In light of $4.00/gallon gasoline, the continued Democrat opposition to drilling for oil & natural gas off of our coast and in Alaska is difficult to understand. While virtually no one doubts that there is potential environmental risk to offshore oil drilling, the fact is that techniques for deep water drilling have become more advanced and environmentally safer over the last 20-30 years. The fact that the British and Norwegians have been drilling in the North Sea for a generation without destroying it demonstrates that offshore drilling does not have to mean massive environmental destruction as some opponents seem to suggest. In addition, while Hurricane Katrina did cause many oil spills, the highest estimate of total oil spilled from both onshore and offshore facilities was approximately 2/3 of what was spilled in the famous Exxon-Valdez disaster in the late 80's. Furthermore, these spills were almost entirely cleaned up. If a massive hurricane like Katrina was unable to cause Exxon-Valdez-like damage, one is justified in wondering if perhaps environmental concerns regarding off-shore oil rigs located outside of hurrican zones have been inflated.

If environmental concerns regarding offshore oil rigs are inflated, then environmental concerns regarding drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are of questionable merit as well. Environmental fears of oil spills contaminating hundreds of miles of inhabited coastline are not really relevant in ANWR. Since the oil rigs in ANWR will not be floating on the ocean, any environmental damage will necessarily be local. In addition, oil and natural gas are currently extracted from other locations in the U.S. in compliance with federal environmental regulations, and there is no reason to suppose that the regulations will not be enforced here as well.

The arguement over whether or not to allow additional drilling in ANWR (and offshore) is really a question of priorities. In weighing what our most pressing concerns as a nation should be, the fact that a few caribou will have their "pristine" view spoiled by oil rigs should not be ranked high on the list when Americans are stretching their budgets to fill their gas tanks to get to work and heat their homes. What should rank high on the list of concerns is that the high oil and natural gas prices are currently enriching unfriendly regimes (Iran, Venezuela, Russia, etc.), squeezing the American consumer, and inflicting economic damage at the same time. The fact that much of the oil from places like ANWR will not hit the market for another 10 years or so is irrelevant. Although it is a highly questionable assertion that oil prices will drop immediately in response to expectations of increased U.S. oil production, there is little question that the oil will exert some kind of downward pressure on prices when it eventually does hit the market. Even if OPEC responds to increased U.S. oil production by cutting its own output in an attempt to maintain high oil prices, the fact that OPEC will then be selling fewer barrels of oil than it otherwise would (and collecting less revenue than it otherwise would) is a good thing. Had we lifted existing restrictions on drilling offshore and in ANWR 10 years ago, we would likely be in a better economic and geo-political position than we are right now.

Although a 'sustainable' energy future in which the U.S. is fully powered by renewable energy is an ideal that the government should continue to encourage through subsidies, tax credits, and other measures, it will likely take a techonological leap that has not yet occured to make it a reality. In the meantime, the U.S. needs a coherent energy policy that serves the national interest (i.e. one that enhances America's economic well-being and security). That the Democrats are willing to continue to back policies that hurt the nations economic well-being while enriching our enemies calls into question whether they are responsible enough to lead this country.