In the Absence of an Energy Policy, Shell’s Withdrawal from the Arctic Is Far from the Last Word on the Subject
With the Alaskan pipeline (pictured) flowing at only about one-quarter capacity, one can only imagine the disappointment that the governor of the state, Bill Walker, felt about yesterday’s announcement that Shell Oil had scrapped its plans to drill in the arctic. Walker continues to insist that the White House take action here, e.g., opening the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, explaining that “We need to get some oil in the pipeline quick.”
This is another reminder that we need an energy policy, one that specifies that the U.S. is doing everything it can to migrate away from fossil fuels (especially oil and coal) at the maximum possible rate that is sane and practical. In the absence of such a doctrine, people like Walker, i.e., those indifferent to everything except immediate profits regardless of the long-term costs, actually make sense.
Perhaps the lack of public energy policy is in fact the policy. Following the widely criticized “Energy Task Force” strategy meetings that Mr. Cheney held with oil company executives, the “public servants” in the Bush Administration refused to release the content of those discussions, citing “executive privilege.”