“We do not need to despoil the pristine wilderness of the Arctic Refuge,” said John Flicker, President, National Audubon Society. I strongly agree.

The Audubon Society long accepted carefully controlled exploration on its Rainey Sanctuary, a 26,800-acre wildlife preserve in southern Louisiana. Audubon was a pioneer when it permitted carefully regulated gas and oil drilling there from the 1940s until 1999. With close monitoring by Audubon, the negative impacts on the marshes or wildlife during the 50-year life of the field were minimized, for Audubon controlled exploration timing and procedures. Hence, oil and gas companies’ bids competed for environmental sensitivity.

Unfortunately, the recent fight over Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge sullied both politicians and the environmental lobby. Alaska Senator Ted Stevens’ antics demonstrate why politicians are so widely disdained. And rather than seeking environmentally sensitive energy production, for 25 years Greens have used the ANWR controversy as a fundraising venture.

Many conservative and libertarian friends believe Republican leaders are brain damaged when it comes to environmental matters. Let’s be more charitable and assume they are merely color-blind to different shades of green. I hope the ’06 congressional elections will improve their vision.

National politicians, like other mega-predators, continually seek niches to exploit. With gasoline prices averaging over $2.30 per gallon and oil prices around $60 per barrel (about $20 higher than a year ago), ANWR offers a prime example of an exploitable political opportunity. Environmentalists have a rare opportunity to take advantage of this situation. Here’s the context and the means.

Alaska historically has produced about 20 percent of our domestic petroleum supplies, mainly from Prudhoe Bay. The state derives over 80 percent of its general fund revenue from oil royalties and taxes. Politicians fear the end of this bonanza as production from the Prudhoe fields has declined to 24 percent of its 1988 peak. Hence, Sens. Murkowski and Stevens have extremely strong incentives to find another revenue gusher.

Here are facts beyond dispute. For historical and geographic reasons, America is fundamentally dependent on oil and gas -- and we have only 3 percent of the world’s reserves. We have also become accustomed to cheap fuel and adjusted our consumption accordingly. The recent popularity of more and larger SUVs was no accident. Adjustment to expensive energy will be difficult, especially for America’s poor. Perhaps, politicians reason, with high gas prices Americans will ultimately accept drilling in ANWR.

Recall the OPEC oil embargo of October 17, 1973. Although a proposed Alaskan pipeline bill had been debated for over a decade, it was signed November 16 without constraints by “further administrative or judicial delay or impediment.” There is an important lesson in this experience. When we encounter our next significant, long-term disruption in energy supply, environmental constraints on drilling will evaporate.

Here’s the environmentalists’ opportunity. I propose we give the 1.5 million acres set aside for development in 1980 to groups such as the Audubon Society, with Alaska taking its 50 percent cut. (Actual production and support facilities, pads, roads, etc., are restricted to a mere 2,000 acres.) Here are two arguments.

First, experiments like Audubon’s Rainey Sanctuary show us that careful, environmentally sensitive exploration leaves a lighter footprint on the land and can coexist with wildlife.

Second, Audubon used the millions of dollars in royalties from Rainey to further protect lands and purchase additional habitat. The environmental groups would use the revenue from ANWR leases to preserve lands or improve habitat elsewhere. By controlling the conditions under which oil and gas exploration and production occurs, Green groups could enforce environmental standards.

Under this ANWR plan, environmental groups would bid not money but rather environmental projects to be funded from the oil revenue generated. The National Academy of Sciences would evaluate the bids. Based on their recommendations, the U.S. Minerals Management Service would award drilling rights to the most environmentally valuable and promising proposals.

This process would force such organizations to consider the environmental opportunities lost by ignoring the less than 8 percent of ANWR scheduled for exploration. It would also test the sincerity of claims that this small area is of such high ecological value that its lockup trumps all. I’ve been there. It doesn’t.