An Issue of Integrity

The arguments against drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) are many, but most are idealistic. The arguments in favor of drilling for oil in ANWR are many, but most are practical or economic (not always the same thing). Having suffered defeat in the Senate last time around, the Bush Adminstration now feels safe to announce it's renewing efforts to open up for drilling the area represented by Section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. I say "safe," because we heard little to nothing about this during the campaign. But the campaign is over, and Bush never said he'd drop the matter, so it's no surprise. The only mystery at this point is how much of his new found political capital he'll spend to see this happen.

Strongest among the arguments against drilling are the effects it could have on the environment there. Those anxious to take the oil argue that "We have the technology to develop oil without harming the environment and wildlife." But they don't argue that they'll use that technology. In fact, there are precedents to suggest that once they have the go ahead, the Bush administration will let industry drop their green facades.

But the question for me has never been how greenly the oil can be extracted, but rather how much integrity the concept of a National Wildlife Refuge has for the people of the United States. Pro-drilling enthusiasts like to argue that "The debate in Congress today centers solely on this small section [1.9 million acres]; the remaining 17.5 million acres of ANWR lie in the protected enclave that cannot be developed." Or they faithlessly argue that section 1002 is not pristine (the it's-ugly-so-why-do-you-care argument). This argument is particularly disengenous though, because those offering it surely understand that any impact on section 1002 (which includes the shoreline) has been determined as very likely to have significant effects on the rest of ANWR, which even the Heritage Foundation admits is America's "last true wilderness, a hallowed place, and a pristine environmental area."

But back to their first argument, that this is an itsy-bitsy teeny-weeny part of the Refuge they want to develop. That's totally beside the point in the context of whether or not our national concept of a Wildlife refuge has any integrity. Once breached, that integrity is forever and for always lost. It's understood when a nation sets aside a section of land, saying that no development will happen here, that such a symbolic gesture represents a sacrifice. It's understood that a time may come when folks want to build or extract things there because other cheaper alternatives have been exhausted. The test of the concept however is what the nation does to protect the Refuge's integrity, not how greenly or minutely they violate that integrity.

This is not to say that should drilling be authorized, we may as well pave over the entire area, but it is to say that drilling in a Wildlife Refuge should horrify Americans, if they truly have any pride in the concept. Because, again, once it's breached, its intergrity is gone. You can't set up another smaller Refuge somewhere and say "Here, this bit now represents our national commitment to the ideals of protecting the environment." It becomes farcical at that point.

I feel quite passionate about this, but I've become realistic about it too (which is to say, I no longer believe the profound respect my parents instilled in me for nature and the environment are shared by the party in power, and by extrapolation, therefore, by those who voted them in [with the obvious exceptions to every such statement]).

Eventually, one day, unless we find alternatives to oil, profit-hungry practicality will win out over idealism. Personally, I hope I'm long dead, as that will be one sad, soulless day for this country. Having said that, though, in a strange twist of fate, drilling in ANWR may not be as immediately necessary as some are suggesting:

Rising global temperatures will melt areas of the Arctic this century, making them more accessible for oil and natural gas drilling, a report prepared by the United States and seven other nations said on Monday.

It predicts that over the next 100 years, global warming could increase Arctic annual average temperatures 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (3-5 degrees Celsius) over land and by up to 13 degrees (7 Celsius) over water. Warmer temperatures could raise global sea levels by as much as 3 feet.

Such a change would threaten coastal cities, change growing patterns for vegetation and destroy habitats for some wildlife, but an energy-starved world would have new areas for oil and gas exploration, according to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report.

The Arctic region, particularly offshore, has huge oil and gas reserves, mostly in Russia, Canada, Alaska, Greenland and Norway.

If greater access to drilling off the shores of Alaska is opened due to global warming, perhaps the Refuge can be spared. The integrity of the concept could be left unbreached, and I'd be happy. The oil executives could still gobble up more resources elsewhere, and they'd be happy. And ANWR itself, "this last American living wilderness" as Justice William O. Douglas called it, could (as Douglas argued it should) "remain sacrosanct." The only question is how committed we are to the concept's integrity.

Comments

[John Thullen]

In my mind, I've already privatized the refuge. And I've distributed the land to the taxpayers. My little bit is right in the middle of the drilling area.

I haven't given permission for the drilling. And neither have some of the contiguous property owners, though I realize others have.

So, no, they can't have it. And they can't have right-away.

But it will be stolen.

[John Thullen]

But a question, nor for you Edward, but projected into the slightly hooter (I mean "hotter", but the inadvertent misspelling is funnier) ether:

If the Arctic ice shelf melts as seems to be happening, and if (I use this word only to be open-minded in the face of scientific consensus) fossil fuels have contributed to this phenomenen, are we dealing with tragedy or comedy if we drill for those now accessible additional deposits and use them and spill more stuff into the atmosphere, which will cause more melting, etc?

Because if the results of this are not tragedy, then they must be some sort of broad comedy. So, will it be O.K. if a cackle and guffaw when stuff happens?

Or will that be politically incorrect?

There is never just one question.

[Edward]

That's a good question John, but it requires a separate context to do it justice.

The argument for drilling in ANWR is that we are NOT going to conserve or cut back our consumption, and that any efforts to curb the effects of consuming that oil on global warming will need to come from new technology or other as yet unavailable sources.

The argument for dilling in ANWR is that the 19% chance of extracting enough to provide 4% of our nations needs is a risk worth chucking the concept of a Wildlife Refuge out the window.

Did you know, however, that only after oil is above $25 / barrel, is drilling in ANWR profitable...that efforts to lower the price of oil below that actually work against the viability of drilling there? That only by keeping the price at $25 / barrel or higher does it make any sense at all?

Of course the price is nearly twice that now, so it's a mute question, but it wasn't when Bush first suggested it. Back then, he either was counting on the price staying above that mark, or he expected some as yet unavailable technology for extracting it more cheaply to emerge.

[Edward]

mute = moot (I'll never get that one)

[Christopher Columbus]

At last, I will sail the Northwest Passage.

[John Thullen]

That's O.K.

Sometimes my questions should be muted, especially the ones that have been mooted.

[Slartibartfast]

Sounds like a mooty blues revival in here.

[John Thullen]

By the way, Edward, I will permit "dilling" on my ANWAR tract, but no drilling.
iu7654

[John Thullen]

"iu7654"?

That's code for I spilled grape juice on my keyboard and wiped it up with my sleeve.

Now, look, could you people pipe down so I can get some work done.

Back to thread.

[Edward]

At last, I will sail the Northwest Passage.

Yeah, but your reward for having waited will be a Starbuck's and a Super K-Mart waiting to fulfill your needs at the Caribou Head Mall. And don't forget to save some extra Spanish gold to spend at the ANWR Northcoast Casino and Resorts. I hear their Legends of the Ice Roads spectcular is a must-see.

[vida]

I wonder what the temperature in Crawford, Texas will be when there are beach front resorts on the Arctic. Oh well, at least we really don't have to worry much about the effect on the wildlife up there, because they are all short timers now. Too bad caribou can't vote.

[crionna]

Sounds like a mooty blues revival in here.

Ugh, now my moot ring is turning black...

[Jon H]

Perhaps we should save it until we really need it.

When Americans haven't hardly begun trying to economize, it's nowhere near time to drill in ANWR. When Hummers and escalades are still selling, it's not time to drill in ANWR.

(Note: never mind any moral condemnation of Hummers and Escalade drivers. The point is that the market viability of such vehicles is a strong signal that oil is still cheap. If oil is cheap, it's not time to drill in ANWR. If the day comes when those vehicles are being sent, unsold, from the sales lot to the scrap heap, because gas is too expensive - that's when it's time to drill in ANWR.)

The time to develop it will be when China starts eying ANWR for a hostile takeover.

Call it the Really, Really, Really Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

[Edward]

you're my kind of conservationist, Jon H.

[Bill]

America ...integrity....funny stuff these days.

[tom]

Colorado just established a record in drilling this year. No doubt the same is true for the rest of the Rocky Mountain West. So don't these fuckers have enough for now?

I have never understood the drill America first gang. Why not drain Saudi Arabia first, not to mention Iraq.

Much of Wyoming is being destroyed by methane gas drilling. It would seem that we've focused so much on ANWR that we have sacrificed much of the West. Kerry even indicated that drilling would be unrestrained in his campaign, the only exception being ANWR.

In short, ANWR has diverted us from the fact that the West has become a national sacrifice area.

Yes, we should not drill in ANWR. But it does not appear that the Democrats, much less the Republicans or Bush care about the rest of the country or planet for that matter.

We will not sacrifice one job to combat global warming. But we will sacrifice a whole region for a few more years of that poison that is destroying the planet.

We are indeed an evil race and will be destroyed in time.

[Jadegold]

I say let 'em drill in AK.

They're a red state; let 'em wallow in the mess they'll create. It's apparent they've forgotten the lessons of the Exxon Valdez. Let 'em self-inflict another eco-tragedy.

[hilzoy]

tom: posting rules prohibit profanity. This isn't just because we're squeamish, or even because we don't like what not having this rule might mean in heated political discussions, but because some of us read this at work, behind content filters.

[lgl]

Reference 'Green Facade': There are Power plants operating today, which were supposed to be phased out in 1990. Bush gave them a new lease on life during the California energy shortage. They are still running, and neither Republican or Democrat says a word. Drilling in Alaska will be the cheapest possible to get the Oil, you can trust George W. for this fact even if the habitat is as full of life as a nuclear waste facility. lgl

[cleek]

Ugh, now my moot ring is turning black

cause here you come on your broom
my moot ring's turning brown
you will begin to feel it soon
you're tossing your seeds around

[Jonas Cord]

We will not sacrifice one job to combat global warming. But we will sacrifice a whole region for a few more years of that poison that is destroying the planet.

That "poison" puts food on your table and a roof over your head. Are you volunteering to give up your job?

Drilling in ANWR seems pointless and destructive to me, but give me a break.

We are indeed an evil race and will be destroyed in time.

Then who cares?

[Iron Lungfish]

Well, Arafat actually has died. You don't hve to update the other thread's title anymore.

[Thad Beier]

An interesting, but telling anecdote about drilling in ANWR, from the NY Times a couple of years ago.

It was possible to explore for oil in ANWR without doing extensive permanent damage to the permafrost. The companies doing the exploring built ice roads over the ground as soon as it got cold enough. These roads were several feet thick, and protected the ground from the trucks, cranes, and other drilling equipment. Once summer came, you couldn't tell that anybody had been there.

Note, though, that telling word "was" at the beginning of the previous paragraph. Just 15 years ago, when this exploration started, they could start building the ice roads in November. At that date, it was consistently cold enough to build the ice roads. After a few years, though, the companies noticed that they really had to wait until December. Then January, then February. Finally, now, it *never* gets cold enough, long enough, to build the ice roads.

Thad Beier

[Stentor]

Given how marginally economical the drilling would be, I've long been skeptical that proponents are taking that position because of pragmatic or economic reasons. I think for many, compromising the integrity of the Wildlife Refuge idea is exactly the point. It's a symbolic triumph over the idea of public land and valuing the environment.

[Edward]

I think for many, compromising the integrity of the Wildlife Refuge idea is exactly the point. It's a symbolic triumph over the idea of public land and valuing the environment.

That had never occurred to me.

It makes sense, given how some conservatives view "property rights" (especially when they're in a position to acquire more property).

What a pathetic commentary on our national character.