Arctic oil wars

America is facing a serious energy crisis. Unless you haven't driven a car the last few weeks, you probably already knew that. How do we solve it?\nThe immediate answer is that whenever the price of fuel increases, we must get more of it. We will not see lower energy prices until we increase supply.\nWhy, then, are some still opposed to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)? If oil and natural gas deposits really do exist there, why shouldn't we get it?\nTapping energy deposits within U.S. borders has become an intense issue. A March 23 article in The New York Times showed just how volatile the debate has become. On one side, there are America's energy interests. The debate on how to reduce dependence on foreign oil has been raging for years. According to the article, as much as 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil exist in ANWR. Drilling seems like a natural solution since, according to a March 16 article in USA Today, this could reduce our overall dependence on foreign oil by 4 percent. \nEnvironmental lobbyists and agriculture professors, however, have been saying such drilling could irreparably damage the refuge. They claim energy deposits might not be as centralized as originally thought and require networks of people and equipment. \nSo what is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?\nAccording to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ANWR is a 19.6-million acre refuge that supports 45 species of land mammals, 36 species of fish, and 180 species of birds. It is accessible only by aircraft or a small gravel road. Clearly this is an untouched region.\nHow much of ANWR would be affected by this proposed drilling?\nAccording to a March 17 article in The Seattle Times, the area in question is a coastal plain region east of Alaska's Prudhoe Bay. Only about 2,000 acres would be explored for drilling.\nWait. You mean to tell me we've been arguing back-and-forth for years about 2,000 acres of land out of 19.6 million? The way some have been talking, you'd think we were trying to turn ANWR into a wasteland.\nHouse Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi released a statement just after the Senate vote on March 16 in which she said "The U.S. Senate voted today to sacrifice the majestic Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for an insignificant amount of oil. This is a sad day for Americans who love the wilderness and believe the Arctic Refuge should be preserved untouched for future generations."\nGimme a break, Nancy!\nFirst, we're not talking about the entire refuge. We're only talking about a small portion of it.\nSecond, the portion we're talking about wouldn't be affected much. I'll grant you a few caribou might be displaced, but are they going to affect the ecosystem all that much? I think not.\nFinally, we have to draw a line between people and the environment. People come first. I'll grant you that some caribou, elk and sage grouse might be affected by drilling, but we have to weigh this against the needs of human beings.\nHow do you explain the virtues of reducing auto usage with high gas prices to the single working mom who now has less money to spend on food and child care all because environmentalists want to save the elk and sage grouse? How do you defend the virtues of high gas prices to the small business owner who can't hire new workers because gas is so expensive?\nThe bottom line is you can't. I'm not saying ANWR drilling is the magic bullet for our energy problems, but it is a great first step.