This is an entry I wrote for a
music website which I write articles for weekly (essentially I have my own weekly blog for punk rockers around the country to read). I'll just copy and paste...
As many of you most likely know, the U.S. Senate voted this Wednesday to strike down an amendment proposed by Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) to the Senate budget resolution that would have removed provisions leading to drilling in parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. While this does not mean that oil drilling in the Wildlife Refuge is set in stone, it is a large step down the wrong path towards oil dependence and environmental exploitation. Proponents of oil drilling in the Wildlife Refuge have relied on misleading numbers and hidden facts to show what looks to me like unhealthy greed and a disregard not only for our environment but for the future of the American people in regards to energy.
Set aside in 1957 by Secretary of Interior Fred Seaton, the 8.9 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was described as having "unique wildlife, wilderness and recreation values". Around twenty years later, the size of the Wildlife Refuge was more than doubled to a total of 19.6 million acres. The Wildlife Refuge can be counted among our last great true wildernesses and one of the last great sanctuaries for animals living in the Arctic region. It is a vital birthing ground for species such as polar bears, grizzlies, Arctic wolves and caribou as well as refuge for millions of migratory birds every year. A section of the original Wildlife Refuge, commonly known as the "1002 Area", was not designated as "wilderness" under the expansion in 1980 and includes 1.5 million acres along the Wildlife Refuge's coastal plains bordering the Beaufort Sea. It is within this 1.5 million acre 1002 Area that big oil companies have been attempting to obtain permission to drill in for years. Environmental Impact Statements delivered to Congress concluded that oil development and production in the 1002 Area would have major effects on caribou and musk oxen herds in the region and "widespread, long-term change in habitat availability or quality which would likely modify natural abundance or distribution of species" as well as moderate effects for wolves, wolverine, polar bears, snow geese, seabirds and shorebirds, arctic grayling and coastal fish. Also, "major restrictions on subsistence activities by Kaktovik residents would be expected."
Because of this, oil drilling proponents have put up a claim or two that they feel negate arguments concerning the environmental impact as well as one that attempts to sway labor-favoring Democrats to their side. In regards to environmental arguments, oil drilling proponents argue that the drilling will be on only approximately 2,000 of the 1.5 million acres that are in the 1002 Area. A closer look at this BS-laden number reveals that the 2,000 acres do not have to be contiguous and this counts only the space of the equipment touching the ground, since each drilling platform can take up as little as ten acres. This number really does not count the pipelines above the ground, for some reason believing that counting the stanchions holding up the pipeline to be sufficient in their calculations. Allen Mattison, a spokesman for the Sierra Club, states that "It's a complete sham. It's like a fishing net. If you count just the space of the string's width, that's small. But if you open up a fishing net and count the area it covers, that's much larger." For a visual of the space that would most likely be used for drilling, go here (pdf file). Another claim made by oil drilling proponents is that 700,000 jobs will be created by this oil exploitation process; this figure comes from a 15-year-old study commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute which many economists regard as wildly implausible because it inflates to a nearly preposterous degree the employment potential. An economist at Lewis and Clark College predicted that the real job growth would most likely be less than one-tenth of that number.
Even if people disregard the environmental arguments against oil drilling, an economic and energy-based argument against the drilling could still be made. First off, the amount of oil that could possibly be found under the 1002 Area is suspect. The U.S. Geological Survey estimated in 1998 that there was a 95% chance of finding 1.9 billion barrels (BBO) of economically recoverable oil (which means after factoring in cost of development, exploration, etc.) and only a 5% chance of finding 9.4 BBO. In the middle is a 50% chance of finding 5.3 BBO. Estimates of 16 BBO that oil drilling proponents put forth do not factor in costs of developing the oil field, which, as it can be seen, dramatically decreases available BBO. Secondly, it would take ten years for any Wildlife Refuge oil to reach the market, and when the oil production would peak, it would produce only an estimated 1 or 2 percent of America's daily consumption.
This brings me to an even larger point, the main point which I believe in: Drilling for oil in the Wildlife Refuge simply does not address the underlying problem of oil dependency. After the oil benefits of production in the Wildlife Refuge disappear, which can happen in as short as 10-15 years, what next? Does the government just find another refuge previously protected from drilling to produce again? Shall the government continue to do this every time? Although he may not be the most liked and unbiased of sources, even the Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia stated that "America could become self-sufficient in energy in 5 to 10 years, if they put their minds to it." American ingenuity and technological innovations could render Saudi oil obsolete; besides reliance on Saudi oil, people must come to terms with the fact that oil is not a permanent energy source. Eventually, oil supplies will disappear and, even before that, oil will become so scarce so that it is no longer economically beneficial to use oil as an energy source. There are many ways in which the government could begin to cut into our dependency on oil. Feasible methods could include improving energy efficiency using existing technology; Japan uses only 405 barrels of oil per million dollars of GNP compared to our 943. This would save us 2 billion barrels of oil annually, not to mention the fact that we are only ¼ as efficient as Japan in coal usage and 1/7 as efficient in natural gas usage. One of the most viable methods would be to increase funding for research of renewable energy sources; however, once again, our dear President Bush comes to the rescue by proposing in his 2006 budget a renewable energy programs budget 5.6% less than that in the proposed 2005 budget and a similar cut of 2.3 percent for energy efficiency programs.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, being a precious and crucial region of wildlife preservation, is not something that ought to be compromised in order to perpetuate American dependency on, besides foreign oil, oil as a source of energy overall. I had not even mentioned until now the pollution factor which occurs when oil is used an energy source as opposed to other renewable energy sources. Drilling in the Wildlife Refuge is only a temporary stopgap measure which actually is barely even much of a stopgap in itself. Much more can be done to better America's energy situation and, thankfully, this measure leading to oil drilling is not yet solidified.