Republican leaders in Congress appear close to finally being able to pass the far-reaching energy bill that has eluded them in recent sessions. And they are also on the verge of a major symbolic victory in the debate over the nation’s energy policy, opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to resources exploration after more than a quarter-century of struggle over the issue. The emotional battle over the future of ANWR has been particularly personal for Alaska’s Senators, who have framed the issue as not only vital to national security because it could lessen America’s dependence on foreign sources of oil, but also critical to their state’s economy.
The United States is dangerously dependent on foreign oil. Today the United States depends on foreign nations, many in unstable parts of the world, to meet more than 60 percent of its oil demand.
Did you know that today’s cars get an average of 28 miles per gallon, while in 1974 they averaged only 13?
America’s energy networks and supply chains are staring in the face of a crisis. We know we rely on foreign sources for a vast majority of the nation’s fueling needs. We feel the cost of this dependency when we pay our heating bills or put gasoline in our cars.
Over the past 30 years, total U.S. emissions of the six principal air pollutants have decreased by more than 50 percent, while our gross domestic product has increased by more than 175 percent. That is excellent progress, but more can be done. While there are currently several pieces of multipollutant legislation before Congress aimed at continuing this environmental progress, only one strikes the appropriate balance — the president’s Clear Skies Initiative, which will substantially improve air quality throughout the country, provide energy security and encourage economic growth.
President Bush’s Clear Skies Initiative and the Republican energy bill have been met with cheers from the coal, oil and energy industries and by dismay from clean air and public health advocates. In minority and underserved communities, these two proposals have rightfully been met with resistance and grave concern, as they are direct assaults on the health and well-being of low-income and minority communities.
Science, technology and politics have intersected throughout history with both positive and negative results.
