Renewable Resources and ANWR

The affable but misguided Katinula is in error on the Republican plan for drilling in ANWR:

Proponents of drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge achieved a huge victory today. What I'm struck by is that proponents don't seem to realize the irony in their position. They say we need to drill in ANWR because we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil supplies. By all accounts, we won't be recieving (sic) any of the oil produced from drilling in ANWR for upwards of 10 years. This is regardless of the fact that we do not possess the technology to obtain the oil in ANWR at a rate that will have any affect on our domestic oil consumption. Sure, there are a gazillion barrels of oil in ANWR, we just can't get at them. But the real irony is that proponents are willing to put a band-aid on the foreign oil dependance (sic) problem, rather than to tackle the real issue of energy conservation. The only way to reduce our dependance on foreign oil supplies is to begin conserving energy, to support measures that utilize renewable energy sources and for God's sake stop driving around in gigantic monsters of automobilies (sic) that get 10 miles per gallon!

The Corporate Average fuel Economy (CAFE) guidelines were passed in the early 1970's as a way to increase fuel economy and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Several other amendments have been added.

If it would take ten years to get the oil to the refineries, why didn't we start ten years ago. Let's think, who was the President ten years ago? Until 1995 the Democrats had the House, Senate and Executive branch and did nothing. What if they had? Why did they not pass these standards?

I'm all for renewable and clean energy such as solar, wind, hydro or nuclear, however, the environmental lobby in the US is 100% against nuclear and the Democrats (at least the ones who live in Mass.) are against wind power. Even if the support for these sources was widespread, the implementation would take a decade. Besides, even the most optimistic Greens know that we are at least ten-years out from hydrogen or electric vehicles and the costs associated with instituting the infrastructure will restrict their use. We will still need gasoline in a decade, regardless of the strides we start attempting today.

As for the SUV issue, I'm firmly in the camp that believes that if you can afford the gas, insurance and price of any vehicle, no one has the right to dictate if you can drive it or not.
I believe you've driven in a full-size. gas-guzzling truck when you just as easily could have taken your smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle.

As a postscript, Katinula translates in the Blogger spellcheck to "stimuli".