oil subsidies is being criticized by some, others are supporting such an action. Bill Becker, a Senior Associate with Third Generation Environmentalism and an energy and climate specialist at Natural Capitalism Solutions, argues the subsidies place the United States at a competitive disadvantage to China and India in the competition to champion alternative energy:
If we are looking for ways to chip away at the budget deficit, to keep America competitive and to use market-based mechanisms to build a competitive clean energy economy, then subsidy reform should be near the top of the list.
Think of it this way: Imagine an Olympic marathon in which the U.S. team has to run on a steep and continuous uphill slope, while the teams from China and India run on a level track. That’s what “winning the future” will be like for the United States if we keep our perverse energy policies. Direct and indirect taxpayer support for fossil energy, which far exceeds government support for emerging green energy technologies, almost certainly makes winning the future a futile race.
Becker also cites a report by the Government Accountability Office that claims “taxpayers are losing tens of billions of dollars in royalty payments in part because the Department of Interior doesn’t have sufficient capacity to monitor oil and gas production on public lands.”
In his letter address to Congress, the president calls to reinvest the $4 billion per year that the oil companies receive in subsidies into clean energy. The problem with current alternative energies is they are inefficient, not cost effective, and cause many unintended consequences (related articles on the inefficiency and unintended consequences of various alternative energies can be found here, here, here, and here).
Yes, we will need to develop good alternatives to oil over the long haul, but spending money on energy sources that are not effective is not a wise investment or a sign of being good financial stewards. If the tax provision and subsidies for the oil companies are to be cut, and taking into account the budget crisis the United States is currently facing, it may better serve the country to not reinvest the money and cut it out of the budget completely.
Today in Acton News & Commentary we brought you guest columnist Steven F. Hayward’s “Economists in the Wild,” based on his new American Enterprise Institute monograph, Mere Environmentalism: A Biblical Perspective on Humans and the Natural World. Hayward, the F.K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at AEI, looks at how the “connection between rising material standards and environmental improvement seems a paradox, because for a long time many considered material prosperity and population growth the irreversible engines of environmental destruction.” Not so. Hayward:
The central insight of environmentalism is that humanity’s great leap in material progress has come at a high cost to nature: we tear down entire mountains for their minerals; divert rivers and streams and drain swamps to provide water for modern agriculture and urban use; clear large amounts of forests for other uses, often disrupting crucial habitat for rare animal species; and too often dump our waste byproducts thoughtlessly into the air, water, and land.
But this insight contains a paradox. Environmentalism arose precisely because we have mitigated the material harshness of human life through the Industrial Revolution; as Aldo Leopold, author of the classic environmental book A Sand County Almanac, put it: “These wild things had little human value until mechanization assured us of a good breakfast.”
I want to thank John Baden of the the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment in Bozeman, Mont., for bringing this to our attention. Baden’s introduction to Hayward’s commentary is worth reprinting here in full; it’s an excellent thumbnail summary of environmental economics.
Steve Hayward’s column … makes one wonder how noted environmental professionals, and even scientists, can be so, how can I say it gently, remarkably ignorant and intellectually arrogant as this: “Economics is a form of brain damage.” Economics isn’t an ideology or a mental affliction. Rather, it’s the systematic study of allocating scarce resources among contending ends.
When applied to environmental and natural resource problems, its practitioners make a few nearly universally valid assumptions. Here are a few.
When things are free, they are counted as such and hence often over used. Common pools of fish exemplify this.
As scarcity increases, people conserve and innovate. Consider barbed wires introduction to open range, the development of particleboard, laminated beams, and plywood. Entrepreneurs developed these solutions to the increased scarcity of grass and old growth timber.
Property rights and markets peacefully coordinate development and use among people who don’t know one another and generate incentives to act as though they care about unknown others. That’s one under-appreciated function of markets.
Bureaucratic-political management replaces market prices with political favor seeking. Corn ethanol is a classic example that causes untold human misery and great environmental damage.
Wealthier is greener; poverty is the worst polluter.
And this; things that are best and most easily measured are not those that matter most.
Economics isn’t about money, it’s about confronting and helping to resolve the many problems of scarcity in a clear and logical manner. Soft hearts need not imply a mushy brain.
Now meeting the goal of cutting our dependence depends largely on two things: first, finding and producing more oil at home; second, reducing our overall dependence on oil with cleaner alternative fuels and greater efficiency. This begins by continuing to increase America’s oil supply.
These were the words spoken by President Obama on March 30 in an address he gave at Georgetown University on America’s energy security. The president also stated in the same speech that “one big area of concern has been the cost and security of our energy,” and “ … our best opportunities to enhance our energy security can be found in our own backyard … ”
Today, Fox News reports that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is forcing the Shell Oil Company to scrap its efforts to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean, off the northern coast of Alaska. The move by the EPA is based on the decision that the arctic drilling will be hazardous to those who reside in a small village located 70 miles away from the proposed off-shore drill site.
The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling.
The stakes associated with Shell’s proposed drilling site are high: an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. Furthermore, oil production on the North Slope of Alaska is currently so low that any more decrease in production will result in the shutdown of the pipeline. Is that how we reduce dependence on foreign oil?
The problem is the Obama Administration is not walking in step with the president’s most recent speech. Today they scrapped what may have become an important step to increasing more oil produced in America. President Obama stated in his speech, “…producing more oil in America can help lower oil prices, can help create jobs, and can enhance our energy security…”
In the same speech he said:
Right now the [oil] industry holds tens of millions of acres of leases where they’re not producing a single drop. They’re just sitting on supplies of American energy that are ready to be tapped. That’s why part of our plan is to provide new and better incentives to promote rapid, responsible development of these resources.
Again, it doesn’t look like the Obama Administration is following through with its message.
Among other problems, we can see that this latest action by the Obama Administration will do nothing to slow the rapid rise in the price of gasoline. In a recent commentary, Ray Nothstine articulates many of the problems Americans are seeing by the rising gas prices:
Many individuals and families are already curtailing discretionary spending to save for gas. In turn, more money and jobs exit the U.S. economy for oil exporting countries.
Some lawmakers from both parties in oil producing states are asking for more domestic drilling, more refineries, and uniform state standards on gasoline mixture requirements. All of these proposals will help lower prices and could add hundreds of thousands of American jobs.
President Obama has responded by saying an increase in domestic drilling “will help some.” He also signaled he may be willing to tap more of the Canadian oil sands, but at the same time, he wants to cut oil imports by one-third.
High prices at the pump can offer a moment to pause too and remember a spiritual truth. The price of gas not only draws attention to the Middle East, but it draws our attention back to the Garden of Eden that tradition places in that oil-rich region.
Oil itself is decayed vegetation and plankton that has seeped into the ground, forming over millions of years. At one time wildlife was abundant and forests were especially lush in the garden. In the creation story we are reminded that after the fall of man, we have to toil for resources (Genesis 3:19).
While we are bound to labor, 17th century Bible commentator and Presbyterian minister Matthew Henry reminds us, “Let not us, by inordinate care and labor, make our punishment heavier than God has made it; but rather study to lighten our burden.”
President Obama’s speech, delivered on March 30, 2011, can be read here.
To read Ray Nothstine’s commentary, “High Gas Prices Devastating to Poor” click here.