Newsroom
04/20/2001
A Better Choice Than Drilling in the Refuge
Roll Call
|
In recent weeks, President Bush and his Administration have signaled a new ambivalence about whether to go forward with their plans to force open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. This is the first flicker of promising news in a debate that has gone around in circles for too long. It should be an opportunity to open the real dialogue the country so badly needs : the electricity crisis in California and soaring prices for heating oil, gasoline, and natural gas across the country have brought our long-simmering energy problems to the boiling point. America has for decades imported, produced and consumed energy at a pace and in ways that are economically and environmentally unsustainable. A serious debate is long overdue -- and the outcome should not be determined by a short sighted false choice between human energy needs and development on one hand and conservation on the other. President Bush can choose from two very different courses - with very different outcomes. His Administration can make exploiting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska -- among our greatest national treasures along with Yellowstone National Park and the Everglades – the centerpiece of their energy policy. Or they can join together with Democrats and Republicans to pursue a better, common sense solution. Some have suggested that only our fierce resistance in Congress will prevent President Bush from choosing the path of exploitation of the refuge. I respectfully disagree -- in the end, the power of our arguments, not the pressure of our filibuster, should carry the day and make possible a comprehensive energy solution for our nation. We must first make clear that drilling in the wildlife refuge is not a responsible course for this nation. The environmental risks of drilling in the refuge -- nearly 20 million acres of pristine wilderness on the North Slope of Alaska -- are extraordinary. While the Refuge may seem too distant to warrant protection, one can only imagine that when Congress created Yellowstone National Park in 1872 it also seemed a distant, remote and inhospitable land in what was then America's far west. Today we realize how lucky we are to have protected that land. The Refuge is worthy of the same protection. It is the last 5 percent of Alaska's north slope not open to drilling – nothing like it exists anywhere else in the world. Peregrine falcons, endangered in the other 48 states, thrive there, and thousands of Porcupine caribou roam the Refuge, along with black, brown and polar bears, and grey wolves. We know the irrepairable harm that drilling would bring to the refuge: oil companies already operating in Alaska's Trans- Alaska and Prudhoe Bay oil fields spill oil or other chemicals more than once a day and release more than twice the air pollution emitted in Washington, D.C.. Protecting - or exploiting - this refuge is, at its core, a test of whether this country has a conservationist ethic, and there is no room for error. When pristine wilderness is lost, it's lost forever. While there are obvious environmental issues at stake and they are real, drilling in ANWR also does not constitute sound energy policy. It gives false hopes to citizens suffering from real energy problems today and ignores the tough decisions this nation must make if we are ever to embrace a sustainable energy policy for the future. The Administration promises that drilling in ANWR would increase oil supply by 1 million barrels each day and allow us to avert localized energy problems, like the wild price fluctuations in California's electricity market. This argument is muddled at best and cynical at worst. Not only is oil production in the Refuge nearly a decade away, but California generates less than one percent of its electricity from burning oil. Opening ANWR to drilling will do nothing to help Californians now or in the future. Moreover, there may be far less available oil below the Refuge than the peak production of 1 million barrels per day the Administration predicts. Studies reveal that it may produce as little as 300,000 barrels per day, depending on reserves, price and other factors. In the end, we could spoil the wilderness to satisfy our national oil demand for only six months. The President further argues that opening the Refuge will reduce America's vulnerability to OPEC's market manipulation and lower overall energy prices. There is little evidence to support this argument. By 2015 the United States is expected to import more than 63 percent of its oil. Drilling in the Refuge would reduce that number by – at most – 3 percent, and leave OPEC with more market power than it has now and far more than it had during the oil crisis of the 1970s. Opening the Refuge will not stop OPEC from colluding to reduce global supply and drive prices higher – OPEC has achieved that exact goal with less market power in the past. Drilling for oil in ANWR is no substitute for a sustainable energy policy – we should choose instead a course that alleviates immediate problems, conserves energy, supports renewable technologies, and wisely maximizes our natural resources. This means immediate energy assistance for struggling families and stressed small businesses, helping to resolve regional problems, and pressing OPEC and other exporting nations to increase global supply to a sustainable level. Conservation is not deprivation if we properly harness technology. Increasing the efficiency of new buildings could save more than 1 million barrels of oil equivalent every day and boosting automobile efficiency by as little as 3 miles per gallon -- well within the capabilities of automobile manufacturers today -- would save 1 million barrels of oil each day. That's more than double the potential oil production of the Refuge, and it reduces dependence on fossil fuel, cuts air pollution and saves money. And unlike drilling in the Refuge, conservation has immediate benefits because energy savings can begin now and grow. Conservation should be backed by smart investments in renewable energy. Gains in solar, wind, geothermal, fuel cell, biomass and other renewable technologies will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and truly insulate the nation from OPEC's market power. Finally, we must recognize that oil, gas and coal -- together with these other sources -- will be part of our energy mix for the future, and we should take steps to increase production in more appropriate areas and improve our energy infrastructure. I believe in bipartisanship, but I also believe that sound economic and environmental practices are a matter of principle – which is why I have pledged to filibuster efforts to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A political stand-off would no doubt showcase real differences over energy policy – but I'd rather see policy-makers showcase a common commitment to an approach that makes sense for the country. President Bush can work with Congress to make a bipartisan solution a reality. It is a responsible choice his Administration can make for this country, and that is why I hope President Bush will choose not to refight old battles and will instead join us in a serious and thoughtful effort to meet this nation's energy challenges.
|
|
