Letter: Other energy strategies better than Arctic oil

Friday, March 25, 2005 | 9:04 a.m.

On March 16 Sen. Harry Reid voted for and Sen. John Ensign voted against the Cantwell amendment, which would have prohibited drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Sen. Ensign explained to me he wanted to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help reduce the price of gasoline. His vote did exactly the opposite.

The small amount of oil that might be available in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge won't begin flowing to refineries for at least 10 years. When it does (or if it does) it will represent such a small amount of the world's production that it cannot hope to have an influence on world oil prices, nor can it significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The only benefits likely to accrue are profits to big oil companies. Meanwhile many people will be laboring under the delusion that a new supply is on the way.

Ensign would do well to listen to Reid, who points out that we can only escape dependence on foreign oil by encouraging a shift to renewable energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal). Furthermore, that shift must not include nuclear if it is to have a maximally beneficial effect on Nevada. A federal requirement to increase fuel efficiency standards by about three miles per gallon would reduce demand for gasoline over the next 10 years by considerably more than we are ever likely to pump from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

JIM DEACON

Editor's note: The writer retired in 2002 from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, where he was a distinguished professor of environmental studies and biology.