Letter: Better options than drilling in Arctic refuge

Friday, Aug. 31, 2001 | 4:01 a.m.

In response to Kenneth Hovey's Aug. 22 letter, "America needs Alaska drilling": Yes, it makes economic sense, good energy policy and good conservation policy to prohibit drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain.

There is no good reason to drill in the Arctic refuge. It would not save the U.S. money nor would it decrease our dependence for foreign oil, because there is only an estimated six months' worth of economically recoverable oil located there. Not to mention the seven to 10 years it will take to recover it.

The U.S. consumes 18.5 million barrels of oil every day. This amount is more than all of Europe consumes in a year. It is time we got a little smarter.

Increasing our fuel economy by only 3 miles per gallon would save more oil in 10 years than would ever be produced out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Increasing our fuel economy will save money at the gas pump, reduce air pollution, and most importantly will address our energy needs without destroying our wilderness heritage. The Arctic simply does not have to be destroyed when we have better solutions available.

Let's move into the 21st century with our energy policy instead of relying on old polluting methods.

WALTER BARBUCK