Max Gladwell

Hilton proposes a reasonable solution to offshore drilling and the energy crisis. Where have we heard that before?

By now, you’ve all seen the Paris Hilton video (heh, heh), where she responds to the McCain campaign’s desperate attempt to paint Obama as a vacant celebrity by associating him with…vacant celebrities. We Tweeted about the McCain ad the day it was released. The Hilton response appeared on Funny or Die and has been making its rounds on cable news, YouTube, and the blogosphere ever since.

The Hilton video has been widely celebrated as well done, and we concur. Yes, it’s hot. And we’re sure this won’t be the last we’ll see from the latest “presidential candidate”. The most brilliant part (and this is truly miraculous) is that it actually makes Hilton sound informed and intelligent when it comes to energy policy.

Hilton says, “Why don’t we do a hybrid of both candidates’ ideas. We can do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars. That way the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick in, which will create new jobs and energy independence.”

In Part 3 of How to Debate Climate Change with Conservative Skeptics, we said, “The solution for many conservatives is to drill for more oil. With prices at historic highs, that goes without saying. Market forces will certainly respond accordingly. In addition, President Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling. This may very well be justified provided taxpayers don’t subsidize it and oil companies are forced to purchase bonds in excess of any possible cleanup costs associated with a spill (more on this later). So long as it makes economic sense under these conditions, it’s worth exploring.”

Congress should lift the federal ban and replace it with “strict environmental oversight” in the form of expensive bonds while removing oil subsidies and tax breaks. Then, as conservatives always champion, leave it up to the states to decide. All three west-coast governors oppose it, partly due to compromising the beauty (and resulting revenue) that draws millions to their spectacular coastlines.

But this also ignores the fact that offshore drilling will do nothing for gas prices or energy independence; not now and not in 10 years. If China is willing to pay more for that oil, that’s where it will go. It’s a global commodity that goes to the highest bidder. If we’re lucky, that extra supply might take a dollar or two off the price of oil, which benefits every country that uses oil just as much as it does the United States. Is that worth spoiling our coastlines for?

Anyone who’s been to Santa Barbara, which is arguably one of the most beautiful places on earth, knows what the offshore oil rigs do for the experience. We kayaked the Santa Barbara coast in a story for National Geographic Adventure, in which we explored the possibility of classifying it as a National Seashore. The one hurdle in terms of grouping this with Cape Cod and Padre Island is the oil infrastructure. There are clearly costs to offshore drilling that go far beyond exploration, and these need to be considered in any decision.

Lest we forget, the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill played a huge role in sparking the modern environmental movement, lead to the birth of Earth Day less than four months later, and precipitated the offshore ban on oil drilling in the first place.

Again, it should be up to the states, and it’s not entirely up to the people. In a representative democracy, we elect representatives to weigh the full scope of costs and benefits before making decisions that will affect these states for generations to come.

Related Posts

• Congress Considers Offshore Drilling, Broader Energy Policy
• The Coefficient of FastSkinz
• Libertarians for Obama-Biden
• The Ultimate Green Hack: An Electric MINI Cooper
• An Historical, Political Truth: It’s All About the Economy