optionssolutions

	Even at its maximum output, ANWR drilling would only produce 1-2 million barrels of oil a day. Total US consumption on the other hand, is expected to increase to more than 36 million barrels per day by the year 2050. How can we justify the possibility of ruining the beauty and delicate ecosystem of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for only 1/18th of our daily consumption? And only for a limited time? Americans will still be dependant on oil long after the refuge runs dry, but the environmental devestation to the land may be irreperable. It is possible, although highly unlikely, that excavation could be done at minimal impact to the environment. But why are we willing to take that risk? The Arctic National Wildlife is a place of untouched beauty- a commodity even more rare than domestic oil. It is inspiring to think that there still exists a place where wildlife has never seen a human being, where caribou, wolves and muskoxen have roamed for millions of years prior to human existence, where life and death play out in a perpetual daily struggle. And with only 5.5% of the Earth's population and more than 36% of the world's fossil fuel use, Americans are certainly consuming more than their fair share. What is most disturbing about these trends is that they show no sign of decline or even of slowing down. As population expands exponentially, energy demands expand. Are we going to suck the last drop of oil dry, wait until a massive economic disaster is inevitable, before we look for alternative energy solutions?

A country that consumes 26% of the world's oil but has only 5% of the world's oil reserves will always be dependant on imports. Americans must realize that the only way to become energy independant is to invest in alternative energy. If the Arctic National Wildlife reserves were the United States' only supply of oil, the reserve would be depleted within six months. On the otherhand, if the US government mandated that automobile efficiency be increased by 3 miles per gallon (well within our technological know-how) we would save 1 million barrels of oil per day. This seems like a simple way to conserve mass quantities of energy at no cost to companies or consumers since the technology is inexpensive and already exists. Oil and natural gas are not renewable resources. Already the world's oil reserves have reached their peaks and for every 2 barrels of oil pumped, excavation yields only one barrel. US production peaked 30 years ago, Russian oil production peaked in 1987 and the North Sea countries (Scandenavia) are reaching their peak output now. It seems only logical that we invest in alternative energy solutions. In his 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush promised $1.2 billion in new federal spending to move towards a hydrogen based energy system. (This he calls the "Freedom Fuel and Car Initiative.") Bush deserves credit for his efforts, but they are not good enough. General Motors believes that hydrogen cells can become a reality within the next ten years while developing oil reserves in the Arctic would produce oil at the earliest in fifteen years. Bush plans to pay for research with revenue generated from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So in order to take a step forward into the future, Bush is forcing congress to approve drilling in the Arctic, a step in the wrong direction.

Alternative energy sources already exist and the government should subsidize solar, geothermal, wind, hyrdropower and biomass energy sources. If people were just a little bit more conscious of how much they actually consume and waste and we all took basic energy saving techniques in our home what seems like little changes would actually add up to a lot.