Editorial: Wildlife, yes; drilling, no

Thursday, Feb. 24, 2005 | 9:15 a.m.

The 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska brings to mind images of polar bears and other wildlife living in wilderness undisturbed by man. West of the refuge is Prudhoe Bay, whose image brings to mind all of the ugliness, however necessary, associated with pumping oil -- pipelines, wells, roads, airports, air and noise pollution, housing, gravel mines, production plants, power plants and frequent spills.

President Bush, however, is immune to the images of ANWR wilderness. He sees only dollar signs. In his fiscal 2006 budget, Bush projects immediate revenue of $2.4 billion from leasing fees paid by oil companies. The drilling would take place within a 1.5-million-acre section of the refuge along the coast of the Arctic Ocean, an area designated by Congress in 1980 as appropriate for oil exploration.

In 25 years, however, reason has prevailed in protecting the refuge. But Bush, with a Republican majority in Congress, now sees an opportunity to cash in. And that's all it would be, as there is not enough oil there to make a dent in our dependence on foreign supplies. Additionally, any leasing revenue would not make a dent in Bush's record budget deficit.

This month, 1,000 American and Canadian scientists jointly implored Bush to "protect the biological diversity and wilderness character" of the refuge. The president has a history of ignoring scientists. But he listens to big oil -- except in this case. The major companies say they are not interested in the ANWR because the potential for significant discoveries there is nil. Even BP and Chevron, which in 1986 drilled the only exploratory well there, are disinterested, according to a story this week in The New York Times.

Bush will likely be too stubborn to admit there are no valid reasons to risk destroying the refuge by drilling there. It will be up to Congress to bring sanity to this issue.