Editorial: Protecting ANWR

President George W. Bush has rarely shown much concern for the dangers and complexity of environmental degradation, and he proved his position again last week as he and Republican Senate leaders again proposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Not only is the 1.5-million-acre area of northern Alaska a protected environmental treasure, but the administration also lacks a strong and convincing rationale for setting up oil drilling there. The Senate wisely and narrowly voted down the proposal, but it could come up again this session and, if it does, the Senate should vote similarly.

Proponents of the president's plan, notably Alaskan Sen. Ted Stevens, a Republican, downplay the ecological importance of the refuge and the effects oil drilling would have. In truth, the scientific studies that have been conducted regarding the area suggest that it remains an essential refuge for countless species and a fragile ecosystem that, if harmed, could drastically affect nearby areas. Just this month, a congressionally ordered study by the National Research Council--an arm of the highly respected National Academies--suggested that oil drilling in Alaska has already had large, negative effects in the more than 30 years since it began. The study details how the existence of equipment, buildings and roads has damaged the health of the ecosystem.

But if the environmental costs of Alaskan oil drilling are high, the benefits are low. The Bush administration calls the Alaskan oil necessary for the stability of the U.S. economy, for reducing the United States' dependence on foreign oil, and for creating jobs in Alaska. That the oil would not be available for at least 10 years due to start-up costs cuts down any suggestion that it would help the economy any time soon, and the few jobs the drilling would create or move are not enough to justify such widespread drilling. As for dependence on foreign oil, the administration has a point but is going about it the wrong way. The economic and political security of the United States requires that Americans not be reliant on other nations for oil, particularly those Middle Eastern countries that have ties to terrorism. But the oil in Alaska is not enough to make much of a dent in American oil dependence, which can only be lowered by seeking out other energy sources. If nothing else, the United States should save oil in Alaska for a time when it really needs it rather than in a time of relatively prosperity.

On a very basic level of trust, preserving the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is necessary because the U.S. government has promised its people that it will do so. National parks and other protected areas are established so that ecosystems will be protected and so that future generations may know the wonders of nature, and it is imperative that the Bush administration not break that promise.