No blood mud for oil

An article in today's Washington Post cites John McCain's support for lifting the ban on offshore oil exploration in the United States, and cites Barack Obama's opposition to the same. While I agree that it's very important for this country to tap its own natural resources in an effort to combat soaring prices and foreign influence; that does not necessarily mean I support John McCain or his overall policy positions. The same holds true with Barack Obama, except here it may be worse: It seems he would like to be able to have his cake, and eat it too.

Barack Obama repeatedly cites the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and simultaneously opposes exploitation of domestic reserves. He has broad faith in alternative energy to bridge the gap; believing we can run our automobiles on something other than fossil fuels (and we will, eventually). What he doesn't seem to be accounting for is that--even in a best-case scenario--it tends to take 15, 20, or more years for the majority of the nation's automotive fleet to be replaced by newer models. So, in the meantime, if we're not getting our "black gold" domestically; then where's it going to come from? Unsurprisingly it will be the only source that's not domestic; foreign.

This logical disconnect extends even further. As cheap oil becomes harder to obtain tensions will undoubtedly mount in oil-rich regions like the Middle East. Even as efficiency standards continue to improve, and alternative electricity generation methods are brought online; development (and the demand increases that go with it) will ensure that the current rate of global consumption (and the current rate at which global consumption increases) will remain essentially unchanged. At this rate we may see cheap oil disappear in as few as 30 years, and all sources of oil vanish in as few as 60 years.

So environmentalists and war protesters--groups that are often inextricably linked--will have to decide whether they want "No blood for oil", or "No mud for oil". They'll have to decide whether they're willing to accept drill holes, and potential harm to wildlife; or bomb craters, and potential harm to human life. It's becoming increasingly apparent that they can't have both. Several nations--including the United States--have long implied that they're willing to fight over natural resources, and whenever this has been said oil was undoubtedly what was being referred to. We've hitched our entire civilization onto this seemingly-unlimited limited resource, and until we've figured out something else to hitch it to--and made the transition--we have to be willing to do whatever it takes to prevent civilization from disintegrating before the transition is complete.