Environmental Imperialism

Charles Krauthammer on why we need to drill in ANWR. A key passage:

The entire Arctic refuge is one-third the size of the United Kingdom (which includes Scotland and Wales). The drilling site would be one-seventh the size of Manhattan Island. The footprint is tiny. Moreover, forbidding drilling there does not prevent despoliation. It merely exports it. The crude oil we're not getting from the Arctic we import instead from places like the Niger Delta, where millions live and where the resulting pollution and oil spills poison the lives of many of the world's most wretchedly poor.

Liberals are fond of talking about the future of the planet. How about thinking globally then? And about people. And for those who say we should consume less, fine. Conservation is always good, but even if we planted corn fencepost to fencepost and all drove Priuses, it would still not be enough--and it would export more misery--a catastrophic rise in food prices dooming millions to more hunger. More:

Our environmental imperialism does not just redistribute pollution to people who can least afford it. It generally increases the total overall damage because oil extraction in the wealthier and more technologically advanced U.S. is far more environmentally sensitive.

Increased Brazilian ethanol production results in the destruction of more rainforests. At least the Brazilians are exploring oil offshore. It is our responsibility to do our share to produce the energy we and world need to maintain standards of living here and raise them for the world's poor. We can do this by drilling in the US, using our latest technology, and by building clean, green nuclear facilities to give us longterm energy security. And fortunately for us, we have a strong energy partner in Canada, to the north.

Related posts: The Limits of Government, Sensible Energy