Chekhov’s Mistess

I will put those 16 billion gallons of oil on my Mastercard, please

New York Times’ Op-ed Columnist Nicholas Kristoff wrote this week about his experience hiking in the contentious Alaskan Arctic Wildlife Reserve, a relatively untouched piece of land in a sparse area that most Americans will never see. His observations lead him to believe that both sides of the debate on the region exaggerate their claims of the impact of drilling for oil. That’s a safe assumption, but then Kristoff concludes that he would support drilling in the barren coastal plains of the reserve. The locals, he says, are in favor of drilling. Apparently, these Alaskan “Beverly Hillbillies” want the windfall millions of dollars that they would receive from the use of the land. Kristoff believes though, that drilling is only okay if it if were part of a larger environmental plan that would increase fuel efficiency standards, etc, etc. That plan, he admits, is not forthcoming from the Bush Administration anytime soon, but I think that’s beside the point. Either you think that drilling in the region is right or wrong.

I do think though, that Kristoff is on the right track, only I would take it a step further. I think, like Gary Coleman, the child-star-cum-gubernatorial candidate of California, that we should drill in every natural park and every public place possible in the country. Whatchu talkin’ bout Willis? What I really mean is that we can no longer afford to rely on all of our energy needs from the Middle East. No amount of imperialism is going to change the fact that we can’t control what happens in the region and as long as we are reliant upon the kindness of sultans, we, as a country, are not masters of our own destiny.

Yeah, but, Mr. Parr, we don’t want to mess with our beautiful land any more than we already are! No, that’s true. However, I believe that if we took more responsibility for the resources that we use, we would be more apt to utilize them wisely. That’s why I also propose a $2 per gallon tax that would be used strictly for improving emissions standards, and developing alternative sources of fuel and public transportation, and otherwise funding reductions of emissions. I know that this is hugely regressive* and would cause widespread price hikes, but it isn’t any more realistic than my first proposal and I’m trying to make a simple point.

We in this country seem to believe that we have a God-given and constitutional right to use fuel and other resources with out any thought to the responsibilities that come along with that right. Even our so-called “values-based” leadership tells us that SUV’s are our right and its just okay. (For the record, I don’t have anything against SUV’s categorically – people do have legitimate needs for them, but they are probably mostly used as a fashion statement and that’s probably not a good reason for using an awful lot of gas. However, I do believe that Hummer’s are ridiculous and their owners are so conspicuously stupid and pretentious that it is beyond my comprehension.) Therefore, short of any leadership on this topic, I believe we need to be more accountable for our actions through paying enough direct taxes to fund the projects I mentioned above and begin earnestly looking at ways to develop our energy sources at home, even if that means drilling in Alaska or on the coast. Perhaps then we would think about the damage we are doing and spend less time and money trying to dominate a region where we could and should limit our involvement.

I just want to make it clear that the above proposals are strictly rhetorical. I wanted to start an oil drilling operation from our living room, but my wife wouldn’t let me. – Bud Parr 9-17-03

comments

No Comments Next entry: Where I’m Coming From
Previous entry: Somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot

« Back to main

About this Post

• Posted by: Bud Parr
• Date: September 12, 2003
• Filed Under:
  Dismal/Dismaler: Econ/Politics

• Comments:0
• Links to this Post: Technorati

Recommended Links

- top -