THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VIII, Issue # 6, January 7, 2006
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
ANWR: TO DRILL, OR NOT TO DRILL?
THERE IS NO QUESTION
By Peyton Knight
POLITICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM VERSUS PROVIDING FOR AMERICA'S ENERGY NEEDS: RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS &
THEIR DETERMINATION TO PREVENT DRILLING FOR OIL IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE -- IGNORING THE
CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT OIL EXPLORATION & DRILLING IN ANWR CAN BE DONE IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY
MANNER
FULL STORY:
As the debate over whether to drill for oil in a tiny, desolate portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) grows –
however improbably – even more contentious, it is important to remember that honest debate must be properly framed.
Opponents of ANWR oil drilling claim we are faced with a difficult decision. We can either drill for oil in ANWR or protect
the Arctic Refuge. That's it. Do you want oil? Or do you want wildlife? You can't have both.
This is a false dichotomy. We can have both. And, judging by our nation's ever increasing reliance on foreign oil from
politically unstable portions of the globe, we must have both.
Trying to explain to a tie-dyed-in-the-wool “Green” environmentalist that drilling for oil in ANWR won't harm the
environment is like trying to convince a 5-year-old that there is no Santa Claus. The evidence may be clear, but he just
won’t believe it.
In 1999, the Clinton administration's Energy Department confirmed that oil exploration and drilling in ANWR can be done in
an environmentally friendly manner. [1] Under the current proposal before the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, drilling would be
confined to an infinitesimal 0.01% of ANWR's total acreage. [2] Lateral drilling technology permits extractions of oil
horizontally from the point of entry on the surface. [3]
Roads and airstrips needed to transport equipment in and out of ANWR don't pose a threat to the environment. They would
be constructed of ice: When the ice melts in the warmer Spring months, the roads and airstrips vanish. [4]
The environmentalist movement has made the ANWR issue the equivalent of a “poster child,” using it in appeals for
fundraising and political support.
The environmentalist movement has clamored for years for greater reliance on solar and wind power, with the result that these
sources of energy now supply a miniscule 0.19 percent of America's total energy. [5] They are not, at this time, a substitute
for oil.
ANWR represents a real test for Republican leadership. Early returns are not good. First, a handful of anti-drilling
Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives effectively stopped ANWR from being part of the House/Senate budget
reconciliation bill, legislation that would have had immunity from a Senate filibuster. Republican leaders abandoned this
vehicle, and are now attaching ANWR to the 2006 defense spending bill. Though the House recently approved its version of
the defense bill with ANWR attached, Senate approval is much less certain, and filibuster rules apply.
In the meantime, Americans continue to thirst for affordable energy. The U.S. currently imports roughly 60 percent of the oil it
consumes. [6] And oil imports account for one-third of the U.S. trade deficit. [7]
The U.S. Department of Energy notes on its website:
"Our dependence upon oil, especially foreign oil, affects our economy
and our national energy security. Today, over half of the oil we use is
imported.... Most of the world's oil reserves are concentrated in the
Middle East, and over two-thirds are controlled by OPEC members. Oil
price shocks and price manipulation by OPEC have cost our economy
dearly -- about $7 trillion from 1979 to 2000 ... and each major price
shock was followed by a recession. With growing U.S. imports and
increasing world dependence on OPEC oil, future price shocks are
possible...." [8]
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, there could be as many as 11.8 billion barrels of oil beneath ANWR's coastal
plain. [9] This is no insignificant amount, and recovering and processing this oil would create many new jobs; anywhere from
low estimates in the tens of thousands to a high estimate of over two million. [10]
Given our growing dependence on foreign oil and the predicted spike in heating costs this Winter, it would be plainly
irresponsible for Congress to cower to Green caterwauling and put America's energy security on hold, where it's been for
decades. The only thing harmed by drilling in ANWR is Green self-esteem, not the environment.
NOTES:
[1] "Energy Footprints in the ANWR," The Week That Was, a publication of the Science and Environmental Policy Project,
April 13, 2002, downloaded from http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/2002/April13.htm on December 16, 2005.
[2] Peyton Knight, "Small Group of House Republicans Derails ANWR Drilling," Ten Second Response, a publication of The
National Center for Public Policy Research, November 10, 2005, available at
http://www.nationalcenter.org/ TSR111005.html on December 19, 2005.
[3] Sabrina Eaton, "Alaska Preserve Hangs in the Balance," The Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 14, 2005, downloaded from
http://www.cleveland.com/energy/ plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1121333777316851.xml&coll=2&thispage=2 on December
16, 2005.
[4] Arctic Power, "How two decades of growing technology have shrunk the environmental impacts of development,"
downloaded from http://www.anwr.org/features/thennow.htm on December 16, 2005.
[5] Tom Bethell, "A Civil War Between the Greens," The American Spectator, June, 2005, appearing on The American Spectator
webpage at http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8308, as downloaded December 16, 2005.
[6] Senator Ted Stevens, "Stevens Opposes Cantwell To Keep ANWR In The Budget," Press Release, November 2, 2005,
downloaded from http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:8Xr-x9LqMisJ:www.senate.gov/~stevens/
pr/2005/November/110205a.htm+import+60%25+oil+u.s.+2005&hl=en on December 16, 2005.
[7] Senator Richard Lugar, "Opening Statement for Hearing on the High Costs of Oil Dependence," November 16, 2005,
downloaded from http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2005/LugarStatement051116.pdf on December 16, 2005.
[8] "Strengthen Energy National Security," undated U.S. Department of Energy document, downloaded from
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/oildep.shtml on December 16, 2005.
[9] U.S. Geological Survey, "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic
Analysis," as downloaded from the U.S. Geological Survey webpage at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
on December 16, 2005.
[10] For arguments favoring lower job-creation estimates, see a U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Minority
(Democratic) press release, "Energy Conference Update #21 (Fake Jobs vs. Real Jobs)," October 22, 2003, available online at
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases. Detail&PressRelease_id=621&Month=10&Year=2003&Party=0
as of December 16, 2005. For more information on the 2.2 million estimate, see The Economic Impact of ANWR Resources
(2003), published by the National Defense Council Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia. A summary of the report's findings by
state was available online at http://www.anwr.org/docs/ANWR_jobs_brief.pdf as of December 16, 2005.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Policy Issues Relating to Energy, Environment,
& Natural Resources
Peyton Knight is Director of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs at the National Center for Public Policy Research, 501
Capital Court, NE, Washington, D.C., 20002. Comments may be sent to pknight@nationalcenter.org.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume VIII, 2006
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues