Perspective: Keep refuge out of energy strategy

Gregg Easterbrook's recommended energy strategy must have been an April Fool's Day joke. He said we should "compromise" to reach a balanced national energy policy by tying oil development on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to improving the gasoline mileage of the nation's new vehicles.

Easterbrook did not mention that the arctic refuge's coastal plain is only 5 percent of America's arctic coastal plain. The remaining coastal plain north of Alaska's Brooks Range has been industrialized, like Prudhoe Bay, or is available to oil and gas development.

The arctic refuge is also a spectacular wilderness protected from development by an act of Congress. Only Congress can remove that protection, which most Americans hope Congress will not do.

We might as well dam the Grand Canyon or tap Yellowstone's geothermal power to meet our energy needs. Just as we will not let these special places be despoiled, so must we not allow industrial development in the arctic refuge. There are some places too sacred -- places we must preserve for those who come after us.

The answer to our energy needs does not lie in the arctic refuge. It will be found through alternatives such as ethanol and solar power, through new technologies such as the fuel cell, and in not selling our oil to foreign countries. And, yes, Mr. Easterbrook, through conservation.

It is a fact that most of the oil consumed in our country is used to power motor vehicles and that improving vehicle fuel efficiency will produce many more barrels of oil than the arctic refuge may hold. It is also a fact that America has only 2 percent of the recoverable oil reserves in the world. Drilling will never overcome our dependency on foreign oil, if we continue to require that oil. So let's make up our minds that we are going to create a secure energy future with a strategy that will really get us there.
-- Charner Reese, Tampa

Boost fuel taxes

Re: An energy strategy, April 1.

Gregg Easterbrook ignored one way to encourage conservation, and that is to increase the user fees on motor fuels. I know that "user fee" is a euphemism for "tax," which is a painful word for elected officials. However, I believe we are currently subsidizing highway transportation because the present motor-fuel taxes are not high enough to cover building, maintenance and policing of our roads. This is unfair to other types of transportation, especially rail, and is poor energy policy.

Our gasoline taxes are much lower than those in other countries, about 37 cents compared to an average of about $2.40 in Europe. This makes our motor-fuel cost about one-fourth as much as in Europe! No wonder large cars and SUVs are more popular here.

I suggest we compute the total cost for building, maintaining and policing our roads per gallon of fuel burned and then make our motor-fuel tax (sum of state and federal) equal to that amount. No more, no less! I believe we'll find that this per-gallon highway cost will be much higher than the present tax.

It won't be easy to increase motor-fuel taxes, but we must stop the present subsidy of highway travel.
-- Jack Gregg, Largo

Still limited by color

Re: Voting Rights Act is useless if there are no racial lines, by Robyn E. Blumner, April 1.

This is truly commentary without understanding the real issue. The Voting Rights Act was not created because of how blacks identified themselves, but because of how we are (yes, present tense) identified. When the act was created, white America consistently found ways to stop any person of color from voting. White America also has always identified those persons with white and black parents as black, denying the white heritage.

I notice that the example given in the column is that of a white mother and a black father. Perhaps these mothers are trying to make a positive situation of their children's black skin, while most of white America, as the parents well know, will define their color as a negative.

The problem arises because white America still has a way of consistently eliminating anyone physically perceived as black from the better schools, the better jobs and yes, as the recent presidential election proved in the state of Florida, from the right to vote.

In spite of white America, many blacks have made good lives for themselves. But, as I and my family know quite well, there will be a time when we will be denied, simply because of the color of our skin.
-- Frank B. Brunson, St. Petersburg

Beware exaggerations

Re: Spirituality gains ground with doctors, April 1.

I've never attended a more "feel-good" medical conference than the recent conclave in Clearwater Beach sponsored by Dr. Herbert Benson's Harvard "Mind/Body Medical Institute."

Of course, inner tranquility contributes toward a subjective sense of physical well-being, and physicians should encourage patients to maintain as positive an outlook as is feasible, whether through religious faith or more secular means. But physicians must look carefully before leaping to employ therapeutic modalities bordering on the supernatural.

For example, one of Dr. Benson's claims to fame is the seemingly remarkable 36 percent conception rate for women with unexplained infertility who complete his "Relaxation Response" program. However, the actual scientific study (co-authored by Benson) contains this telling passage: "The [36 percent] conception rate may be within the normal range for women who aggressively seek treatment from experienced infertility specialists" (which most of these women did).

At the conference, Benson also repeated an anecdote about a significant study of women suffering from nausea of pregnancy. Their symptoms were eradicated with syrup of ipecac when they were led to believe that it was an anti-nausea medication (ipecac is actually a potent producer of nausea and vomiting). However, as reported by the reviewers of one of Benson's books (for the journal Science), "when we examine the original paper . . . we find, thankfully, that only one pregnant woman was the subject of this experiment."

Such exaggerations and misrepresentations are found all too commonly within the "spirituality in medicine" movement. This unfortunate situation has led the aforementioned reviewers to describe Benson as "a publicizer of therapeutic claims that appear not to be supported by the data." Though harsh, this assessment seems to be supported by the data.
-- Gary P. Posner, M.D., executive director, Tampa Bay Skeptics, Tampa

Prayer's power

Re: Prayers make medical advances, by Wes Allison, April 1.

One night I had a dream that I testified my faith to others and I used my dad's recovery from his heart attack as an example of God's healing powers. The next day, I read this article and felt compelled to respond.

On Feb. 13, 1997, my dad experienced cardiac arrest. He received CPR within minutes and was air-lifted to St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa.

From the moment we got word about Dad, our prayers began. Mom and I were allowed in the emergency room. The doctors didn't feel Dad would make it through the night. We prayed for God to heal Dad, for God to be with the nurses and that the doctors would use their God-given talents to their fullest.

While in the hospital, Dad was in a coma on life support. He experienced pneumonia, stomach ulcers, had heart bypass surgery, then a few days later, a stroke.

Our prayers, the prayers of our friends and those of our priest never stopped. We expressed our faith to the doctors and nurses.

Dad is living testimony to God's healing powers. He leads a very full life today. Doing much of what he could prior to his heart attack, Dad golfs, exercises, takes beautiful photographs and, yes, prays regularly.
-- Pamela L. Shinsky, Palm Harbor

Sharing Elmer's song

Re: Still shining, April 1.

Thanks so much for the wonderful article on Elmer Wright. For years I have seen this smiling, cheerful man singing his gospel songs on The Pier in St. Petersburg. I can't wait to see him again so I can tell him how much I enjoyed this delightful article. It sure made my day!
-- Elaine Coffin, South Pasadena

For real?

Re: Rev. Jackson's time has come to step down, April 1.

What a surprise to read Bill Maxwell's column (which I usually ignore) and find that he is calling for Jesse Jackson to step down.

I kept reading to the very end and looking for the words, "April Fool." Did I miss something?
-- Sam Lasley, Clearwater

Back to Perspective

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page