Dear President Bush and other Elected Officials:

What our country needs is an effective and comprehensive energy policy, not drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The United States government designates a limited number of ecologically important sites "National Wildlife Refuges" to protect them from harm. Yet, President Bush, you have stated that you are in favor of removing ANWR's protected status to allow companies to drill for oil. Either we have protected areas, or we do not. Changing the status for financial gain jeopardizes the integrity of our entire National Parks system.

As you know, many scientists and local Gwich'in Native Americans have spoken out against drilling in ANWR. The refuge is
home to an abundance of migratory birds, polar bears, musk oxen, caribou, grizzly bears, wolves, salmon and unique plant life. Because of the very short summer growing season, extreme cold, nutrient-poor soils, and permafrost, vegetation grows very slowly. Any physical disturbance, from tractor tire tracks to large oil spills, can scar the land for decades.

We don't buy the argument that the drilling will be done without ecological damage. The four companies most likely to drill in the Refuge (British Petroleum, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Phillips Petroleum) have demonstrated their inability to prevent spills. A few of the many examples from Alaska: These companies are responsible for the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history (the 11 million gallon Exxon Valdez oil spill), a 9,700 gallon oil spill on February 20, 2001 (caused by BP Amoco in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, the area to the west of the ANWR), and an April 14, 2001 leak of 92,400 gallons of saltwater and crude oil from a pipeline on the Kuparuk oil field operated by Phillips. These four companies alone have been ordered to pay nearly $1 billion in fines and have been responsible for over 150 spills over the past 10 years. These four companies are responsible for over 100 Superfund sites. Bottom line: Drilling for oil is dirty and transporting oil is risky.

We also don't buy the argument that this will significantly reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. The U.S. Geological Survey assessment of the coastal plain estimates that the oil found in the Arctic Refuge would meet the energy needs of the United States for only four to six months, and, even if we started drilling today, that oil wouldn't reach American consumers for another 10 years. In fact, according to leading nonprofit groups, increasing the average fuel efficiency of cars and trucks by a mere two percent per year would save at least twice as much oil as is found in the coastal plain! And, five years ago Congress lifted the export ban on oil shipped through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline system, allowing oil from Prudhoe Bay to be exported to Asia. How does that help our national security?

On Feb. 28 by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and Reps. Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., and Edward Markey, D-Mass., introduced a bipartisan bill that would designate the coastal plain as wilderness and off-limits to oil exploration. We support that legislation and believe that drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be a terrible, shortsighted mistake. Please listen to what the public, not big oil companies, are saying: We do NOT want oil drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.

The Undersigned,