QuickQuotes

Recent news:

10.9.01: Energy policy should stress conservation

9.10.01: Brack helps on new SGA report on technology

9.01: Internet campaigning in C&E

3.12.01: Brack on Charleston Digital Corridor

10.3.00: Brack launches new campaign site

9/5/00: Interview with Inter@ctive Week

7.24.00: Brack site named one of the best

5.8.00: Brack in Christian Science Monitor

When I was installing a new digital thermostat recently, a few words in the instructions caught my eye: "Studies conducted by the Department of Energy estimate that setting your thermostat back 10 degrees F for two 8-hour periods during winter can reduce your fuel bill by as much as 30 percent."

In other words, conservation is as easy as a nudge down on the heat when you're at work every day and asleep at night.

In the months ahead, you'll probably continue to hear a lot about energy and conservation. At a crux of the debate is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and whether its pristine wilderness should be opened for oil drilling. While Alaska is a long way away, whatever happens in this debate about our national energy policy could have a big impact here in South Carolina.

Under President Eisenhower, the government made a promise to keep as wilderness a part of the Prudhoe Bay oil fields in northern Alaska. That meant some 19 million acres would be left untouched forever. In return, the rest of the bay could be opened for oil exploration.

Now, after a spring of blackouts in California and inflated summer gasoline prices, the Bush administration and many in Congress want to go against their party leader of the past, Eisenhower, and disregard past promises to leave the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge alone. Some even seem to want to take unfair advantage of the recent terrorist attacks by continuing their brand of divisive politics.

Just last week, for example, Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma tried to insert language into the Defense Authorization Bill to drill in the refuge, a wilderness described as "a unique environmental cathedral" by Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times. At a time when America is still in mourning because of these terrible attacks, it is not appropriate and in poor taste to try to sneak a controversial energy policy into a major bill focused on strengthening the country. In fact, it's just plain wrong.

A big reason touted by proponents for drilling, that America needs energy independence, just doesn't hold up to scrutiny:

Small supply. The refuge is able to supply a relatively small amount of recoverable crude oil - an estimated 3.2 billion barrels. That's less than what America consumes in six months.

Long-term extraction. Any oil drilled from the refuge wouldn't flow all at once. Experts estimate it would take 10 years to recover this pool of Alaskan oil.

Gas prices to drop. An analyst with the Oil Price Information Service in late September predicted gas prices would reach $1 a gallon soon, in part because OPEC countries are continuing to produce at current levels. In other words, the global oil supply will keep down prices in the longer term, which should make it cost-inefficient to ramp up production in a new place in the United States.

Free-trade philosophy. It's odd that many of the very people who want to drill in the refuge hail the mantra of "free trade." If they were true believers, wouldn't they let the current market provide the supply?

Here's the bottom line: The patriotic call to drill in the refuge won't make America independent of foreign oil. But if drilling occurs, we may face consequences here in South Carolina.

If it's OK, for example, to make an exception for the oil in Alaska, is it too far of a stretch to consider whether northern growth pressures in Mount Pleasant will cause developers to try to get the government to sell part of the Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge in Awendaw for new home sites?

Then if it's OK to sell off part of Cape Romain, doesn't it become justifiable to slice a chunk of the Jocassee Gorges in Oconee County to allow a new factory to be built to provide more jobs?

Never mind the environmental destruction. Never mind the loss of habitat. Never mind going back on a pledge to keep these lands open and clean for everybody forever. Wouldn't it be OK just this time or just 100 times to make an exception?

Since the days of Theodore Roosevelt almost 100 years ago, conservation has been a bipartisan value in the United States. Just as I can save 30 percent on my power bill at home by turning down the thermostat when I'm not home or asleep, it seems the government has an obligation now to craft an energy policy based on more conservation. A new energy policy based primarily on consumption and more drilling is simply bad public policy.

- - Andrew C. Brack, a communications strategist in Charleston and a former congressional candidate, is vice president of the South Carolina Wildlife Federation. He heads The Brack Group, a public relations and Internet marketing strategy consultancy, and he also edits an international publication on how the Internet is used in politics.