One of the most bitterly debated pieces of legislation over the last 24 years has been the proposed oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. For years Democrats have used filibusters to block President Bush's plan to drill on 1.5 million acres of the fragile Arctic coastal plain.
Republicans this week succeeded in keeping the bill attached to the 2006 budget resolution, legislation that is immune to filibusters. If the budget moves through both chambers, as expected, drilling will become a reality.
Proponents argue that technological advances will minimize environmental damage, and that the project will create jobs and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
At the current high price of oil, it is estimated that drilling in ANWR would ultimately bring 7 billion barrels to market—less than what the United States uses in one year. At peak production in 2025, the United States would be importing 65 percent of its oil versus 68 percent without the ANWR oil.
The real risk of drilling has as much to do with deferring investment in promising alternative energy systems—hydrogen, solar fuel cells, ethanol and biomass—as it does with potential environmental damage to a pristine place.
Politicians like to increase oil production so that gas prices remain low. Unfortunately, that model prevents much needed capital investment from going into developing more efficient engines and alternative energy systems. Higher gas prices in a free market are the only way to stimulate innovation and get us off the dead-end path of fossil fuel consumption we seemed determined to stay on.
