March 21, 2005
A SENATE MAJORITY would rather defile the nation's last great wilderness with oil rigs than require car and truck makers to get more mileage out of a gallon of gas. That's the real choice in the debate under way over opening Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration.
Not switching from foreign to domestic fuel sources, as some senators argued. Not boosting supply to ease prices currently going through the roof, as others contended. There's not enough oil under the tundra to make more than a modest difference, according to government estimates.
In fact, raising the fuel-efficiency standard for cars from 27.5 miles per gallon to 35 and closing the loophole that exempts SUVs would save at least as much oil each year as ANWR could produce. And the savings would continue after ANWR's reserves run dry.
When the benefits of cleaner air and long-term security are factored in, the conservation option seems like a no-brainer.
But the Senate, which has been stalemated on energy for more than a decade, has long preferred the easy fix of plundering a national resource to crossing the combined forces of business and labor that lobby in tandem against raising fuel-efficiency standards. Now, thanks to the last election, Republican leaders finally have enough votes to repeal a ban on drilling in the wildlife refuge.
With President Bush and the House strongly in support of the Alaska drilling, opponents are left with little hope except that clashes on other issues might trip up the budget legislation in which the Senate included the ANWR provision.
We are rooting instead for Americans to demand that the federal government produce a more effective energy policy.
Polls show they much prefer fuel-efficient vehicles and a shift away from fossil fuels to drilling in Alaska and other protected places. President Bush and some Senate advocates of the ANWR drilling paid lip service last week to this sentiment.
"I would hope that when members [of Congress] go back to their districts and hear the complaints of people about the rising price of gasoline, or complaints from small business owners about the cost of energy, that they will come back and ... get a bill to my desk that encourages conservation," Mr. Bush told reporters.
But Mr. Bush doesn't need Congress to tighten fuel-efficiency standards. He could do it through the regulatory process. So far, he's supported only modest measures.
Alaska's wildlife refuge, with its polar bears, caribou and migratory birds, occupies a hugely symbolic place in the energy debate. If a drilling operation described as the size of a large airport is allowed to decamp on the arctic coastal plain, environmentalists say, nowhere is off limits.
Surely, the refuge shouldn't be despoiled before strict conservation measures are applied. And from a national security standpoint, the smart move would be to let whatever oil is there stay undisturbed until and unless we really need it.
