Trump Administration Approves a Plan to Drill for Oil in the Arctic | Hacker News Reader

Trump Administration Approves a Plan to Drill for Oil in the Arctic

e360.yale.edu

39 pointsokket35 comments

“Responsibly developing our resources, in Alaska especially, will allow us to use our energy diplomatically to aid our allies and check our adversaries,” he said in a statement. “That makes America stronger and more influential around the globe.”

We feel that when we swing our dick around, it’s not big enough. This will allow to have a bigger dick to swing around.

I’m at a loss for a less cynical translation.

Russia regularly extorts European countries by threatening to cut off gas or raise prices. A big part of US foreign policy is guaranteeing energy security to our allies. The US is already nearly energy independent, due in part to the shale gas (“fracking”) boom. Increasing domestic production, along with the new policy of allowing exports to our allies, will do a lot to lessen Russia’s power.

So yes, it’s about carrying an even bigger stick. But it’s our stick or Russia’s stick. Our allies would much rather depend on America than Russia.

Every investment in oil and gas exploration is a tragic waste of resources tho since the world needs to stop using fossil fuels for generating electricity, transportation, and heat. With that geopolitical games centered around control of oil and gas supplies is utterly pointless.

If we don’t do it, our competitors will. Do you want to live in a world where the Chinese and Russian governments have more power over your life than they do now?

How will the Chinese drill in Alaskan waters?

It's not that they'll drill in Alaskan waters. It's that they'll supply energy to people instead of us.

Thank you for a thoughtful take that's a little less cynical than mine.

Less cynical translation: responsibly developing our resources will make us less reliant on countries like Saudi Arabia, which murdered a journalist, and whose resources have since been branded ‘blood money’

Less cynical, true. But also, less apt.

There is no real need for arctic oil, nor Saudi oil for that matter. There are other, easier and cheaper, ways to replace Saudi oil then digging for it in the Arctic.

The United States imports 9% of our yearly crude from Saudi Arabia. More than three times as much comes from the polite, hockey-loving neighbors to the north. [1]

1: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6

That was ultimately my opinion in the real social political reason US waged war against Iraq; the people pushing it thought we will win this war, everything will be great, and after we will walk around Washington with a big swinging dick.

I'm at a loss for a more vacuous one. You've reduced strategic leverage of natural resources to penises.

Quote from the now flagged article.

> Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke called the decision an important step toward “American energy dominance.”

We can no longer afford the delusion that our leaders are mature and practical men.

I'm struggling to find immaturity or impracticality in that quote.

Also your reply is redundant: You posted a sibling comment echoing parent's phallic framing of the topic.

It's not really my problem if you can't see that the quote is about nothing more than the desire for power for it's own sake. And particular it's backwards looking rather than forward looking. Because power in the 21st Century won't be about oil.

Most people wouldn't think that there's anything immoral about private companies using strategy to be better than their competitors as long as they do it through legitimate means. Why should we hold states to a different standard? In this case, the USA would be gaining an advantage by finding a way to utilize an untapped resource. What's wrong with that?

Being able to reduce everything down to an analogy about monkeys fighting over a banana or a dick measuring contest is just the reality of economics. One could even argue that it's an inherent aspect of being alive, at risk of sounding like a social darwinist.

Its like they are making a statement: you think the planet is screwed? You ain't seen nothing yet!

How can this be a good idea? Meanwhile in the gulf there are still leaking wells. When do we learn?

Which ones and what has been the EPA’s response?

Here is at least one, and it might be the worst spill in US history. It has been all over the news over the past couple of weeks and was a very easy google away. The EPA along with other organizations like the Coast Guard were lied to by the company that owns the well and also seemingly looked the other way for the most part under the guise that it wasn't really that big of a leak so it's fine to let it continue to fester. Clearly however, they were not doing the envrionmental protection part of their name.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-14-...

Do you own an internal combustion engine? Does your Amazon delivery person? Your fire Dept? Police?

We are all complicit

Yes, we are complicit.

For some that means careful reconsideration of petrochemical usage, with the intent of gradually reducing usage and focusing on alternatives and strategic workarounds for the post peak-oil future.

For other's that means "drill-baby-drill" and race to bottom out the price of oil to the point where it's cheaper than water (actually, it already is if you consider bottled drinking water)-- without consideration for the fact that petroleum is a finite resource and there's no "free-refill".

Complicit isn't really the right word at all. For many Americans (probably most) that have a job, they have to get to their job to make money to continue to exist and support themselves and their families. Because of the lack of public transportation (also not their fault) they more than likely need a car. In order to get things they need for their household they have to go shop for them (using a car) or ordering them (having them delivered). Also, I'm not sure how you think the average person influences the energy policies for the fire department, police, Amazon, or car manufacturers. For most people they have no say in any of this and use the things they need to to continue to get by. We are not all complicit, especially considering complicit is defined as illegal or wrongdoing.

Your comment seems to imply the average person has the same power, capabilities, lobbying ability, voice, free time on their hands, and money that someone in the government/politics/large lobbying firm/large corporation would have to dedicate to these things. I'm pretty sure for most people that's not the case at all.

I thought international law prohibits any country from asserting ownership over the arctic?

The big boys are always above the law. Illegal wars, illegal anexations, "illegal" murders, price fixing(opec)...you name it. For a law to have any value it has be enforceable. Who will punish US? The EU states can barely agree to take action against Russia.

That's the Antarctic. The land parts of the Arctic are all divvied up.

Who owns / controls the Arctic? Is it within American jurisdiction?

Six miles off the Alaskan coast, as per TFA, or the whole of the Arctic?

> Who owns / controls the Arctic?

All arctic coastal states: Russia, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Canada and the US.

> Is it within American jurisdiction?

Since this is 6 miles off the Alaskan coast, that's included within the US continental shelf, which goes up to 200 nautical miles.

This seems a bit too mainstream-political for Hacker News, and the commentary thus far is pretty low-SNR.

What's the danger here? A spill/leakage, or is there anything else?

Nice! The penguins got too cozy for too long!

Polar bears.

They can swim. What's the big deal about a little ice melting? It'll be good for their cardiovascular health.

There are no penguins in the northern hemisphere TIL

Reply on news.ycombinator.com