I am writing in response to the editorial by Don Brunell in last week’s paper.

The real issue is not reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and drilling is a short-term, very possibly environmentally-damaging solution to a far bigger problem. The real issue facing us is reducing our dependence on oil, period.

Instead of continuing to try and pass this legislation, why aren’t lobbyists and lawmakers pushing automobile manufacturers to make more alternative-fuel vehicles available to the American consumer, and at a reasonable price? Why aren’t they requiring that SUVs be held to higher MPG requirements since, in fact, they are passenger vehicles and not “trucks?” Why aren’t more legislators following Maria Cantwell’s lead and pushing for the use of alternative energy sources, not just for vehicles but in all aspects of our energy usage?

Every time I ask myself these questions, I then remember: companies won’t make as much money.

I feel that we stand at a critical juncture in human development. We can choose to do what’s right for the future of our planet so that there is a planet in the future, even if that means some sacrifices on our part, or a few of us can make lots of money.

And as far as it being only a tiny fraction of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that would be impacted by oil activities, what’s wrong with there being one place in the United States that remains a true wilderness and does not show the ugly hand of man at work? I don’t care if it’s one acre out of 19.6 million, it’s too much.

Yvonne Grimes

North Bend