|
 erhaps
you think that drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Reserve (ANWR) would be a great idea. Or maybe you think it's a
terrible idea. Either way, shouldn't your elected representative
in the Senate have the opportunity to vote on it?
Senate Majority
Leader Thomas Daschle doesn't think so. He opposes the idea of opening
ANWR to drilling. But he knows that he doesn't have the votes to
prevent exploration of what many experts believe is a vast reserve
of high-grade crude, so he's constructed a vast array of parliamentary
roadblocks — all designed to make it virtually impossible for
the full Senate to consider a measure that would allow drilling
in ANWR.
Sen. Daschle
certainly isn't the first person to exploit the Senate's rules of
procedure to keep the majority from expressing its will. But if
he doesn't have a credible alternative to offer on President Bush's
initiative to explore for oil in ANWR, he should allow a vote. Surveys
show that more than 78 percent of the public would like to see more
oil produced domestically, and more than 60 percent, including a
large majority of Alaskans, favor exploration of ANWR.
Americans favor
ANWR exploration because they don't like being beholden to foreign
interests. Yet that's exactly the case when it comes to oil, and
the situation has grown worse over the last three decades: We bought
35 percent of our oil abroad when the Arab embargo of 1973 set in.
Today, we import 53 percent.
The U.S. Energy
Information Administration predicts this figure will increase to
62 percent by 2020 if domestic supplies don't increase. With the
United States expecting significant population gains over the next
two decades, it's irresponsible to take a pass on what the EIA calls
"the largest unexplored, potentially productive onshore basin
in the United States."
Absent some
action, the energy problem will only worsen. We produced 40 percent
less oil in the United States last year than we did in 1970 because
of environmental concerns about drilling, refinement and exploration.
Yet domestic-energy use rose 17 percent through the 1990s, and we
now import 10 million barrels per day.
All President
Bush has asked is that oil exploration take place on 2,000 acres
within ANWR — itself 19.5 million acres in size. That's a tract
about the size of a big-city airport in an area the size of South
Carolina with a population of fewer than 2,000.
He's not asking
that oil companies be allowed to foul the land. Most Alaskans realize
this, which is why one recent poll shows that 78 percent of them
approve of the president's plan. They've watched the huge north-slope
oil field at Prudhoe Bay in production for 27 years now, and they've
seen the environment thrive. They've seen the Porcupine Caribou
herds — which many environmentalists predicted would be wiped
out once the oil companies arrived — increase fivefold in number
in those 27 years. Alaskan pollster David Dittman has suggested
that more oil seeps out of cars each day in the average Wal-Mart
parking lot than has been spilled in Alaska in more than a quarter-century.
Sen. Daschle
doesn't have to like these facts. He doesn't have to become a cheerleader
for ANWR. But he should recognize that we need this oil to reduce
our dependence on imports, that we can collect it safely with little
damage to the environment, and that a majority of Americans would
like to give ANWR a chance.
The senator
needs either to offer a miracle solution — one that preserves
our American way of life but sharply curtails our dependence on
foreign oil — or he needs to let the Senate vote on ANWR.
|
