Preservation of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

With the war in the Middle East continuing, along with the area's hostility toward the United States it is inevitable that gas prices increase and remain unstable. At times such as these, it is a little more than tempting to go drilling for the oil that is hidden beneath the Alaskan surface. In 1980 congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). The act gave an additional 9.3 million acres designated as wilderness and untouchable to any industry or even the government itself. The Arctic Range was renamed the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and "1002 area" deemed as a study site (The Alaska). ANILCA came into affect twenty-five years ago when times were different, when protecting the Alaskan environment was the government's main objective in the northern state. Nevertheless one must stand by the preservation of Alaskan wildlife instead of the greedy need to obtain a small amount of oil from its lands, destroying the rare ecosystem.
Times have changed, and so has the president.

There was an attempt during President Clinton's era to authorize the opening of ANWR in a reconciliation bill; however, the president quickly vetoed it. The 106th Congress proposed a bill to designate 1002 area as wilderness to open refuge to energy development. February of 2003, the House of Representatives 770 submitted to preserve the Arctic coastal plain of ANWR as wilderness. In the March of 2003 the Senate passed the Boxer amendment to prevent consideration for drilling in ANWR in a fast-track reconciliation bill. Due to the overwhelming opposition to drilling in Alaska the House and Senate negotiators decided to abandon attempts to include it in the final energy bill in November 2003. Coming up to the current president, in February of 2004 the Bush administration said it would push Congress to open ANWR to oil drilling. President George W. Bush submitted an annual budget plan including a proposal to open oil drilling and the leasing to oil companies starting in 2005 (US Environmental). At around the same time a report by the National Academy of Sciences described the harmful and beneficial effects of drilling on the North Slope.

Much like any other argument that includes politics there are proposing and opposing view points, the issues of ANWR is no different. The arguments supporting the drilling in ANWR include what the Inupiat Eskimos would gain by leasing their lands to oil companies. Another point is that less than 1% of the Alaskan coastal plain would be affected. With rise in oil costs and increasing reliance on imports this seems the logical step, along with the new employment opportunities that would come about the drilling (US Environmental). It is also argued to possibly increase the Gross National Product. The main reason for a policy not becoming concrete is probably the idea that it would be looked upon as a step back from reaching energy independence.

Even with the points supporting drilling, it is difficult to look away from all the drawbacks. Widespread, long-term change in habitat that would likely modify natural abundance or distribution of species is likely to come about if drilling begins in 1002 area. A nearly guaranteed contamination of soil and water from fuel and oil spills will be a result of drilling along with the deposition of alkaline dust on the tundra. The alkaline will eventually alter vegetation over a much larger area than the actual drilling site. Porcupine Caribou, a native animal of the area is a staple in the Gwinch'in Athabascan Indians' way of life. Possibly the strongest point against drilling is that it is estimated that only a six month supply of oil will be extracted and would take an estimated ten years to drill out (Arctic National). With numbers such as these how can anyone really give the 'okay' to drill? Especially when 70% of Americans do not support drilling. Implementing a policy against drilling in the ANWR. A policy will protect the last remaining American Arctic coastline that has not already opened to oil exploration. It would also protect the various species of animals living in 1002 area: polar bears, grizzlies, Arctic wolves, caribou, shaggy musk ox, and a mammoth-like survivor from the Ice Age (The Alaska).

Though there are various points preventing drilling, the issue continues to rise and environmentalists continue to bring it down. Government intervention would be a factor that could turn this issue around and burry it completely. There is already government funding going into the research of fuel efficiency- an improvement from 27.5 miles per gallon to 40 miles per gallon, which save 2 million barrels a day (Arctic National). Research funding for fuel alternatives would help the cause as well. Along with setting a limit on the amount a driver can purchase per week to limit consumption.

Being that the issue concerns the digging of oil in a wildlife reserve different parts of the government come into play. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service are striving so that the ANWR is protected. On the flipside, the Department of Interior's Mineral Management Service and Energy and Natural Resource Committee is pushing so that drilling will begin as soon as possible. Along with the different parts of the government involved there are different types of politics used. Entrepreneurial politics, for everybody would benefit from a better environment while oil companies would pay by not being able to profit from drilling. Majoritarian politics, for everybody would benefit but everybody would also pay because gas prices would not drop.

There is a need to win over the hearts of certain groups of people in the United States. The group that needs to be won over the most would be the politicians, most if not all tending to be Republicans. Due to the recent elections, the Republicans have majority and Congress has the possibility of overturning the vote to protect the ANWR that took place in 2002. The main reasoning is that drilling in ANWR would not be worth the time and effort spent. It will take roughly ten years for the oil to reach the pump with an end result that the oil extracted will only compensate for a six-month supply of US oil supply. There have also been promises of drilling without harming the wildlife, a promise that drillers made about an area 60 miles west of 1002 area. The land is now defaced with mountains of sewage, sludge, scrap metal, garbage, and 60 contaminated waste sites that contain (and often leak) acids, lead, pesticides, solvents and diesel fuel (US Environmental).

The policy that needs to be implemented is the basic hope that drilling in ANWR for oil will not follow through. Other ways to prevent this from happening is having Congress vote against the recently proposed loan guarantees for a 20 billion dollar natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the 48 contiguous states. Due to the desperate need for petroleum it is difficult to protect an area that has oil without coming up with alternatives. Instead of acquiring more oil, the aim should be to consume less of it. Measures that can be taken are to pass for funding for alternative energy sources such as nuclear power. There also is technology right now to increase fuel economy standards to 40 miles per gallon, far more efficient than the 25 miles per gallon of present motor vehicles. If this technology is used and put into standard by 2012 the US would save 15 times more oil than the ANWR is likely to produce in 50 years (Arctic National). At present moment the hybrid cars are helping in consuming less gasoline than the standard diesel fuel vehicles. Due to these citizen's efforts, a possible tax deduction could be implemented in their benefit.

The outcome of a bill passing to protect ANWR would prevent the drilling in 1002 area. Past promises of not harming the environment could not be kept; however, it is not worth the risk of loosing the wildlife refuge area. Best possible action to be taken would be to make it a national monument or park so that the ANWR becomes untouchable to oil drillers, loggers, and hunters. Any future discussion would occur in Congress along with guaranteed disputes between the EPA and the Department of Interior's Mineral Management Service, Energy and Natural Resources. Nevertheless an act to protect the ANWR is needed for the sake of the preservation of rare and diminishing ecosystem.

Work Cited

"The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act." National Parks Conservation Association. 2005. National Parks Conservation Association. 15 Nov. 2005 < http://www.npca.org/media_center/factsheets/anilca.asp>.

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Ed. Richard Voss. 27 Oct. 2005. US Fish & Wildlife Service- Alaska. 5 Nov. 2005 < http://arctic.fws.gov/>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ed. EPA. 14 Nov. 2005. EPA. 15 Nov. 2005 .