Editor s Note

• Author: Dave Newman
• Position: Editor-in-Chief
• Pages: 01

Page 2

The United States has come under increasing criticism for its inconsistent policies towards Iraq and North Korea. Both nations have been linked in the Axis of Evil and both are led by dangerous and repressive tyrants. However, the Bush Administration has chosen vastly disparate policies in dealing with them: military force against Iraq and diplomacy and engagement with North Korea.

Why the difference? North Korea has admitted that it is developing nuclear weapons, has pulled out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and has refused to back down unless the United States resumes shipping food and oil to the country. Iraq, on the other hand, currently has no nuclear capabilities (although certainly aspires to), has been subject to U.N. sanctions for over a dozen years, and is now being inspected for any sign of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

Of course, many complex factors influence U.S. foreign policy in different parts of the world today. These include: regional stability and the degree to which vital U.S. interests are threatened, past military confrontation, and the number of casualties that would result from a future conflict.

But perhaps the biggest factor of all can be summed up in just three letters: OIL.

Oil is one of the most important ingredients to economic growth in today's world. In the U.S. - the most oil thirsty nation on the planet - an increasing portion of its demand has been met from imports from the Middle East, Venezuela and Africa. The U.S. has gone from importing about one- third of its oil 15 years ago, to about two-thirds today.

Following the Gulf War in 1991 and for the next five years, the U.S. imported no Iraqi oil. As facilities were rebuilt and Iraq resumed exports through the U.N. food for oil program, the U.S. began importing oil from Iraq once again, although small quantities relative to consumption.

Iraq sits on top of the second largest known oil reserve in the world but is constrained from increasing oil exports because Saddam Hussein refuses to comply with U.N. mandates to disarm. As a result of his intransigence, Iraq continues to struggle under the effects of U.N. sanctions, continual U.S. and British bombings in the no fly-zones, and a lack of foreign investment to modernize its dilapidated oil infrastructure.

If national security, both in a physical sense and an economic one, is truly the Bush Administration's top priority, the best place to start is not halfway around the globe in Iraq or North Korea, but here at home. The best way to neutralize Saddam and pressure our friends in the Persian Gulf to stop fueling the flames of anti-Americanism is by becoming less reliant on their oil. In many cases, oil revenue is the lifeblood that keeps many of these undemocratic, repressive regimes in power. And U.S. reliance on Middle Eastern oil requires us to modify our policies in order to mollify those leaders who control the oil.

The Bush Administration understands that we must reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy, especially from countries that have been linked to terrorism. Unfortunately, they think the only way of doing so is by destroying pristine wilderness areas in places like Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming's Powder River Basin and Southern Utah's Canyon Country. Even if the majority of Americans were willing to sacrifice these beautiful and remote places - which, according to polls, they are not - there is no way we can extract enough oil and gas domestically to significantly reduce our dependence on imports.

Take the North Slope of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The United States Geological Survey estimates that roughly 3.2 billion barrels of oil could be extracted economically over roughly 50 years. In 2000, Americans consumed over 7 billion barrels of oil and consumption is projected to double over the next 50 years. Even if we can stabilize current consumption levels over the next 50 years, the amount of oil we could expect from the ANWR would amount to less than 1 percent of U.S. consumption.

In the rush to sacrifice wild places in the name of energy security, many less destructive and more sustainable alternatives are often overlooked. Despite incredible technological improvements in auto efficiency, the average automobile in the U.S. today is no more efficient than 15 years ago. If we increased auto efficiency to 40 miles per gallon over the next decade (Toyota and Honda are already selling 5 passenger hybrid sedans that get roughly 50 mpg), we would save roughly 15 times as much oil as could be extracted from ANWR over the next 50 years, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Not only is this a wiser path in terms of energy security, but could also help the U.S. to meet its responsibilities to the world community in dealing with the looming threat of climate change. Despite being responsible for a quarter of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. has selfishly opted out of any mandatory reductions in emissions that most other nations have signed on to. If the U.S. expects other nations to continue following its lead on issues like trade and terrorism, then it must begin showing its support for issues of global concern like sustainable development and climate change. Only through this type of cooperative leadership will we be able to begin creating a safer, fairer, and more environmentally sustainable future.