Adding to supply isn’t answer to oil addiction

John H. Esperian, Las Vegas

Tuesday, July 15, 2008 | 2:03 a.m.

Many letter writers have advocated drilling for oil in Alaska and in the coastal waters of the United States, the rationale being that the billions of barrels of oil that geographically are owned by the United States would bring down the cost of gas at the pump. This idea is both desperate and seriously shortsighted. Here’s why:

First, fossil fuels, as everyone knows, are a finite resource, nonrenewable, and continuing to supply cheap fuel to gas-guzzling vehicles such as SUVs and pickup trucks with names like “Tundra” and “Titan” will not address this unfortunate reality.

Second, the United States should be taking the lead in developing green, renewable energy resources such as wind and solar as well as electronic technology. Drilling for more oil will serve only to put this effort on the back burner.

Third, new drilling and exploration would not bring the final product, less expensive gas, to market for years, and changes in cost would be infinitesimal because of continued high demand in India and China.

Fourth, and finally, our environment is too precious to be corrupted for corporate profit.

Perhaps the Bush administration has purposely avoided drilling for those billions of barrels beneath the surface to keep demand high and supply low — after all, both Bush and Cheney are oil men.

The hard truth is, however, that during their tenure, not even a token effort has been made to mandate higher fuel efficiency in U.S. vehicles.