An Oil Battle Best Left Unfought

The Bush administration first sought to link searching for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to California’s energy crisis. But all the oil in Alaska wouldn’t turn on a single light bulb in California.

Now, the administration suggests in its budget document that federal revenues collected from oil companies for the right to lease portions of the refuge be used to finance research into solar and wind power and other alternative energy sources. Is this a bad joke or just oil patch cynicism?

Although there were few details, the White House budget plan said the $1.2 billion would be reaped by 2004 by leasing a coastal slice of the refuge for exploration and production of oil and gas in an “environmentally sensitive” manner.

The administration presumably will present its Alaskan oil plans in detail with its comprehensive energy plan this spring. Bush would be better off dropping the idea of drilling in the refuge. It is a battle better left unfought.

It’s curious that the administration has seized Arctic oil with such vigor as its symbol of energy independence. A modest improvement in auto fuel standards would free up more energy. Perhaps Bush’s idea is to show how wrong-headed environmentalists are that they dare put this remote wilderness area on an equal plane with the nation’s energy independence.

Administration officials argue that modern drilling technology will allow a minimum of disruption along the 1.5 million acres of coastal plain, perhaps affecting just a couple of thousand acres.

They underestimate the meaning of this wild area. This is truly the last frontier where an entire ecosystem is intact and undisturbed by American progress and the profit motive. Drilling for oil here would be like building a geothermal power plant in Yellowstone--worse, in fact. Environmental advocates will be keeping tabs on how members of Congress vote on this issue at every turn. These will be fodder in the 2002 and 2004 elections.

Richard Feinberg, an environmental consultant from Anchorage, eloquently described the meaning of it to columnist Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times: “Wilderness as a concept is immutable. . . . Oil development in a wilderness, no matter how sensitive, changes the very nature of it. It means it’s no longer wilderness.”

There are many possible sources for energy development. There is only one Arctic refuge. It should remain wilderness, immutable.