Try Efficiency Before Drilling the Wilderness

A press conference on the east lawn of the U.S. Capitol recently illustrated two contrasting visions of America’s energy future. On one side of the lectern were two black 40-gallon barrels, representing the oil that might be contained in all yet-to-be explored U.S. oil fields. On the other stood a pyramid of 14 barrels, symbolizing what could be saved by a modest energy-conservation program.

The barrels’ message was simple: The nation’s energy problem is not that we have put big oil deposits off-limits to the oil companies and their drilling rigs. Rather, it is that we have failed to follow a common-sense strategy of energy efficiency, which could provide nearly 10 times as much oil as we can hope to find in areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

President Bush has asked Congress to allow oil drilling in the Arctic refuge on Alaska’s north coast. That would be an economic and environmental mistake.

This refuge is an international treasure. It was established by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1960 to preserve unique wildlife and wilderness values. The refuge is the calving ground for a caribou herd of 170,000 whose spring gathering in the refuge is one of the world’s most spectacular wildlife migrations. The refuge also provides an undisturbed habitat for polar bears and musk oxen only a short distance from one of the world’s largest industrial complexes, the oil fields at Prudhoe Bay.

The coastal plain of the refuge, about 1.5 million acres, is the most important part of the refuge for wildlife. This is the portion for which permission is being sought from Congress to issue oil leases.

If George Bush wishes to be known as an environmental President, he should be advocating an energy policy that emphasizes conservation and enhanced recovery from existing oil fields, not ignoring our commitment to protect one of the country’s most important areas for wildlife. Someday we may have to drill for oil in this refuge. But if the President is willing to drill for oil in the Arctic refuge when there are far better alternatives, then what area is safe?

For eight years the Reagan Administration ignored energy efficiency. As a result, U.S. energy consumption per unit of gross national product, which had declined for 15 years in a row, is rising. The most egregious example of the Reagan Administration’s policy was its repeated weakening of fuel-efficiency standards for U.S.-made automobiles.

The eagerness to drill in the Arctic refuge while ignoring conservation is as wrong-headed as suggesting that if hot water is running out of your bathtub faster than it’s coming in, what you need is a new water heater. The truth is, the sensible thing to do is to put a stopper in the tub.

Calling for production of more oil, no matter where it may be found, is no substitute for a comprehensive energy policy. The debate over the Arctic refuge would be unnecessary if the Bush Administration would actively pursue the potential energy windfall from conservation and other opportunities.

The improvement in the gas mileage of U.S.-manufactured automobiles since the first oil embargo saves the country 2.4 million barrels of oil every day. That is five times the most optimistic prediction for production from the Arctic refuge.

And we clearly have the technology to perhaps do even better. In fact, just a 1.5 mile-per-gallon increase in the fuel-efficiency standard for new cars, starting in 1993, would save more oil than the Arctic refuge is expected to produce.

Better auto mileage isn’t the only way for the United States to squeeze more economic and environmental benefits out of every barrel of oil. Millions of homes could be made more energy-efficient with insulation, storm windows and weather-stripping. The use of ethanol, methanol and clean-burning domestically produced natural gas as a vehicle fuel also can contribute to reducing our demand for oil.

Energy conservation and alternative fuels do more than reduce our oil imports and our trade deficit. They help us fight pollution in our cities and reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that are a prime cause of global warming.

Drilling for oil in the Arctic is a gamble. Proponents of drilling acknowledge that the odds of finding oil there are one in five. And if oil is found, it will run out. Where will we find the next oil field? Conservation, by contrast, is a sure thing that keeps paying dividends.

The question of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will be before the Senate Energy Committee this week. Our decision should give heavy weight to the value of wilderness and wildlife protection. We can hardly expect other nations to consider the environmental consequences of their development decisions if we refuse to do so ourselves. If the United States opens this refuge now, without first having exploited the immense potential of energy efficiency, we will be putting oil wells in the wilderness simply to keep gas guzzlers on the highway.