From Senator Pat Murray:
Thank you for your letter regarding oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I appreciate knowing your views on this important issue.
As you know, opening ANWR for development has been a contentious issue in Congress for many years. In these times of energy crisis, many proponents have suggested that opening lands such as ANWR to drilling will help reduce the price of gasoline. Studies have shown, however, that even if ANWR is opened for drilling immediately, it will take at least ten years before any gasoline reaches the pumps. Not only is this not an immediate solution, but its long-term effects on the environment could prove irreversible.
In the 109th Congress, drilling advocates have made numerous attempts to achieve their goal of finally opening ANWR to energy exploration. In March 2005, an amendment authored by Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) to the fiscal year 2006 Budget Resolution to prevent drilling in ANWR was defeated. I supported the amendment, which failed by a very slim margin. Fortunately, however, as the House and Senate could not agree on including the ANWR language, the provision was stripped in the final version of the budget approved in December. Also in early 2005, I joined several of my colleagues in cosponsoring a bill (S. 261) that would grant federal wilderness protection to the coastal plain of ANWR.
In an eleventh hour attempt to authorize ANWR exploration, Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) attached the provision to a must-pass Defense Appropriations bill in late December 2005. Senator Cantwell led an effort to strip the ANWR language from the bill, which proved ultimately successful. I voted in favor of the effort, as I believed this important defense bill was not the appropriate vehicle for authorizing such an unrelated, highly contentious measure. While the fight over ANWR is certainly not over, I was encouraged by the outcome of this debate. Environmental and wildlife protection have always been high priorities of mine, and I assure you that I will continue to advocate for conservation of these resources.
What we do need is a sensible new energy policy for the future. The Northeast blackouts of 2003 and our state's own energy crisis illustrate a real need for a new plan. While the presence of fuel-efficient vehicles in the market has increased, our oil imports are higher than ever. We can no longer afford to depend upon oil and gas from some of the world's most volatile regions; instead we must actively seek new domestic sources that reduce the harmful emissions that contribute to global warming.
After years of debate, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act in July 2005. I was pleased that the bill included tax incentives for the development of renewable energy, such as wind, solar, and biomass, as well as increased protections against energy market manipulation. The overall legislation, however, did not go far enough to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and traditional fossil fuels. Hurricane Katrina has exposed the danger we face in our heavy reliance on oil, as gasoline prices have soared to record highs. With these new concerns over the fragility of our oil supply, it is imperative that we significantly shift our thinking about our overall energy policy. This bill did little to alter the status quo; thus, I simply could not lend it my support.
There are clear alternatives to drilling in ANWR and other wilderness areas to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of petroleum. One way we can reduce our reliance on foreign oil is to increase the fuel economy of our automobiles and light trucks. Fuel efficiency improvements will bring the U.S. far closer to reducing its dependence on foreign oil than drilling in ANWR. Meeting a corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard of 39 miles per gallon over the next decade, for example, would save 51 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years - more than 15 times the likely yield from ANWR over the same period. I have consistently supported legislation to increase our CAFE standards, and I was very disappointed that efforts to include such a measure in the energy bill were ultimately unsuccessful.
Another way we can reduce our need for oil is to expand the use of domestically-produced renewable and alternative fuels. In addition to reducing the demand for oil, increased incentives for investment and research in emerging technologies like fuel cells, solar energy and electric cars would also help create a more sustainable and diverse energy supply. While the energy bill did contain renewable provisions, they could have been much more robust.
The impact on our energy supply caused by Hurricane Katrina has raised new questions about our dependence on oil. I am concerned that many have used this situation to advocate for increased drilling in ANWR and other areas in order to address our energy needs. Instead, it is my hope that this tragedy will prompt a new dialogue over our energy policy, helping us all recognize the need for alternative sources and efficiency. Please know that I will continue to oppose any ANWR development; the health of our people and our environment depend on us finding a better, more effective solution to the energy crisis.
Once again, thank you for your concern on this important issue. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Patty Murray
United States Senator |
