l1

Drilling for oil in Alaska: learn history’s lesson

By Kelly Paul

In the 1500’s, Pizarro and Cortez wiped out the Aztecs for gold. In the 1800’s, westward expansion wiped out the Plains Indians and the buffalo that existed as the backbone of their culture. This week, the oil industry, under the guise of the federal government, is attempting to take action on an issue that may result in the genocide of the Gwich’in Athapaskan Indians of northern Alaska and the caribou that are vital to their culture and subsistence lifestyle, all for a short-term, speculative amount of oil that exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The northeastern corner of Alaska is the wildest place left in our country. No wilderness in the lower 48 states is comparable to the expanse of mountains, glaciers, and tundra that occupy the far north. The oil industry claims that the Arctic Refuge is a barren wasteland, using the fact that most people will never see this area in their lifetime to falsely justify their half-truths. I have spent a considerable amount of time in Alaska and have been to the North Slope, and can tell you from personal experience that it not the barren wasteland the oil industry frames it as being. This is the place author Wallace Stegner calls “the geography of hope”, a wilderness that is valuable beyond any calculation, measurement, or description.

Yet the Alaska delegation, the White House, and the oil industry demand that we drill for oil there, framing the issue as one of national security and as a way to stimulate the economy. Over the past few weeks two amendments have been offered to bills that are unrelated to drilling in the arctic: the Aviation Security Bill and the Defense Authorization Act. Both amendments were shot down, yet the threat to the Refuge is still very real, as Senator Murkowski (R-AK) has promised to attach an amendment to the Economic Stimulus Package, which has already passed the House, and is scheduled to be on the Senate floor this week.

The oil industry is spreading three big lies. They claim that:

1. Drilling will create 750,000 new jobs.

2. Drilling will only occur in 2000 acres of the Refuge and environmental impacts will therefore be mitigated.

3. Drilling will make us less dependent on foreign oil and is thus a crucial step towards increasing our national security.

The claim that drilling in the Arctic Refuge will create 750,000 jobs a year is based on a 1990 American Petroleum Institute study (funded by the oil industry) that anticipated oil prices would be higher than what they currently are. Realistically, drilling would create only 50,000 short-term jobs. A much better way to stimulate job growth in the energy sector would be to begin proactively developing renewable energy sources. According to a recent report released by the World Wildlife Fund, developing renewable resources could create 750,000 jobs in the next nine years, and 1.3 million jobs by 2020.

This summer, the House of Representatives voted to open up the coastal plain of the refuge to oil drilling. Due to an amendment sponsored by Representative Sununu (R-NH), the House’s energy bill only allows drilling on 2000 acres of the coastal plain, rather than on its full 1.5 million acres. This sneaky amendment implied that the 2000 acres are concentrated, and that drilling in this “limited area” would mitigate environmental destruction. However, the 2000 acres are scattered throughout the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, mandating that a series of pipelines and roads be constructed to connect up the many oil fields. This would create an industrial sprawl that far exceeds the intended 2000 acres and would result in considerable environmental damage.

Despite the industry’s phony argument that drilling will make us less dependent on foreign oil and will increase our energy security, any oil recovered from the Refuge will not make it to market for at least seven years and will therefore not help in the slightest with today’s energy needs. Even if we drilled all recoverable oil in the United States, we would still be dependent on foreign oil. The U.S holds only 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, while we consume more than 25 percent of the world’s oil. A far more effective and sustainable way to lessen our dependence on foreign oil would be to decrease our energy consumption, raise fuel economy standards, and utilize renewable sources of energy. Drilling the arctic for a short-term supply of oil would simply increase our energy insecurity, as doing so would add to our dependence on dirty fossil fuels, public heath problems, climate change, and habitat destruction.

Why has this become one of the most politically charged environmental issues in the country? I don’t want to sit here and list all the facts about caribou and polar bears and climate change that environmentalists commonly use to convince others of the importance of this issue. What I do want to make sure you understand is that this is the wildest place left under our flag, and our lives will be diminished without it. If you have ever stood in the presence of a mile-wide glacier or in the middle of the ocean or an old-growth forest, then perhaps you understand how vital it is that wild places exist. We have a decision to make: are we willing to sacrifice our last great wilderness and commit genocide on an Alaskan native culture all for the sake of a short-term supply of oil that will not bolster the economy and will not lessen our dependence on foreign oil? As far as I’m concerned, the choice is clear. We must step up the volume and make sure that our voices make more noise than all the campaign contributions the oil industry has given to our Senators. There is simply too much at stake if we choose to exploit the wildest place left in our country.

Paul is a member of the class is a member of the 2002