[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[House]
[Page 4034]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP CRITICAL ASPECT 
                   FOR PROMOTING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress determined that the 
Federal Government be a better partner in promoting livable 
communities, to make our families safe, healthy and economically 
secure. Government needs to lead by example, to set the tone and follow 
through. A critical aspect is our environmental stewardship.
  I just returned from 4 days in Oregon and was, frankly, surprised at 
the intensity of the public reaction to this administration's lack of 
commitment to the environment. The sudden about-face from an explicit 
campaign promise to have mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide 
emissions has struck a nerve. The administration may think it is time 
to study global warming, but most Americans agree with the overwhelming 
scientific evidence that global warming is real and that we must do 
something about it.
  I was struck by the continued deep opposition to the administration's 
proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. For me the 
issue is not a question of whether the environmental damage may result, 
it is the fundamental question whether we should do it at all.
  I was pleased to see a recent newsletter by the Rocky Mountain 
Institute which contained an article by Amory and Hunter Lovins asking 
that fundamental question. They point out, for example, that the State 
of Alaska's own recent survey forecast on the long-term oil prices 
suggest that the prices are not going to be high enough to make the 
operation profitable. Using our time and resources to recover this more 
expensive oil would result not only in a waste of money, but it would 
in the long run result in more oil imports as we ignore more cost-
efficient operations other than the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
  This also continues to ignore the reality that we, as a country, 
cannot and should not continue to consume energy the way that we 
currently do: six times higher than the world per capita energy 
consumption, twice as much as developed countries like Japan and 
Germany.
  The irony is that conservation does work and would work better than a 
mad rush to exploit our oil resources. It is estimated that a mere 3-
mile-per-gallon improvement in the performance of SUVs would offset the 
entire proposed oil production from the Arctic. And if we feel that we 
cannot single out these large and inefficient vehicles, then just a \1/
2\-mile-per-gallon efficiency improvement in the fleet overall would 
meet the production of the Arctic wilderness. It is a lack of will 
regarding the average level over the last 20 years that we have not 
reduced these mileage requirements. Last year was 24 miles per gallon, 
tied for lowest in the last 20 years. We can and we should do better.
  Simple things like in California having roofs that are white and 
reflective would reduce air conditioning costs by approximately 30 
percent. It would be far more effective for us to make that investment 
in conservation.
  I started in politics during the last energy crisis some 25 years 
ago, and despite Ronald Reagan's efforts to gut and reverse the 
efforts, conservation over a period of time has saved a quantity of 
energy that is four times the entire domestic oil energy production. 
Conservation is the only alternative that will provide immediate relief 
to those of us in the West this year. It has no threat from terrorists, 
no risk of environmental damage, and conservation continues producing 
every year. That is why past efforts at conservation have made each oil 
barrel that we have today support almost twice as much of the gross 
national product as in 1975.
  But last and most significant, it does not make sense to 
strategically drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge if we are worried 
about oil security for the United States. What could be more foolish 
than placing our bets on an aging 800-mile facility that is 
increasingly unreliable, that is wearing out, and is impossible to 
defend? The potential for disruption makes it an ideal target for a 
terrorist, a rogue state or a deranged person.
  It is in fact a potential disaster waiting to happen if you are 
concerned about security. Far better than this rancorous debate over 
the potential environmental damage in the wildlife refuge is to work to 
reduce the waste of energy in the United States.

                          ____________________