Oil vs. Nature

The oil situation is obviously something that everyone knows about. There are many different issues regarding our dependence upon foreign oil, the ability to get more oil at home, and whhat to do about ensuring our energy success in the future. One of the controversial topics in this current debate is the Alaska Natural Wildlife Refuge. ANWR provides a very unique situation for politicians and has proven to be a hot topic in the political landscape right now. This is a classic example of the lesser and the greater.

Everyone in America would agree that it would be great for us to both have an independent source of oil and to preserve natural landscapes and ecologies. We would love to have the oil that is most probably in ANWR, and we would also love to keep the natural beauty of ANWR intact and unblemished. If we could do both, then everyone would be happy.

Unfortunatly it is not a perfect world, and we cannot do both. Leaders have to choose between these two things (I am not introducing the other avenues of oil independence right now for the sake of this argument). How can they make this choice?

This choice will depend on which priority is greater for them.

Both of these things are good, but it is not possible to accomplish both of them at the same time. Leaders must choose based on their greater priority and ideal. A leader who believes in the priority of energy independence will choose to drill in ANWR even in the face of the consequences. Whereas a leader who views the environment as the greater ideal will choose to save the natural beauty and ecology of ANWR.

So as we watch this political drama unfold before our eyes. we can watch and see how our country's leaders answer the question:

"What is the greater priority - energy independence or natural conservation?"