Proponents of drilling in the arctic have tried all sorts of political maneuvering to gain access to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The latest was to attach the provision to drill in the pentagon budget, but they’ve also attempted to attach it to the House Budget Reconciliation earlier this year.

I’m an unabashed enviro tree hugger, but I also believe that if Ted Stevens (or any other legislator) wants to drill in ANWR (Even the acronym Anwr makes people forget its a wildlife refuge!) it should be debated in open session on the floor of the congress. The recent attempts to surreptitiously attach it to unrelated legislation belies the fact that drilling proponents know the American people don’t favor such a position.

I’ve taken the section below from the website of Senator Diane Feinstein. The reason for her oppostion to drilling in ANWR are cogentt-

“The bottom line is that, according to estimates from the United States Geological Survey, the Arctic Refuge would likely yield less than 10 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil - less than a million barrels of oil per day at peak production, or less than 4 percent of the country‚Äôs projected daily needs‚Äîand the oil would not flow for at least ten years.

In contrast, simply raising average fuel economy standards for sport utility vehicles could save us more than a million barrels per day by 2020. The savings would come sooner than oil from ANWR, and unlike oil from ANWR, the savings would not run out. Raising the standards for all vehicles would reduce even further the amount”