We shouldn't be affraid as policy advocates to run away from a debate because some in our party--or in the other party disagree.  It's true on many issues, but especially true on the question of drilling for oil inside the Arctic National Wildlfe Refuge.

This hit me earlier as I was reading about the discovery of explorer Steve Fossett's plane in Inyo National Forest.  The forest is two million acres; ANWR is twenty million acres. 

For a long time, commentators (like George Will and the Wall Street Journal editorial page among others) have put the issue of energy exploration impacts in ANWR into context by explaining a simple fact: the proposed drilling sites would comprise approximately 2,000 acres in a wilderness area of 20 million acres. That's the size of South Carolina--all of it.

The Washington Post noted this morning the search party seeking Fossett was the largest since the hunt for Amelia Earhart was lost in the South Pacific.  They searched 20,000 square miles (12.8 million acres).

So here's my point:

Massive search parties scouring sky and land, hill and valley could not find wreckage in rugged terrain.  That's no criticism of the search party's work, it merely puts in perspective the vast size, diversity of terrain and shear volominous open spaces that exist in our wild lands. 

Driling in ANWR means drilling on a 2,000 acre site (land about size of the City of Stanton) in a park the size of South Carolina.  Seems to me there's room for me, you, a drill or three and plenty o' caribou too.

"Inyo" means "dwelling place of a great spirit" as anyone who loves the Sierra's would readily attest.  Let's just say ANWR means place to look for one piece of a complex energy puzzle.  It also means debate we shouldn't be affraid to have.