W hile the left for a long time fretted in hysterical, baseless screeches about Christian evangelicals imposing their religious views on the nation, radical environmentalists have done just that, and to an extent that is pulverizing us.
Pronouncing articles of faith in total contradiction to Enlightenment rationality, the findings of science and plain old common sense, they proffered the ridiculous, indefensible proposition that drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and most of our offshore holdings would be an intolerable abuse of the planet Earth.
Unlike the so-called religious right, which despite absurd claims of an emerging theocracy has been unable to effect its wishes on the teaching of intelligent design, the restoration of prayer in the schools or far-reaching curbs on abortion, such organizations as the Wilderness Society persuaded Congress to believe their grotesque exaggerations and enact their values with scarcely a pause for responsible reflection.
Thus, in a period of $4-a-gallon gas that is ruinous for some families and a huge burden on the economy, oil companies are prohibited from drilling in an Alaska area that is tiny relative to the wilds around it — roughly a briefcase on a football field, someone once vividly put it, or an airport in South Carolina, as a friend recently wrote.
The place — which has been described as muck in the summer and a frozen patch of darkness in the winter — could provide 10.4 billion barrels of oil, it’s reported. That’s enough to eventually drive down prices while enabling this country to become less dependent on oil in unfriendly or unstable lands.
As columnist Charles Krauthammer has noted, to quit contributing to the very real environmental damage being done to some of the foreign countries from which our current supplies are derived.
Then there are our offshore resources, which together with other domestic reserves currently off limits for development, could be our oil salvation for the period it would take to put substitutes in place.
Yes, it’s true, as the environmentalists argue, that it would take a number of years before these sites would be productive, but yes, it’s also true, as one critic argues, that alternatives would hardly be immediate, either, and that some of them would entail some unhappy environmental costs.
Conservation can and should be part of this exercise, but it alone won’t do the trick unless Congress is prepared to impose draconian measures that would result in declining living standards primarily at the expense of our poorest citizens.
The cupboard is bare of reasons not to proceed with offshore drilling — given today’s technology, the risks of spills are negligible. And meanwhile, the same cupboard is replete with reasons to proceed with drilling. The only thing in the way is the stranglehold the radical environmentalists have on so many of our politicians.
We need the radicals to let go. We need them to do as a convicted enviro-terrorist did following his conviction on arson charges in an Oregon court a year ago, namely confess transgressions and pledge to do better from now on.
“I was ignorant of history and economy and acted from a faulty and narrow vision as an ordinary bigot,” the young man said, as reported by The Associated Press. “A million times over I apologize … to all of you hardworking business owners, employees … and all citizens whose property was destroyed, whose holidays were ruined, whose welfare was thwarted and whose sleep was troubled.”
Lots of us are waiting. Will you radical environmentalists admit you were wrong, say you are sorry and get out of the way?
