 Would Not Strengthen National Security James Woolsey Calls Arctic "A Drop in the Bucket;" Calls For Emphasis On Renewables, Other Sources April 17, 2002
"The bottom line is that we'll be dependent on the Middle East as long as we are dependent on oil," said Woolsey, who served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 1993 to 1995. "Drilling in ANWR is not a recipe for America's national security. The only answer is to use substantially less petroleum." Citing USGS estimates that indicate the amount of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be at best three tenths of one percent of the world's known reserves, Woolsey asserted that such a minimal amount of oil was not worth the continued reliance on the pipeline. "A key vulnerability of drilling in the Arctic Refuge is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline," said Woolsey. "It was shut down last fall by a drunk who shot one bullet, it has been sabotaged and incompetently bombed twice, and these people are children compared with the sophistication of people who attacked us September 11. "Oil from ANWR is so far in the future and such a small amount, that the negative features of it - environmentally but primarily from my perspective the vulnerability of the pipeline - outweigh any national security benefit claimed." Woolsey was joined by telephone at the press conference by Amory Lovins, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute, and Vice Admiral James Service USN (ret.). Lovins, who has been a highly influential consultant to the oil and defense communities on energy matters, and who co-authored with Woolsey an essay on energy security for the Christian Science Monitor last month, called the Senate's vote against improving CAFE fuel efficiency standards for cars "indefensible." "The USGS estimate of 3.2 billion barrels of oil over 30 years would be equivalent to running 2 percent of our light cars and trucks, said Lovins. "Whereas a 2.7 mile per gallon improvement in our light vehicle fleet would be more than 3.2 billion barrels of oil." Asked if it might make sense to drill the Arctic Refuge anyway on the assumption that domestic oil is more reliable than mideast imports, Lovins replied: "One can argue that Alaskan oil is even less reliable than Persian Gulf oil, because of vulnerability of pipeline. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline's vulnerability is a real show-stopper. Prolonging our dependence on oil would create the world's fattest terrorist target. A journalist said it right: It's like pinning a giant 'kick-me' sign on Uncle Sam's backside." Admiral Service connected these arguments to the tremendous environmental costs to the Refuge itself. Proponents of oil drilling have even gone so far as to assert that drilling in the refuge is the 'most important step' we could take to secure peace in the Middle East," said Admiral Service. "As someone who dedicated a 37-year Navy career to defending the security of our great nation, I find such statements cynical, preposterous, and down right offensive. If hyperbole were an Olympic sport, these Senators would receive gold medals." "Today, I wonder if our fighting men and women around the world can be sure that their American wilderness is safe while they are away," said Admiral Service, who flew more than 100 combat missions in Vietnam and Korea, and commanded the carrier USS Independence. "National security means more than protecting our people, our cities, and our sovereignty. It also means protecting the wild places that make America unique and special. Drilling the Arctic Refuge when we clearly have better, cheaper, faster, and more responsible solutions to our energy dilemma just doesn't make good sense or good policy."
Source of News Release:
|