Defenders Magazine
Get Defenders Headlines
Get the latest wildlife conservation news and information... right when we post it online.
Defenders Magazine
Defenders View: Last Stand for the Arctic Refuge
It's fingernail-biting time for protectors of America's most spectacular wildlife sanctuary, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Conservationists have faced many serious challenges to the refuge since it was created to provide a haven against the industrialization of Alaska's North Slope (the other 95 percent is already open to drilling). But never has the possibility of losing this special place loomed so large. Already the U.S. Senate and House, by razor-thin margins, have passed preliminary legislation to eliminate protection for the refuge. But these votes were legislative foreplay; this summer the two bodies will vote on bills that specifically authorize drilling and open the refuge to industrial development.
It is truly heartbreaking that the Arctic refuge, after surviving one political assault after another for 45 years, is now, of all times, facing this kind of risk.
But I ask you to ignore for now the terrible environmental destruction that Arctic refuge industrialization would mean, and to look instead at the flawed energy policy that drilling in the refuge represents. The fact is that while George Bush is promoting Arctic drilling as "the centerpiece" of his energy policy, the world is moving inexorably away from energy policies favoring further fossil fuel development. George Bush and his oil allies are apparently the only ones who haven't seen the memo laying out the evidence, but it's being sent by many diverse hands.
You can read it in the statements by scientists the world over, who say we have to curb carbon emissions or face a climate-warming catastrophe. You can read it in the demands of other nations that as the world's largest fossil-fuel users, we must curb our oil appetite. Read it in the editorial pages of newspapers, which increasingly speak with the same anti-fossil-fuel voice. Read it in the actions of state governments that are trumping federal energy policy in favor of policies favoring conservation and renewable energy sources. Read it in the announcements of major industrial corporations, including some oil companies, that are moving to voluntarily limit carbon emissions because they know there is a climate-warming problem.
And you can read it in the growing support for commonsense legislation calling for regulations to reverse the disgraceful trend in which United States automakers are now rolling out vehicles that burn more fuel per mile than they did two decades ago.
In spite of all this, George Bush and the congressional leadership continue to move in bullheaded fashion to open the refuge to oil development. The argument the president makes for sacrificing this pristine wilderness area--the closest thing our country has to Africa's Serengeti -- is that we have a compelling need for the oil lying beneath the fragile refuge tundra. Now, I know he's our president, but with what respect I can still muster, I must say his statements are disingenuous poppycock. Even if refuge oil were to reach its highest estimate, the first barrels can't reach the lower 48 for close to 10 years, and at its peak flow, the amount would be so small that it would have miniscule impact on U.S. oil imports -- and zero impact on prices. There is also no assurance that the oil companies that drill in the refuge would even sell that oil to the United States; they could more easily ship it to the Far East.
Most of the country realizes that poking oil holes in wildlife havens is no way for us to achieve energy independence. We are approaching a "tipping point" on energy policy -- a decisive move away from our destructive addiction to fossil fuels. We can't let the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- and the incredible variety of wildlife that depends on it -- become our last sacrifice to a sadly outdated energy policy. It's worth all the sweat and tears we have to shed to win this battle.
