] In fact, Norton called the Arctic Refuge "one of the most
] environmentally appropriate places we can look for
] energy." Why? Because of all the things that can be done
] "in a high-tech way" to protect it.
]
] Congress has yet to approve drilling in the Arctic
] Refuge. Six Republican senators recently signed a letter
] saying they won't be part of any effort to sneak it
] through in a spending bill without open debate.
]
] Yet, Bush's proposed budget assumed $2.4 billion in
] revenue from the first oil lease sale in the Alaska
] preserve.
]
] The Republican Party learned -- painfully -- in the 1990s
] that the environment can be a new third rail in American
] politics. President Clinton played against the perceived
] extremism of House Speaker Newt Gingrich in cruising to
] re-election in 1996.

... and we all know you don't piss on the third rail..

This is an issue I've done a fair amount of bouncing back and forth on. While I do think we need to tap that reserve, and I think that it is possible to do it in a "high tech" way that will not damage the environment, I have my doubts about it being implemented properly. I always have doubts when the key thing I'm concerned with can simply not be followed thru on. I fear we get all the promises, congress oks it, we drill, it falls off the media radar, next thing you know a section of the refuge looks like the area of Jersey around EWR commonly referred to as "The Oil Wasteland". Yeah, I know thats an area where processing happens, not drilling, and drilling can be done cleanly, but this is a Bush plan we are talking about..

The title of this oped piece is reason enough to blog it.

In the Northwest: Bush smiles at environment, but his teeth are fangs