Heard a fascinating program on this issue on To the Point--debate program on NPR last night while coming back from rehearsal--a debate between a representative of the American Petroleum Institute and one from the Sierra Club.

The American Petroleum Instititute man had a warm mellifluous tone and was the embodiment of sweet reason. However the most telling point was the fact that even he put the difference in energy dependency with Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil at 5%.

As I said earlier, Bush's own government (the US Energy Information Energy, a branch of the Department of Energy) puts the difference at a HIGH of 2%. I would put considerably more credence even in Bush's government than in the (possibly self-interested?) American Petroleum Institute.

But even for 5%, it's emphatically not worth it to throw away a crown jewel. And anybody who believes there will be only one road is self-deluding. Once the "virgin" aspect is gone, guess what happens.

The Sierra Club rep had, to my mind, an excellent metaphor. It's like hocking your grandmother's heirloom ring for $500 to pay a $50,000 debt--after you've done it, you are still in deep trouble--and you'll never see that ring again.

I'm still waiting for any defenders of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to give their views on the (recently defeated) attempt to put some requirements to raise the average miles per gallon in the current energy bill.


One other thing: actually it's too bad most of us have fallen into the habit of the "ANWR" shorthand (and too bad about the title of this thread--though obviously space is a factor.)
ANWR--sounds like a Turkish pot-holder--or perhaps a "Martin-Gibsonism".

We are in fact talking about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a vibrant--and irreplaceable--ecological community.