For environmentalists, the 51-49 Senate decision allowing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is catastrophic. Compared to what?
Compared to importing 60 percent of our oil from countries either sympathetic to or supportive of Islamo-Fascist terror? How about leaving our military vulnerable to fuel shortages in time of war?
Increasing domestic oil output is not a cure-all for America's energy needs. But without a significant technological advance, oil-based products are going to be an integral part of those needs for the foreseeable future.
Rational choices, as opposed to political ones, require looking at the world the way it is, not the way we would like it to be. The increased demands by China and India are already driving us toward increased competition for oil at best -- or an outright war over dwindling supplies at worst.
Drilling in ANWR buys us a "commodity" crucial to our well-being, time. Time to find viable alternative sources of energy, time to redesign our cars, time to create a national energy policy, etc. Is it a perfect solution? Compared to what?
Thomas Moore
Greensboro
Comments (2)
Drilling ANWR wouldn't noticably affect any of the issues that you raise. It's not known that there is any oil there.
I'll make a deal with supporters of drilling ANWR. You support raising CAFE limits by 5 mpg and I'll support drilling ANWR. Americans will do anything to solve this problem as long as it doesn't involve sacrifice.
ANWR is just a distraction and an excuse for doing nothing to aleviate the energy problem that we are heading for.
Posted by Marshall | April 6, 2005 9:13 PM
I don't care whether they drill for oil in Alaska. But it would make more sense for them to wait on actually drilling for oil until we are desparate and can't get it anywhere else. I was always told to save for a rainy day. Well, that rainy day is coming faster than we want to know.
Posted by mr t | April 7, 2005 11:52 AM