Bush should alter energy stance

As the summer days get warmer, the only thing rising as fast as the temperature are the gas prices. With prices at the pump reaching all time highs around the nation, people are looking for something to alleviate the pressure. Naturally they turn to their country's leader, President George W. Bush.\nWhen he was campaigning for the presidency last fall, Bush vowed to make OPEC leaders increase the flow of oil to the world to lower their prices and make gas-guzzling SUV drivers happy once again. \nBut four months after being inaugurated, such pressure promised by Bush has yet to come.\nBush said he believes it is a better idea for us to alleviate our energy crisis to look inward and see what changes we can make domestically. While Vice President Dick Cheney has hinted at such ideas as raising the fuel rating on SUVs up 7mpg to 27 mpg, the main target for Bush's domestic energy solution would be Alaska.\nOil reserves exist in Alaska, which depending on who you talk to, could provide some help to the energy crisis. All parties agree, both Republican and Democrat, that the most we could expect from the Alaskan oil is 25 percent of our necessary yearly amount. So drilling in Alaska is not the ultimate solution, just something that would make the problem a little less pressing.\nThe problem with the Alaskan drilling is that it would destroy acres and acres of wilderness and wildlife. For this reason alone this step should not be taken by us as a country. \nIts true that during Bush's campaign, he also hinted at drilling in Alaska as a solution to energy problems as well as pressuring OPEC, but Bush is making a mistake by going to the drilling as a primary solution instead of a secondary.\nBush believes that the drilling in Alaska can be done without damage to the wilderness. \n"Too often Americans are asked to take sides between energy production and environmental protection," Bush said in his radio address this past Saturday. "The truth is, energy production and environmental protection are not competing priorities. Both can be achieved with new technology and a new vision." \nPerhaps steps have been taken to ensure the safety of the wilderness, which is good, but does a forest still look the same with oil spigots sticking out of the ground instead of trees?\nAlaskan wilderness, let alone any wilderness, left in America is something that should be taken care of and destroyed only as a last resort to a crisis. And therein lies Bush's problem. He sees the destruction of the wilderness as a minor inconvenience and that it should be a step that should be taken. But what he should do is pressure OPEC to lower prices to alleviate the energy crisis now. While the preservation of the wilderness is enough of a reason not to drill, simply living up to his campaign promise of pressuring OPEC would be a good enough idea. After all, four months into his first term as president is pretty early for Bush to be breaking his promises.\nstaff vote 10-2-0