Bush has renewed his call to drill in ANWR. Over at
Atrios there's a thread on it -- and reading the comments I had an epiphany about why we (the left) set ourselves up to lose.
Our politics have primarily become one of reaction, not action. The GOP proposes drilling in ANWR, and all we offer are reasons it is a really bad idea. Don't get me wrong -- it's a really bad idea, or at best, one of questionable benefit for the cost. And then we get enough votes in the Senate to block it or filibuster it, if we're lucky, and we consider it a victory and pat ourselves on the back.
This is a pyrrhic victory. Let me explain why I think this is so...
We're not offering a true alternative. We're not really offering a choice -- instead, we are defining what we are against, but not saying concretely what we are for.
Put yourself outside of partisan politics for a second and think about it. There is a real problem here -- we use a lot of oil. The cost of oil is very high. Our biggest source of oil, Saudi Arabia, is in a politically unstable region and probably has funded attacks against us.
These are real problems, and the Republicans appear to be offering a solution. Their solution is a terrible solution that doesn't really fix anything, but from first appearances, it at least seems like something is being done. Remember, we are outside the world of partisan politics for this thought exercise.
Here's what we should do instead. We should put up a bill that increases the CAFE standards (fuel efficiency) of our entire fleet by 3-4 mpg by 2010. This would save much more oil than ANWR could ever produce. We should try to attach it as an amendment to the ANWR bill. If we can get the votes of enough GOP moderates, it might very well pass.
At that point, get every Democrat who can get on TV talking about the issue. Point out that it will save more oil than ANWR produces. Point out that the technology to make such efficiency already exists -- see Ford's hybrid SUV (also good because it is an American company). Point out that it is a step toward a longer term solution.
If the amendment fails, we can safely use the filibuster because we offered a positive alternative, and we can hammer the GOP in 2006 if either ANWR passed without the increased standards or the bill doesn't get through. We took a stand, but it was for something.
It might not work out -- they might pass ANWR without any increased fuel efficiency standards. In fact, that may be the likely outcome. But I would rather take a stand fighting for something we all know is the right policy, and have that as a political weapon in 2006. That is a better situation for the environment overall than either stopping ANWR with no political gain or failing to stop ANWR drilling with no political gain.
A lot of these ideas came from reading The End of Oil, which is a good book if you haven't read it.