The Call of the Oil

For the meager amount of petroleum purported to be buried in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Senate Republicans have not only mortgaged the future of a swath of unspoiled wilderness, they have cast their respect for America’s political process in doubt.

To briefly recap the facts: ANWR is an immense tract of untamed land in northern Alaska originally created in 1960 by noted caribou-hugger President Dwight D. Eisenhower. For almost 20 years, oil companies have had their eyes set on the coastal regions of that sanctuary, where there may be oil. May be, of course, because no one really knows; current estimates are that ten billion barrels of oil may be extractable. Thus, in a decade or two, drilling thirty coastal locations in ANWR could theoretically provide the U.S. with four percent of its current oil needs, at its peak capacity. Four percent is nothing to scoff at, but minimal energy conservation or fuel efficiency programs could accomplish similar goals, especially over decades.

Proponents of ANWR drilling have been improperly minimizing the effects of oil development for years. They like to cite the growth of the caribou herd at Prudhoe Bay—a Northern Alaska drilling site that has been open for business since 1977—where caribou wander daily through industrial sites. But they ignore evidence that total herd growth is sustained by the females whose fecundity is least affected by industrialization. For the shrinking ANWR caribou herds, the impact of drilling on fertility could sound a death knell. Drilling proponents like to point to the small physical footprint of the proposed development, 20,000 acres, even while they ignore maps that project crisscrossing drilling sites, airstrips, docks, and roads. Proponents like to herald the allegedly enviro-friendly operations at Prudhoe Bay. They do not publicize the multi-million dollar fines paid by British Petroleum after its contractors illegally dumped hazardous chemicals, including benzene, at the site.

The most laughable weapon in the drilling companies’ rhetorical arsenal is talk of “roadless” drilling. “Roadless” has turned into “roads” before, in Prudhoe Bay. According to an Interior Department official quoted in The New York Times yesterday, “The term ‘roadless’ does not mean the absence of roads. Rather, it indicates an attempt to minimize the construction of permanent roads.” Wonderful news. By the same logic, one might suppose the term “wildlife refuge” does not mean the presence of wildlife, but rather indicates an attempt to maximize the potential for wildlife habitation.

A majority of Americans recognize the beauty of our country, appreciate its biology, and are glad that there are areas such as ANWR where beauty and biology can exist unspoiled in perpetuity. A recent Gallup poll indicates that 53 percent of Americans are opposed to drilling in ANWR—who are opposed to putting a price tag on nature. There is not a price per kilowatt-hour at which Old Faithful should be converted into a geothermal energy plant. There is no price for stone at which Mount Rushmore should be quarried. There is no price for exotic animals at which the government should export bald eagles. American society does have values, and one such value is the protection of America’s iconic geographic treasures. ANWR is such a treasure. If it can be ravaged, then the survival of America’s cultural heritage is simply a matter of the right price.

In light of Americans’ lack of support for drilling in ANWR, it is especially unacceptable that Republican Congressional leadership inserted this controversial issue into a filibuster-immune budget resolution. There are real, substantive concerns associated with ANWR: technical concerns, economic concerns, and foremost concerns about the principle of environmental protection. And there are real alternatives, too, not the least of would be more efforts at conservation. The only reason to resolve the ANWR debate in a budget resolution was to avoid an inevitable filibuster. But ANWR is exactly the type of issue that should not be swept under the carpet. That the Senate would abandon ANWR for, in terms of the time horizon involved, a smidgin of oil is disappointing. That the Senate would do so without admitting that such a move is worthy of a full Senate debate and is opposed by most Americans is disturbing.