Posted on: Thursday, March 13, 2003
EDITORIAL
Arctic refuge oil drilling may be one vote away
Soaring energy prices and the precarious nature of Persian Gulf oil are enhancing the chances that Congress will soon approve oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge.
Expediency, however, will do nothing to diminish the harm caused by such a tragic mistake.
A showdown is nearing in the Senate on whether to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of the Bush administration's top domestic priorities. The decision may hinge on a single vote.
Which is why we continue to be deeply disappointed by the position of Hawai'i's two senators, Dan Inouye and Dan Akaka, who have consistently supported this project.
We've argued numerous times against irreversibly damaging this pristine wilderness simply because as a nation we are unwilling to wean ourselves from overdependence on oil.
The arguments in favor of drilling in the ANWR are weak at best. The latest, that it will increase our national security, flounders in the face of facts: It will take a decade to bring ANWR oil on line, and oil companies are not eager to drill there because reserves aren't well-defined and costs will be very high.
Estimates on the amount of oil that might eventually be recovered vary considerably. But almost every estimate is within the range of oil savings if automobile manufacturers could be convinced to build, and customers convinced to buy, more fuel-efficient vehicles.
This is the so-called "drill in Detroit rather than Alaska" strategy.
Hawai'i's senators often vote in tandem with Alaska's senators, with laudable results. But in this case, the interest of Alaska residents they will have to begin paying taxes in that state if North Slope oil royalties peter out has no clear relation to the interests of the rest of the country.
Indeed, senators representing Hawai'i, which is extremely dependent on its reputation for a pristine environment, should be among the first to vote against the degradation of any wilderness, anywhere.