Levi A. Kropf Fall 2005
Outline
I. Introduction
Thesis: It is
imperative that the refuge is kept as is and not developed for the exploitation
of the natural resources that it contains, given that this exploitation will have
irreversible and adverse consequences: instead the focus should be on
conservation and judicious, efficient use of oil, as well as the development of
sustainable forms of energy.
A. History of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
III. Issues
A. Wildlife
C. Pollution
F. Economy
IV. Conclusion
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is arguably the nation’s last truly wild piece of land that has been relatively unscathed by human activity, with the exception of native people’s who have lived there for centuries. ANWR is located in the northeastern corner of
A monumental year
for the refuge occurred in 1960 under the Eisenhower administration; the
Secretary of the Interior signed a bill setting aside 8.9 million acres in
northeastern
With the 1960’s
came a variety of changes across the board, especially in environmental
policy. Part of that change came in
environmental legislation that is still in place today, and has been essential
in maintaining the nation’s natural resources.
In 1964 the Wilderness Act was signed by Lyndon Johnson, which created
the National Wilderness
Preservation System that set forth specific guidelines for areas declared as
‘Wilderness’. Johnson signed a second
bill in 1968 called the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, outlining specific criteria
for river systems, which protects them according to the designated river
type. There are three types of rivers,
wild, scenic, and recreational. These
two acts have been integral to keeping lands and rivers protected and as wild
as possible, for the sake of protecting the nation’s natural resources. (U.S. FWS Timeline, 2005)
Following the two previous
acts legislation dealing more specifically with the refuge followed. Nixon became involved with the refuge in 1971
when he passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), which gave the
Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation (KIC) surface rights to over 92,000 acres, of
which almost 70,000 are in the wildlife range. In 1980 Jimmy Carter voted to
expand the range to 18 million acres, as well as declare the original 8.9
million acres as wilderness, as outlined in the 1964 act. Three wild rivers
within the refuge were also declared as ‘wild’ rivers according to the 1968
act, putting them under the highest levels of protection. The name of the region was also changed from
the
From the mid nineties until
now the refuge has been a subject of debate.
In1995 Congress passed legislation to open the refuge to drilling;
however, this was vetoed by President Clinton and shut down. President Clinton took some initiative in
1997 signing the “National Wildlife Refuge Systems Improvement Act”. This act provides guidelines specifically for
the refuge systems in order that it can carry out its work more effectively. The act also established a mission for the
National Wildlife Refuge System, “to administer a national network of lands and
waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of
fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the
Following the National
Wildlife Refuge Systems Improvement Act, in 1997 the Supreme Court also
reaffirmed that the barrier islands off of the coast of the refuge are also a
part of the refuge and are not exempt of the protection that the refuge
currently enjoys. At this point the
issue appeared to be at rest. However,
President Bush used the September 11 attacks on the
Currently congress is working
hard at pushing provisions through in order to open the refuge for development;
however it is also working hard at not letting that legislation through. Most recently an ANWR provision has been attached
to a budget resolution bill that has been passed by the house (April 2005), and
by the Senate, but with “no ANWR provision” (June 2005). However there are still many proposals in
process, as well as proposals to officially declare area 1002 as wilderness,
thus protecting the plain completely from development (Baldwin,
Corn, Gelb, 2005).
With the
growing demand for oil, the current instability; in the largest oil producing
countries, and growing unrest within the greater global community about the
The refuge is home to various types of wildlife including caribou herds, polar bear, grizzly bear, muskoxen, dall sheep, wolves, wolverines, snow geese, peregrine falcons, other migratory birds, dolly varden, and grayling (U.S. FWS Home, 2005). The species that are potentially under the most threat, while all are threatened in some way, are the caribou herds, polar bears, muskoxen and snow geese (DeVries, Lutz, 2005). The porcupine caribous herd migrates to the plain in late spring for the birthing of their calves, this herd is the main food source for native peoples living in the region. The plain is the site at which pregnant polar bears come inland to dig their dens and then give birth to their cubs in December or January. All the while the plain is the year round home to muskoxen. (Sierra Club, 2005) All of these animals, and more would be greatly affected by opening the plain to drilling (U.S. FWS Issues, 2005).
The
coastal plain has been referred to as “the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge
for wildlife and is the center of wildlife activity” (Llanos,
2004). The 1002 Area is critically
important to the ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge, one of many
statements from the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s ‘Issues Report’. This was followed by an explanation of how
fragile the ecosystems of the plain are.
Addressing specific cases where these ecosystems would be affected, such
as in the building of drill pads, infrastructure, housing, etc. One specific thing they cited has having the
greatest effect on the vegetation of the plain is the seismic testing that
needs to be done in order to pinpoint reserves.
This testing requires testing vehicles to drive in grid patterns over
the plain. This would be done in the
winter while under cover of snow and ice; however there is still much damage
that can occur while doing testing.
Regardless the point remains that drilling will have adverse affects on
the plain, which is vital to the entire refuge (U.S. FWS
Issues, 2005).
Numerous
potential problems with pollution occur when drilling for oil. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service
says, in an “Issues Report” written in 2001, “although oil and gas exploration
technologies have reduced some of the harmful environmental effects associated
with those [exploration technologies], oil and gas development remains an
intrusive industrial process”. This
report moves on to discussing the issues faced due to the geographical features
of the plain. “According to the U.S.
Geological Survey, possible oil reserves may be located in many small
accumulations in complex geological formations, rather than in one giant field
as was discovered at Prudhoe Bay.” This
in turn would increase the need for and extensive “infrastructure of roads,
pipelines, power plants, processing facilities, loading docks, dormitories,
airstrips, gravel pits, utility lines and landfills.” Of which all have their own obvious tax on
the already fragile region (U.S. FWS Issues, 2005).
The native
people that live in and around the refuge depend mainly on certain wildlife as
their main food source. Currently the
group of native people most closely associated with the Arctic Refuge is the
Kaktovikmiut people. They created the
Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation and live in the city of
Moving on
to broader issues affecting more than just the refuge, some members from the
current administration have raised concerns for national security and how that
relates to the United States dependency on foreign oil (U.S.
DOI, 2001). This issue of national
security ultimately has been made into an umbrella over the issues listed
above, including dependency on foreign oil, and creating US jobs. Although concern for national security is
currently at its peak and arguably waning, drilling for oil in the refuge will
have no effect on this security within the next ten years. Furthermore the amount of oil that will
potentially be initially recovered will amount to one seventh of a percent of
the oil produced in the world, and approximately 2% of what is annually
consumed in the
This seems to be quite a small amount of oil to be going to such great lengths and expense to recover. It would also cause significant damage to fragile ecosystems and none of the oil will reach any market in reality until 2020. This alone is enough to dispel the argument for national security and reasons for drilling in the refuge.
Currently
the
There
are roughly eight alternative fuels being produced on some level today that do
not require drilling for more oil. The United States Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy defined these eight alternatives fuel sources in 1992 under the
Energy Policy Act (EPAct) as: biodiesel (B20), compressed natural gas (CNG),
electricity, ethanol (E85), hydrogen, liquefied natural gas (LNG), liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG), and methanol (M85).
Currently these fuels are produced in some capacity in the
The issue behind these different fuels is that they are not as readily available as crude oil currently, this on the basis that the oil industry is receiving larger subsidies to fuel exploration and continuation of production. The promotion, production, and use of these fuels becoming more prevalent will assist in the conservation of gasoline. In turn as use grows and demand for these types of fuels increase in the years to come, further development and increased production efficiencies are expected.
It
could be argued today, that oil is the world’s most precious economic resource
and it is entirely necessary to go to great lengths for its recovery. However, it could also be argued that since
oil is a non-renewable resource it is foolish to spend billions of dollars, as
well as taking away valuable pieces of land and wildlife and ecosystems that
can never be returned to what they once were.
Yet this practice is, by no means, far from uncommon. Nor is the
Unfortunately
this oil that the
Another very real and very hopeful prospect for conservation is the introduction of the hybrid vehicle into the American auto market. Vehicles boasting gas mileage as high at 70 miles per gallon make a world of difference when it comes to conserving gasoline. As cars are developed and mistakes corrected hopefully automakers can champion the hybrid and apply the idea to all vehicle types including trucks and SUVs.
The field of renewable resources is a broad field, and one that has not been focused upon nearly enough, in the areas of research and development as well as the governmental subsidization for these energy sources. However there are some tax incentives already in place for people looking to buy a hybrid vehicle, which gives up to a $3,000 tax credit to those purchasing a hybrid (US DOE/EERE Incentives, 2005). All that is to say that perhaps with a diversion of subsidies towards alternative energy options such as wind, water, solar forms of energy there will be an increase in the usage, thus a decrease in reliance on fossil fuels.
Looking
more specifically at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge it has been made clear
between government agencies that opening this area up to exploration and
drilling for oil will have seriously detrimental effects on that area and the
wildlife and ecosystems that make it up.
It would be a tragedy to see what is arguably
All this is to raise the question of why is the current administration still pursuing this treasured piece of land while we have many other outlets for increasing our energy reserves. Perhaps it is time for big oil to take a step down from having the upper hand in legislation and share the floor with healthy alternatives to oil that are not only renewable but also have less environmental impact on all levels.
(ANWR): Controversies for the 109th Congress [Electronic
Version] CRS Issue Brief For
Congress. Retrieved
http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/data/2005/upl-meta-crs-6857/IB10136_2005Jul15.pdf
City of
http://www.kaktovik.com/ourland.html
DeVries, Brad, Lutz, William. (2005) Scientists urge "permanent protection" of Refuge.
Retrieved
Energy Information Association (EIA). Department of Energy (DOE). Country Analysis Brief.
(2005) Retrieved November 2, 2005 from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html
Energy
Information Association (EIA). (DOE). The Effects of the
Provisions of H.R.4 and S.1766 on
from http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/aong/anwr.html
Llanos, Miguel. (2004) Bets are on for Drilling in the Arctic Refuge. MSNBC News. Retrieved
Sierra Club. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Arctic Wildlife. (n.d.) Retrieved October 25,
2005 from http://www.sierraclub.org/arctic/justthefacts/wildlife.asp
Retrieved
Retrieved
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/progs/view_ind_fed.cgi?afdc/318/0
2005 from http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/progs/fuelcompare.cgi
from http://www.doi.gov/news/opeds/opeds10312001.html
Development on the Arctic
Refuge's Coastal Plain: Historical Overview and Issues of
Concern. (2001) Retrieved
http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm#section4
11, 2005
from http://arctic.fws.gov/timeline.htm