ANWR oil exploration is shortsighted view

March 26, 2005

On March 24, 1989, our nation was drunk on oil. On that day an intoxicated Exxon Valdez captain ran a tanker into the shoreline of Prince Wiliam Sound, dumping more than 11 million gallons of petroleum into the sound and the nearby Chugach National Forest. The immediate effects were tragic - over 250,000 sea birds, 22 whales, 2,800 sea otters and 250 bald eagles were killed. It was the largest environmental disaster our country has seen, and the contamination continues to affect the health of wildlife, fisheries and rivers in Alaska .

Sixteen years have passed and little has changed. Our nation is still addicted to oil. Last week the U.S. Senate voted 51-49 to include a provision for oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in its version of the budget proposal. It is a backdoor attempt by drilling proponents to limit debate on a controversial issue that will neither lower gas prices nor free us from dependence on foreign oil.

The United States uses 25 percent of the world's daily oil supply. Two-thirds of the world's oil is in the Persian Gulf . We could drill every land, public and private, in the country and still be dependent on the rest of the world for almost 90 percent of our oil.

A strong majority of Americans believe that the Arctic Refuge is one place that shouldn't be developed. They know that the only way to really break our unhealthy addiction to petroleum is to bring existing energy saving and alternative fuel technologies to a broader market. Drilling in the Arctic Circle is a shortsighted distraction from this objective. Fortunately, our congressman, Tim Johnson, and our senators, Dick Durbin and Barack Obama, support sensible alternatives to keep oil development out of the refuge.

GARY JACKSON
Urbana