With the election of President George W. Bush, legislation to open ANWR to oil drilling won't be vetoed. Republican leaders in Congress are eager to open the Refuge, and as this proposal begins to quickly move, I reviewed the evidence that has been presented to me over the last four years and last week announced my opposition to drilling in ANWR.

Opponents of drilling in ANWR run the gamut - I've met with religious leaders, representatives of the Gwich'in tribe who rely on the Caribou which in turn rely on the pristine wilderness of ANWR, and I've met with environmentalists, for example. On the other hand, supporters of drilling argue that we need more oil production to help with current energy crisis affecting our state and the entire West right now, and to avert future long-term energy crises by decreasing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our supply of energy.

While the environmental and cultural issues at stake matter to me, my decision on this critical issue is primarily based on the flawed energy policies that drilling in ANWR would perpetuate.

For too long, our nation has avoided developing a long-term energy policy that takes both supply and demand into account. We've forgotten the conservation lessons of the late 1970s and instead embraced the philosophy of consuming more and more fossil fuels. Over the past fifteen years, out energy consumption has increased by 25 percent. In contrast, the prior ten years saw virtually no increase in energy consumption.

The Bush Administration promises that drilling in ANWR would increase oil supply by 1 million barrels each day. Ironically, if we could boost automobile efficiency by as little as 3 miles per gallon - well within the capabilities of automobile manufacturers today - we would save 1 million barrels each day.

Furthermore, the promises of oil in ANWR are not guaranteed. Not only would oil production be nearly a decade away, but studies reveal that it may produce as little as 300,000 barrels per day. In the end, ANWR would satisfy our national oil demand for only six months at most.

We can't drill our way out of our energy problems. Although America consumes a quarter of the world's fossil fuels, we possess less than 2 percent of its reserves. We are overdue for a comprehensive change in our energy policy and a new focus on conservation and investment in new energy sources.

Unlike drilling in ANWR, conservation has immediate benefits because energy savings can begin now. Exploring the power potential of wind and geothermal energy, fuel cells, biomass and other renewable technologies will further reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and would be the best long-term solution to our energy problems.

At the end of the day, my decision to oppose drilling in ANWR is really a small part of a bigger issue: our nation's energy policy. Continuing to drill, especially when it disrupts one of our nation's last pristine wilderness areas just for a six-month supply of oil, is shortsighted and gives our citizens suffering from real energy problems false hopes. It ignores the tough decisions ahead of us and perpetuates a greedy, "we can have it all" attitude.

The alternative isn't a world without power or skyrocketing energy prices. Rather, we need to have the vision and discipline to invest in conservation and alternative energy technologies. Drilling in ANWR, I feel, would be a step in the wrong direction.