Letter: Conservation not necessarily at risk

Saturday, Dec. 31, 2005 | 9:03 a.m.

The Sun's Dec. 26 editorial, "Conservation vs. drilling," contained some misleading statements. Reducing our dependence on terrorists' oil by drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) will not be a "massive drilling operation" that will cause "widespread environmental damage" as the editorial stated. Oil recovery in ANWR will use less than 2 percent of the land. There will be some minor, temporary damage to the flora in small areas, but once the oil is recovered, the land will be restored and no one will even know we were there. An additional benefit will be an enhanced environment for the wildlife that inhabits ANWR.

History shows that the Central Caribou Herd, which uses the North Slope of Alaska, was in decline (less than 5,000 in the mid-'70s) before the drilling and pipeline construction began. Upon development of the North Slope, the Central Herd reversed the decline and now number over 32,000. It turns out the Caribou cows (and other wildlife) like to use the warm drilling platforms and pipeline to calve.

On the conservation issue, I would put the incentive on the consumer rather than institute Draconian laws that force manufacturers to produce products that consumers do not want to purchase. I would prefer a tax (excess dedicated to the highway trust fund) on the EPA city mileage rating. If a consumer chooses to purchase a vehicle that gets 10 mpg, he would pay a $10,000 tax. If the consumer chooses to purchase a vehicle rated at 40 mpg, he would pay no tax. If a consumer chooses to purchase a hybrid vehicle, he would receive a $5,000 rebate or if he purchases a non-hydrocarbon fueled vehicle he would receive a $10,000 rebate.

The mantra should be "conservation and drilling," not "conservation vs. drilling."

F. Jay Harrell

Las Vegas