In the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill,there has been no shortage of finger-pointing. There’s plenty of blame to go around, 
no doubt, but there is one group that the Right has mysteriously implicated in this disaster: environmentalists.
In an editorial in the Washington Post last Friday, Charles Krauthammer wrote that environmentalists are partially to blame for the spill because, thanks to their efforts, oil companies have been forced to drill in very deep water, as the more shallow areas are off-limits for oil production. Sarah Palin was even more militant when she echoed this sentiment in a Facebook note earlier today, writing,
“Radical environmentalists: you are damaging the planet with your efforts to lock up safer drilling areas. There’s nothing clean and green about your misguided, nonsensical radicalism, and Americans are on to you as we question your true motives.”
First of all, here’s why Krauthammer and Palin are wrong. OK, granted, there were several reasons why BP was drilling in water that deep, but there is one reason that trumps the rest: They were drilling there because they thought it would be profitable. If BP thinks it’s going to make money by drilling somewhere, then of course, it will drill there; if it thinks it will lose money, obviously, it won’t drill.
Certainly, it’s cheaper to drill closer to land–or in ANWR, as Palin suggests–and if drilling were allowed in these locations, oil companies would explore those regions first. But there’s only a finite number of wells that can be dug at these sites, and there’s only a finite quantity of oil that can be extracted from each well. And where would the oil companies turn once those resources had been exhausted? Would we expect them to show moral restraint and say, “Well, we’ve dug all the shallow-water wells, better pack up our tools and go home because it’s too risky to drill in deep water?” Of course not. Regardless of where oil companies were allowed to drill, there would have come a time when it became economically profitable to drill in deep water. Maybe it would have taken them 10 years longer to get there, but BP would have found the deep-water wells, and Deepwater Horizon would have been built regardless of the environmentalists.
But here’s what really frustrates me about Palin’s note: She’s pretending that “drill, baby, drill” is, and always has been, a nuanced energy and environmental policy. According to Palin, “drill, baby, drill” meant–at least in part–that we need to allow only some drilling so that we can avoid other, more risky drilling, and thus mitigate the chance of a catastrophic environmental disaster. Really, is that what “drill, baby, drill” meant? Prior to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, where had Sarah Palin–or anyone–ever expressed that opinion? When had Sarah Palin ever warned of the environmental dangers of deep-water drilling? In fact, based on these comments, it seems she’s always supported deep-water drilling.
No, “drill, baby, drill” is a simple policy: If there’s oil, we’re going to dig a hole and get it. That’s all it means, and that’s all it ever meant. The Right is kidding itself if they think this overly simple approach to oil policy is going to make the environment safer.
Photo Credit: Flickr stream of Mike Licht
