Urge Senate to Take the High Road on the Energy Bill

Tell the Senate to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska from oil drilling and support clean energy. Act Now!

Sample Letter for Campaign

Subject: Vote No on Refuge, Yes on more Fuel-Efficiency

Dear [ Decision Maker ] ,

I urge you to support provisions in energy legislation that place energy efficiency and environmental protection before oil industry interests. In particular, I support provisions to:

* Protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska from oil drilling; * Catalyze the development of clean and renewable energy resources; and * Increase fuel efficiency in cars and light trucks to a modest 40 mpg by 2013.

Increasing CAFE to 40 mpg by 2013 will save over 2.5 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 -- more oil than we currently import from the Persian Gulf. It will help curb global warming by reducing oil consumption and millions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions, and will save consumers billions of dollars in fuel costs.

I also request that you oppose wasteful and destructive taxpayer subsidies for the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, but support consumer tax credits for advanced technology vehicles that deliver substantial fuel savings and air quality benefits. Additionally, please oppose any amendments that weaken the vehicle fuel efficiency provision in the Daschel-Bingaman Energy Bill.

Thank for you for considering my views. Please do not make the same mistake made last year by the U.S. House of Representatives, which passed an energy bill that would increase oil drilling and energy use. I ask you to work for an energy bill that decreases our dependence on oil, protects the environment, and provides true energy security.

Sincerely,

Campaign Launched:
March 08, 2002

Background Information

LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE

It looks like -- and you can never quite tell -- that the Senate will finally be taking up energy legislation next week. As you know, our current energy system is big time dependent on fossil and nuclear fuels. And the gist of the debate is do we continue down this slimy dirty road or do we take cleaner, greener path. And if the pre-debate debate is any indication this should be a bruiser.

The two standout controversies in the debate are a proposal to allow oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and raising fuel-efficiency standards. Controversy over the refuge has turned into a triumph of spin over science -- and both sides are guilty of cavalier commentary littered with selective facts. Drilling proponents exaggerate how much oil the U.S. would recover from the refuge and the supposed reduction in foreign oil dependence. And we environmentalists may be shouting catastrophe loudly but not correctly. But at the end of the day we've still got to ask ourselves if sucking more oil -- from remote refuges, remote countries or anywhere -- makes sense.

Then there's fuel-efficiency standards. The White House has been pounding Democratic proposals to raise the fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. And this week they slammed fuel-efficiency standards by connecting them to thousands of deaths. That's right, the White House says that stricter fuel-efficiency standards would lead to -- lord have mercy -- smaller cars and thus more traffic deaths. The White House seems to be completely ignoring the fact that higher fuel-efficiency standards would save more oil than we receive from Persian Gulf imports, offshore drilling in California, and potential deposits in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge combined. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) -- who wrote the fuel-economy plan -- dismissed the White House's statement as "hysterical distortion" and "scare tactics" promoted by the auto industry.

Your senator is deciding right now what road to take us down on these two important issues. It's up to you to tell them whether you want the dirty, grimy low road or the cleaner, greener highroad.