I assumed that the chaos I saw, brought on by thousands upon thousands flocking to the oil ports of Douala, Port Gentile and Pointe Noire, was a temporary phenomenon. In the ensuing 20 years nothing has changed for the better. City-sized shanty towns are now a permanent fixture of the African landscape.

The only beneficiaries of this colonial-like status quo are the ruling elites and us, consumers in more prosperous lands.

Oil addiction

During his otherwise forgettable State of the Union address, George Bush observed that America is "addicted to oil." This was reported in the sleepy mainstream press as if it were some deep and thoughtful revelation into the nature of life today. The real revelation is that the President—possibly the slowest thinker on the planet—was the last in America to achieve this insight. Never known for his concentration, he has already dropped energy conservation from his list of things to do and returned to his favorite topics: the war on terror and tax cuts for his wealthiest constituents.

As for this country's addiction to oil, we might begin by looking at some rough figures. America, home to some 6 percent of the world’s population, consumes nearly 25 percent of the world’s daily output of oil.

In 1984, Congress enacted a temporary moratorium on oil drilling off New England and the mid-Atlantic states. This original moratorium excluded some 5 million acres of seafloor and has been renewed and expanded regularly. Thus have we New Englanders been spared from having to deal with the messy business of offshore oil.

Any ban on drilling has the near unanimous support of environmentalists and regional legislators. As oil firms are raking in astounding profits, there is little political risk in coming down hard on "demon oil." In fact, this writer may be the only environmentalist to object in any way to the 1984 moratorium.

To simply ban drilling as we have is a predictable and conventional response that fails to come to grips with a complex issue. Like too many complex issues, ocean drilling has been dealt with on only the most superficial levels in mainstream American politics—and not at all in the national press.

Things can go wrong…

The outer continental shelf (OCS), beyond each state’s 3-mile limit, is under Federal jurisdiction. The Department of Interior has divided it into 20 planning areas—in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the Gulf. Periodically, leases in those areas have been put out to bid for exploratory drilling and production. The whole Gulf of Maine, from Massa-chusetts to Nova Scotia, is covered by the 1984 moratorium. This is a moot point as these waters show no signs of hydrocarbon deposits.

The fishing grounds over Georges Bank, well offshore Massachusetts and Rhode Island, are also under the moratorium. But these areas do indeed display characteristics associated with natural gas deposits if not oil. The various bans prohibit not only drilling by would-be lease holders, but any formal steps by the Minerals Management Service of the Dept of Interior to lease tracts.

This sounds like wise policy. After all, we have every right to be concerned with this business; there are any number of "things that can go wrong," from headline grabbers like blow outs, massive spills, catastrophic capsizes, down to the routine losses of drilling mud.

This liquid "mud" is a messy fluid of fine clays, various oils and heavy metals—a toxic substance that can do no good in any marine ecosystem. This stuff is pumped from the rig down the hole and back again, to cool and lubricate the drill bit, and to carry away drilling debris. It is designed as a closed loop, but in the real world, some of it escapes.

Prior to the 1984 moratorium, the oil men had already drilled wells in 10 places in the area, all dry holes. Hardly the stuff oil booms are made of. Nevertheless, there are indications of gas deposits in the region. In the North Sea, a classic example of a modern well-run offshore industry, far more dry holes were run before a commercial strike. Specifics are hard to come by—oil men play it pretty close to the vest.

So, the oil and/or gas may be there, the hazards are admittedly there, and the continued moratorium may have the support of most New Englanders. But before we cast this ban in stone, we would do well to rethink our opposition to drilling on environmental, economic and ethical grounds.

We are obliged to acknowledge the global nature of the environment and the fallacy of differentiating "theirs" from "ours."When it comes to environmental concerns. A blanket refusal to accommodate drilling efforts nearby while taking a casual approach to safety and ecological concerns elsewhere is fundamentally irresponsible.

For decades we have been able to isolate ourselves and our extravagant consumption of these resources from the unpleasant details of collecting it. The North Sea countries—Britain, Norway and Denmark—are managing oil production pretty well. Not so the rest of the world.

Much of the environmental degradation that goes along with our oil habit is concentrated in oil-rich, cash-poor nations. Each time we fill up with gas, we might do well to imagine what ecological compromises were made somewhere else to get this stuff out of the ground and into our tanks.

In the "third world," environmental constraints are either nonexistent or simply unenforced. Environmental concerns are costly obstacles to paying off bottomless national debts to "first world" creditors. Despite the large-scale development of natural resources, little headway is being made in overcoming those debts.

The argument, that the exploitation and subsequent sale to the West of resources such as oil is a necessary step toward economic maturity, is blatantly phony. The reckless overdevelopment of the oil fields has not fulfilled the promises of the market economists. More importantly, their petroleum reserves are absolutely essential to the future of those currently impoverished lands, far more important than the bank accounts and armaments the oil royalties have been converted into.

Making it in Massachusetts

Not everyone wants to work in a refinery, out on an oil rig, a supply boat or on a barge laying pipeline. Not everyone wants to work in a cubicle either, but a mixed product and service economy just feels like a safer way to face our own future. Managing our own oil development has got to make more sense than buying into slot machines and casinos, but that seems to be the way our State is leaning.

State, regional and Federal governments can and should be able to manage an offshore oil industry by mandating clear and sensible operating practices.

Any discussion of offshore oil will naturally include the risks. There are no guarantees, not offshore. But these risks can be minimized by astute drilling practices and a well-run port and pipeline infrastructure. We have to take that responsibility. This means we do not rely on firms in Texas to make decisions for us.

The most compelling reason to abandon the "not in my backyard" attitude toward offshore oil and gas development is a moral one. We consume a grossly disproportionate share of this resource. We cannot continue to prey on faraway, already deeply distressed, parts of the world. We cannot continue demanding that they deplete their resources, and accept the ecological damage and social consequences of our extravagance.

We must honestly face our oil addiction and meet our moral obligation for it. If we don’t we will export another social disaster of our own making—one that blocks our moral path—the "me first" attitude that has taken over the American heart.

[Around 260 individuals and organizations testified at the hearing on the proposed Nantucket Sound offshore Wind Farm, held at MIT on December 16, 2004. Hearings were also held in two other locations.

Most proponents touted wind power as a supplement, rather than an alternative to the ever-growing American appetite oil and for consumer goods in general. Opponents focused on the "visual pollution" which they claimed would have a spoiler effect on their quality of life. Though outnumbered, these opponents, who include Senators Kennedy and Kerry, have been able to block the road to any wind energy projects in their own back yards.]

[photo: annie butler]