Before he can implement the core of his energy plan, President George W. Bush must convince Democratic and Republican legislators to support drilling for oil in Alaska’s Arctic wildlife refuge.A Republican energy bill, which probably will be introduced in the Senate next month, has been met with heavy opposition from both parties and environmentalists who are concerned about the long-term ecological effects of drilling.To sway their opinions, political experts said, Bush will have to do some heavy lobbying and appeal to the legislators’ constituencies.”What Bush is doing is … trying to argue that we need to go in and exploit these areas that are environmentally sensitive,” said Steffen Schmidt, university professor of political science. “Bush needs to find Democrats whose constituencies are in favor of drilling.”Gene Rankey, associate professor of geological and atmospheric sciences, said drilling in the refuge, which was reserved 41 years ago by Congress, would increase domestic energy production.”There’s vast amounts of discovered but unproduced oil in the area,” Rankey said. “Whether or not that would have an effect on our energy dependence, that remains to be seen.”Rankey, who worked last year for Exxon Mobil Upstream Research Laboratory in Houston, said oil companies have become more conscientious about the environmental effects of their drilling.”There is a new technology, horizontal drilling, where you can drill in one spot,” he said. “If you have five or six hot spots, you don’t have to put five wells in. You can put one drilling rig, and it will drill horizontally, and the impacts are significantly less.”However, environmentalists are concerned about the effectiveness of Bush’s proposal.Katie Theisen, president of the Student Environmental Council, said the drilling process would delay the benefits of drilling for up to a decade.”There is no guarantee that the oil will even come to the United States,” said Theisen, senior in environmental science. “Since we have 10 years before we would even see that oil, we could put that money into less environmentally destructive energy sources. There are a lot of advantageous alternatives.”Zach Herrnstadt, member of the Student Environmental Council, said the wildlife in the refuge would be disturbed by the drilling, even with advanced drilling technology.”Where they’re planning on drilling is directly in a caribou migration route,” said Herrnstadt, sophomore in English. “No matter how careful they are, it will still be a major interruption.”To promote his plan, Bush should implement some avenues to explore alternative energy sources, said Aaron Fister, president and producer of ISU9’s “Politics Unlimited.””I would tie it to a plan that also promotes alternative energy,” said Fister, junior in management information systems. “It’s just one of those things that it’s how it is presented to people. He’s going to have to say, ‘Do we want to get our oil from Iraq, or do we want to get our oil from America?'”Schmidt said attitudes about the environment and drilling fluctuate with the economy.”Essentially, in this country, we drill for oil and dig up coal and do other things depending on the mood of the country and on a need basis,” he said. “When you start to suddenly experience spikes in energy costs, the people begin to redefine their discussion and ask themselves, ‘Can we do something about these shortages?'”Theisen said increasing efficiency and investing in a lasting solution is a better way to avoid an energy crisis.”You can’t be so tied to big money, but the drilling would please a lot of the people who support [Bush],” she said. “He’s more interested in solving the immediate energy crisis than looking at a long-term, pro-active way of solving it.”