On Greenspan and sea urchins

Yes, there is a connection between Alan Greenspan, the former Fed chairman who has a book on the market, and sea urchins, who don’t. Some very selective quotation is doing the rounds in the media about Alan Greenspan’s latest book, suggesting that the Iraq war was all about oil. (Here’s a typical version, here’s the outraged hysteria take.)

Greenspan himself refuted such oversimplification, and there’s a good editorial rebuttal here. Among other arguments, it expresses mystification not only that the US never laid claim to any Kuwaiti or Iraqi oil — instead buying it on the open market from the countries in question — but also that the US, despite its supposed oil greed, remains reluctant to exploit its domestic oil reserves, in the name of environmentalism. I largely agree, but would take issue with the last paragraph:

Perhaps those who really think Iraq is about blood for oil can explain just why we would put the lives of young Americans in harm’s way for energy while we safeguard the oil-rich habitats of caribou and sea urchins.

The term “safeguarding” should have read “over-protecting”. There is little evidence that exploiting offshore or Arctic oil reserves would pose a significant danger to either caribou or sea urchins. Environmentalists demand zero cost, and no risk. The environmental cost of exploiting those reserves could be zero — after all, caribou thrive among the Prudhoe Bay oil fields, which is similar to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge where environmentalists claim even small-footprint extraction operations would destroy caribou breeding grounds. However, there might indeed be an environmental cost to drilling. We can step lightly, but the only way for humanity to leave no footprints is not to progress at all. Even if there is an environmental cost to be borne, however, there is no evidence at all that the costs cannot be mitigated, and more importantly, that the benefit to US energy security and economic interests would not vastly outweigh them.