Through much of the Bush-Cheney Administration, there was pressure from officials in the White House and elsewhere to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a place awesome in its size and wildness.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 19.2-million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge �supports the greatest variety of plant and animal life of any Park or Refuge in the circumpolar arctic.�

For years, the pressure came from the right and from those politicians who feel they owe something to the oil companies and the other corporations that are involved in the exploration for oil, production of oil equipment, and the myriad other companies involved in the oil industry.

A vigorous opposition to drilling in the refuge developed across the country over the past two decades and, so far, oil companies and their minions in power have been unsuccessful in moving their equipment into a part of the world that has yet to see much human activity.

The only road that comes close to the refuge is the Dalton Highway, a gravel road that just touches the western reaches of the preserve. The easiest way to visit it is to fly in and even that is not easy.

Often, it is described as �pristine� and there are probably few places where the word is more aptly used. Much of Alaska could still be described as pristine, but nothing like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Less than two years ago, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) took out a full-page ad in the Washington Post, to call the Bush Administration proposal to drill in the refuge �100 percent snake oil.�

The NRDC called the proposal, along with others, a �giveaway of our coasts.� Such drilling offshore, the group said, would not make much difference in gasoline prices, because the U.S. has just three percent of the world�s oil reserves and, even if there were drilling in the refuge, it would take 10 or more years before the oil would start flowing.

Overall, however, the NRDC and many other environmental groups opposed and continue to oppose drilling in the refuge and any other areas that might come close to the unique qualities that the refuge possesses.

Proponents of drilling claim that the �footprint� of oil operations is much smaller than they used to be. It�s much cleaner and neater, they claim, now that the technology is so improved.

The Washington Post editorialized about the ad that NRDC had run in its pages, but then it went on the offensive, claiming that there were three �truths� of the NRDC that needed to be addressed. And the official paper of the nation�s capital launched into what amounted to a defense of the oil industry, as if they didn�t have enough lobbyists and official spokespersons to refute the environmentalists themselves.

The editorial claimed that the U.S. oil reserves might be much greater than the three percent the NRDC cited. �In short, there could be much more oil under the sea than previously known. The demand for energy is going up, not down. And for a long time, even as alternative sources of energy are developed, more oil will be needed,� the editorial read. The Post continued: �The notion that oil companies are just sitting on oil leases is a myth. With oil prices still above $100 a barrel, that charge never made sense.�

The third point is that oil drilling is environmentally dangerous. To that, the paper editorialized: �According to the MMS (Interior Departments Minerals Management Service), between 1993 and 2007, there were 651 spills of all sizes at OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) facilities (in federal waters three miles or more offshore) that released 47,800 barrels of oil. With 7.5 billion barrels of oil produced in that time, that equates to 1 barrel of oil spilled per 156,900 barrels produced. That's not to minimize the danger. But no form of energy is perfect or without trade-offs. Besides, if it is acceptable to drill in the Caspian Sea and in developing countries such as Nigeria where environmental concerns are equally important, it's hard to explain why the United States should rule out drilling off its own coasts.�

The U.S. has drilled offshore and BP has done that in the Gulf of Mexico and, by the beginning of this week, an estimated 4 million gallons had risen up from the bottom of the sea and spread over a wide area. The oil flow continues.

No one knows how long it will take to stop the oil from destroying fishing, wildlife, recreational use of the affected gulf waters, and the livelihoods of millions of people who live around the gulf. No one knows how long it will take to clean up the waters or even if it will be cleaned up. The Exxon Valdez dumped 10.8 million gallons in Alaska�s Prince William Sound, in 1989, causing untold environmental damage that, by some estimates, could take many more years to resolve.

The environmental damage to complex ecosystems is incalculable and Exxon, for its part, just kept going back to court and continued to get its punitive damages and other costs related to the spill reduced. Alaskans on the shore and those who made their living on the waters there had their day in court, but it turned out to be a bad day.

BP is already setting its damage control efforts in place and, much like Exxon, it will claim less damage to the environment than is actually occurring, thus lowering its total monetary liability. And, it can just keep going to court, appealing any fines or punitive damages, until they are paying little or nothing, compared with the harm done.

As the BP oil continues to leak in the gulf, there has been little talk of further oil drilling offshore, although BP and other oil giants have a friend in the White House. President Barack Obama. Though he did not favor offshore drilling during the presidential campaign, he has recently had a change of heart and now favors offshore drilling, but he has not described where he thinks it would be safe or sound to drill.

The preventable disaster in the gulf is a warning to those who claim, without any evidence that it�s true, that �technology� will take care of the problems and that we have �advanced in techniques� to keep this kind of man-made tragedy from happening again.

Such nonsense comes from the oil industry and politicians who favor drilling everywhere are only listening to those who fill their campaign coffers.

The wake-up call has been sounded, as a huge area of our planet is ravaged by toxic oil - first, Katrina, now BP. Technology has not saved us from this disaster and it won�t in any other area in which the quest for oil becomes a lust for oil and filling the tanks of our cars and trucks becomes one of the few concerns of officialdom.

In some countries, they fear a rise of a cost of bread by one penny. In America, land of the internal combustion engine, they fear the prospect of unaffordable gasoline and diesel or worse, the supply dwindling to a trickle.

The wildness of Prince William Sound has been despoiled. A large area of the Gulf of Mexico, a wilderness itself, has been despoiled. America should resolve never to despoil the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by letting the oil industry set foot on its ice and soil.

BlackCommentator.com Columnist, John Funiciello, is a labor organizer and former union organizer. His union work started when he became a local president of The Newspaper Guild in the early 1970s. He was a reporter for 14 years for newspapers in New York State. In addition to labor work, he is organizing family farmers as they struggle to stay on the land under enormous pressure from factory food producers and land developers. Click here to contact Mr. Funiciello.