more drilling won't completely solve the problem but I am in favor of responsible exploration.

With our energy usage, it is impossible to drill our way out of the energy crunch. Facts are facts and I do not want to destroy what makes our natural world so wonderful to get the costs down a few pennies at the pump ! I do not want to live in a world devoid of beautiful natural settings with its wildlife.

Logic tells us two things. First, we have to learn to conserve (if we have continued the push to increase auto fuel economy after the crunch in the 1070s, we would be much better off today....why are standard light bulbs still made....do you really need a 5,000 + sf house). Secondly, we have to develop renewables that will not destroy our environment and our way of life. Somewhere in the United States 24 hours a day, 7 ways a week the sun is either shining or the wind is blowing and the tides are always moving.

Too many people hear just what they want to believe without listening to the facts. If we completely destroyed Alaska, Montana & Wyoming (heaven forbid !), it would be 8-10 years before we felt the small, short-term effects. Short-term solutions are not the solution. We need to buy into clean, renewable energy right now ! Solar, wind, hydrogen, tidal movement electric generation. It will not be cheap but it will be renewable and it will clean up our air & water without increasing our food costs and destroying some of the most beautiful places on our earth.

We sent a man to the moon people, the United States of American can do this ! We can develop new methods without destroying our environment and our way of life ! We must do this NOW ! This is is solution I want......This is the solution I demand !

The harsh fact is it will take decades to develop truly reliable alternative energy solutions that meet our needs, even with conservation. The goal should be to reduce fossil fuel use, for sure, but there are no clear-cut solutions.

Wind farms run into NIMBY-ism. Solar is a poor source of electricity (it's more useful for hot water generation, which is not where the research dollars are going). Nuclear is a great answer, but obviously has it's own risks. Hydroelectric power causes its own environmental damage. Harnessing tides is a great idea, but will take decades to properly build out. Conservation can only take us so far.

Solving our energy problems requires a mutli-pronged "attack", it's naive to think that we can only solve it with alternative fuels, at least in the short term. We have to allow responsible drilling.

Of course, the current administration has been anything BUT responsible ...

===============================

My travels through the National Park System: americaincontext.com

Isn't ironic when the Bush & Cheney regime is due to leave office the gas prices go up...how convenient! Now, it's all out massive attempt and assault by this corrupt administration to explore some of the worlds most pristine and sacred places called our National Parks...for what...more oil? If this is allowed to happen, either it be off the coast of California, or near the national parks in Alaska, Montana or Wyoming, I assure you the parks are doomed. These oil executives live in there little shangrila's, or in some peacock ranch afar from all this smoke, haze and pollution that most Americans suffer each day. They could careless about are visual quest for more beauty in our National Parks. They are completely oblivious to are suffering and economic demise. Do you really think they care or give a damn if they ruin our National Parks in the name of Big Oil? Hell no! To drill near, or in our National Parks is a well executed ploy by the Bush & Cheney administration to give "Big Oil" it's last huge gulp of windfall profits. God forbid!

Lifestyle changes that are advocated by Ed Begley's, Lifeboat Foundation is a format and guide that can help us all to live more sensibly and harmoniously with are environment. No more hummers or big McDonald's homes that can burn enough energy that can light up a small city in India. Are piggish lifestyle must go and the time is now. Let's start pushing "Big Oil" out of the equation and start putting alternative energy back on the drawing boards with urgency.
Time is no longer on are side!

Alternative energies ARE ALREADY HERE AND VIABLE. I keep hearing about the cost, which is certainly more than the cost of traditionally subsidized energy sources. But if you remove those old subsidies, or add on similar subsidies to alternative energy production, then the cost different disappears and depending on who you talk to, may in fact reverse itself.

Conservation is something we can do right here, right now. Conservation "produces" more energy than any of the proposals for drilling, etc. I keep hearing how we need to drill now because alt energy sources are still a decade out. What you never hear is that the traditional sources that corporations want to drill right now won't produce any energy for at least as long!

More traditional energy production now is simply short-sighted and stupid.

I read an interesting proposal not too long ago for solar farms out in Nevada... I am all for exploring the potential of the solar farms that Germany seems to making such great strides with before I am for drilling and mining. If Germany can do it with great success... why can't we? Granted, solar farms will have an impact as well on the environment, but prehaps not as bad as tearing up the earth in a quest for fossil fuels!

We need to preserve our beautiful Parks, but we've got to be smart about it. If we don't become energy self-sufficient soon, we are going to become slaves to all of of our current energy suppliers. Once we're in THEIR control, you can be sure THEY will drill wherever they want (including IN our Parks) and we won't be able to do anything about it.

We already have the Chinese drilling off our coasts. How do feel about THAT?

So more drilling in the US bu US companies will stop THEM from taking over OUR land?!?! How does that make any sense? We will never be energy self-sufficient as the simple fact is as a country we use more energy than we could ever find within our national borders. The only solution is alternative energy. I think the recent increase in oil is exactly what we need and deserve. Hopefully this drives us more quickly to alternative energy. We all knew this was coming, but most chose to ignore it and more idiots bought pickup trucks so they could pick up milk and a loaf of bread. I laugh at those people and I hope gas goes to $10 a gallon within the next two years. Maybe at some point 'cheap' plastic will stop being 'cheap' and we'll move away from all the disposable packaging and products we use today. Think back to the 'old' days when things might have cost a little more, but they lasted a lot longer. How much oil would we save then?

We need to become energy independent and need to do it soon. The reason we are in this predicament is due to the people who yelled to stop exploration in this country over the past 10-20 years and yelled about the building of additional nuclear plants. I like the national parks as much as the next person does, but what if nobody can afford to go to them because energy is too expensive? I think too many people are very much idealists when it comes to energy and think alternative energy will solve everything and that it can be done at the snap of a finger. Those of us that are realists believe that some day, those alternatives will be useful, but until then, lets get going on what we know works. For the guy who hopes gas goes to $10 per gallon, I hope his job does not depend on people using enegry to buy his product. He has a real soft heart for all of those people that cannot decide whether to buy food or buy gas. Maybe all the people who think we should not drill or not build nuclear plants would like to ride horses and read by candlelight like we did in the 1800's.

I want to point out that solar energy farms are not viable for electricity generation and pose real hazards of their own to the environment. The electrical output per acre of solar panels is surprisingly small, so to meet the energy needs of a city like New York you'd need a tremendous amount of land surface, greater than the size of the city itself. That would mean filling up all the parks and open spaces, and clear-cutting forested areas to make room for the panels. That would be a significant amount of environmental damage, far greater than drilling using modern techniques. Solar is really only useful for hot water generation, which would be a significant contribution, but it's not a panacea.

Every non-petroleum based energy alternative presents its own risk for the environment and the health of the National Parks. That's just the truth of the matter.

==================================================

My travels through the National Park System: americaincontext.com

Oil is sold on a global market. The oil found in our country is NOT sold to us at a discount because it was found here. Any oil found through more exploration will never be enough to offset the increased usage in China, India and Brazil. Think back to China 5-10 years ago, the cities were jammed with bicyclists, but today there streets are crowded with more cars than our own.

If gas prices did miraculously decrease people would just start to drive more. Come on people, no matter how much oil we find it is a FINITE resource and no matter how much of the environment we destroy looking for more, someday we will have to do without it. Why not start to pay the piper now instead of selfishly delaying the inevitable for our kids and grand kids to deal with?

I get the feeling from this blog, there's few individuals would rather see us drown in Big Oil (at the whims of oil executives) then give up frivolous style changes. I see a bit of propaganda for oil exploration off are coastal waters...even when ninety percent of are coastal fringes are dying from heavy pollution. Folks, the oceans are showing strong signs sulfuric acid poisoning. It's easy to find this written material in most science and nature magazines at your local news stand. Now, if you read these articles, it's most distressing and alarming. To drill into are coastal waters is pure nonsense and foolhardy. Most oil executives know this, but it's the corporate dollar that matters more then a healthy fish habitat. Look folks, the OCEANS are dying and next it will be the National Parks if the oil companies get there way. I'm not a doomsayer, but the handwriting is on the walls, were in dire need of a responsible energy czar that has a healthy approach to productive alternative energy sources...and not ride on the coat tails of Big Oil. The key is lifestyle changes and less consumptive appetite for more things that usually junks are garages and trash bins.

The question is whether this is necessity or convenience. In 1942-1945 the National Park Service had Newton Drury as its Director. Then as now, there were calls from big business and the politicians on their side to enter national parks and extract natural resources. They claimed these needs for fighting the World War II effort, and really how much more dire situation could our country ever be in than that? Thankfully, Director Drury resisted and President Roosevelt did not overrule him. Their reasoning - because their investigation coupled with their intuition was that what big business was truthfully saying was "we want to extract these resources from national parks because its cheaper for us to do it there, and then when we sell the finished products back to the government for the war effort, we can make a bigger profit." That episode was convenience not necessity. Salute to Drury and Roosevelt for understanding that!

I doubt many responsible citizens would deny resource extraction from the National Park System if they truly believed that the USA was approaching that point of no return where we either had to do it or the country would be lost. But many of us national park lovers are skeptical of big business and the spin that they put on their ad campaigns and press releases (i.e. tobacco companies, Exxon & the Valdez oil spill, mining companies and their lobbying efforts to prevent revision of the 1872 Mining Act, etc.). We remain to be convinced that this current situation is necessity and not just convenience again. It will take more than opinions. It will take irrefutable scientific facts.

And one such fact that seems irrefutable to me is that 4% of the world's population with 3% of the world's known energy reserves within it borders that utilizes 25% of the world's energy output does not sound sustainable over the mellinnia to me.

Solar panel as currently engineered as lacking in efficiency to be sure. But the required modifications to the "layering" that would increase the viable wavelengths from the current single to a multiple nanometer collection panel are available now. True again that conversion to a single-source power generation that would immediately and effeciently substitute for coal / nuclear / hydro generation for any large metropolitan area is not feasible with even next-gen technology, but that's really not the issue. Let's not allow the general public to succomb to that special interest smoke-screen. The issue is obtaining and manipulating viable sources of SUPPLEMENTAL energy, which would have an immediate impact on our requirements for fossil and other fuel sources. And let's not ignore the easiest to find and most economically efficient source available RIGHT NOW, which is geothermal energy. It's availability is much further reaching, nationally speaking, whereas solar is dependent on a panels proximity to enough sunlight to make the system feasible, which effectively eliminates a vast percentage of the country. If we were smart, which is a big assumption, we would be attempting manipulate ALL available sources of energy, ignoring the lobbyist propaganda and not allowing the local power company's blockade in regards to developmental technologies.

I Just returned from two weeks in Alaska. There I learned that the proposed site for oil exploration in ANWR is five miles, just five miles over the boundary line for the refuge. If environmental controls were tight, the 2,000 acres that would be used out of the 3.5 million acres seems as though it would have a very small impact on the entirety of the refuge.

I started to think about the comparative impact of the oil exploration in ANWR versus the impact of the tourist footprint in Denali. Which has the greatest impact on the land and the wildlife? Denali has a large visitor's center, restaurant, several satellite visitor's centers down the park road, the constant drone of buses on the park road, campgrounds for tents and RVs, the park headquarters, the sled dog kennels, a research center (being enlarged), the Alaska Railroad that goes along the park border, and the hundreds of people who fly in to climb the mountain. Then there's the wilderness lodge at Wonder Lake. Not to mention the string of hotels, an airstrip, and tacky souvenir stands just on the park boundary. All in all probably more than 2,000 acres devoted to tourism in Denali.

Would any of us park nuts remove those facilities to keep Denali more pristine? It seems to me that there is an element of hypocrisy in the arguments of those who love the parks but who want the services when they get there. Yes, conservation. Yes, alternative energy (although solar farms and wind farms are more unsightly than an oil well in my opinion). The world price of oil right now is being driven by pure speculation There is no way that demand is rising so fast that the price is justified on demand or that supply is falling so much that price is market set by supply. This is a false bubble in oil prices. The mere serious threat to drill and explore more on the North Slope would drive down the speculative bubble.

Interesting reading all the comments that seem to be on both sides of the issue. Delay of exploration and further development of nuclear plants caused by environmental outcry 10-20 years ago is why we are in the situation that we are in. To delay another 10-20 years while we debate will not make it any better. We should use what we have, control the environmental issues the best we can while exploration takes place near these areas and continue to work on alternatives for the future. Kath's observations are very much right on point. We already have lots of impact from what we do today that is likely as bad or worse than what will be done during exploration activities. I guess one way to get rid of the clutter in our national parks is to do nothing, watch energy prices soar and then nobody but the locals or the rich will be able to get there. Then there will be less impact all around.

Kath, what would recover faster from environmental degradation, heavy tourism in Denali or a major oil spill in ANWR...remember the Alaskan oil spill at the Port of Valdez? How long did it take to recover after the major spill (plus the local fishing industry has not fully recovered yet)? According to local fisherman, the place still stinks with oil. What is more tragic and shocking, is that the oil companies had to pay a pittance in penalties and compensation to the citizens of Alaska. Cry foul...yes!
I would rather see the landscape dotted with solar and wind power energy then a exploding oil rig (or pipeline) thats going take decades to clean up. I think the hypocrisy lies, is when you drive a hybrid car and park it in your driveway, next to your four bedroom home that burns enough electrical juice to light up a neighborhood in New Delhi. The classic example of a pig out without a conscientious in how much energy we burn to keep are toes warm. Again, Ed Begley's (Life Boat Foundation) books has an answer to all this sloppy living and careless waste.

Also just returned from a cruise of Prince William Sound where the Exxon Valdez ran aground and spilled the oil. I saw no evidence of the oil spill, thankfully. It has been 19 years. Since then the Port of Valdez requires a harbor escort further out into the sound, which is dotted with islands and underwater rocks. Prince William Sound is as beautiful as any national park. Truly a blue and green gem with whales, salmon, puffins and seeing it I can really understand why the oil spill evoked such an emotional response. Oil is messy, but the 800 mile pipeline across Alaska hasn't had any major spills. Solar farms like the one in the Mojave desert is a really unsightly glaring blot on the land. Wind farms are not only unsightly but chew up migratory birds.

In pointing out the footprint of visitor's services at Denali my point was this. We park fans are willing to degrade the parks somewhat for our comfort. The park service is willing to degrade the pristine nature of the parks to attract visitors. We are willing to have the wildlife subject to the noise of the Denali buses, the tramping of hikers across the tundra. The animals don't seem to mind.

I think it is a bit hypocritical to say that the oil exploration in the ANWR, 2,000 acres only in a vast wilderness, just five miles across the refuge's borders, would destroy the ecosystem when we are willing to venture a hundred miles into Denali, bringing sewage systems, water systems, the diesel exhaust of the buses etc. With ANWR, compromises need to be made, and we all have to think about our own impacts on the national parks.

Sounds to me Kath your afraid to give up your SUV or make alternative lifestyle changes just yet...just kidding! They just did news brief a couple weeks ago on the decline of the fishing industry in the Port of Valdez and how poorly it has recovered. Did you talk to the local fisherman in Valdez or physically inspect the beaches of Valdez to make your claim there's "no evidence" of the past spill? Looking from a boat while cruising through Prince William Sound isn't quite like making a thorough investigation to see if there's been a FULL RECOVERY of the past Valdez oil spill. I think your looking at the cosmetic factors that makes the boat cruise so enticing to visit Prince William Sound. Get out and talk to the local fisherman and visually check and see under the rocky beaches along the Port of Valdez and you will still see remenants of the past oil spill. Yeah sure, emerald green slick under the rocks if you look hard enough in the right places.

Kath, give the oil companies an inch they will take a foot...and you say compromise with ANWR. No way! Look what they have mapped out in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and Utah in our National Parks for gas and oil exploration...and you worry about influx of visitors in our National Parks. Shame on you!

I wouldn't approve of drilling in the traditional national parks. But ANWR is huge and the oil drilling would be on a tiny percentage of the land. The 800 mile pipeline crosses Alaska and has had no significant problems. We have to remember that most of the national parks were not virgin territory. They were mined, logged and ranched. And now they're parks. In other words, drilling is not forever.

It's easy for some to be elitist about this. It's as though some are doing a Marie Antoinette impression and saying "Let them walk or ride bikes". But we have to remember that many people will really suffer if oil goes any higher.

re Kaths' "But we have to remember that many people will really suffer if oil goes any higher. Many people are already suffering from pollutants in our air and water. Having to stay inside for most of the summer because of air pollution is no fun ! And if you are worried about wind farms killing birds, how many do you think are killed each day by moving vehicles. I love birds and butterflies and all things natural but I would much rather see solar panels and wind farms than drilling rigs, blowoffs and potential spills. The Alaska pipeline is already past its expected lifespan. I just hope we don't suffer a disaster with it.
In my opinion, American technology is way behind in the renewable energy area. We tend not to do things until our backs are against the wall.........I think our new president MUST throw down the gauntlet like Kennedy did with the space program. We can get it done in less than 10 years and in the mean time we must conserve and be very carefull as we extract the crude and coal that is available without destroying our precious saved wild places.

Thank you Kath for the strongest comment on the board. Exploration/drilling is not the complete answer; but it sure makes sense to take advantage of it in a regulated way. I'm a life long Democrat but Harry Reid is convincing me to never vote straight ticket again. Sure we need to focus on alternative energy but we also need to stop sending our wealth to the Middle East.