The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) spans 19 million acres in northeast Alaska and is home to a wide variety of animals such as caribou, golden eagles, wolves, grizzly bears, whales, polar bears, musk oxen and more than 130 species of migratory birds.
Unfortunately for these animals, they share their home with enough economically recoverable oil to fill 11 to 13 billion barrels-11 to 13 billion barrels that Bush is eager to get his hands on.
Even though several species in the area are protected by international treaties or agreements, there is increased interest in the area from Congress to open the area to gas and oil development.
Bush supports oil drilling in ANWR, which would add to domestic production but would not be enough to replace imports. Kerry opposes opening ANWR to oil drilling. Aren’t these rather drastic measures? Isn’t there another way?
Yes, actually. There are 700 million barrels of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which Kerry supports using to help lower oil prices. Bush is opposed to this, though. He says those reserves should only be used in the event of a supply disruption.
His mentality calls a childhood incident to mind. Whenever I got my allowance, my mom made me put a percentage of it into a savings jar. She would always say, “It’s for a rainy day.” Well, Mr. President, when Congress is about to resort to drilling away the home of thousands of animals, I would call that a rainy day.
I’ve heard reasoning backing Bush’s logic that saddens me. “They’re just animals. Humans take greater priority.” Or “We need oil more than we need those animals.” Go ahead and stick me in a broomstick skirt, Birkenstocks and floral garland for my hair if you must, but I believe the animals have more of a right to the land than we do.
A report issued in 1987 called the Final Legislative Impact Statement (FLEIS) stated that, “The Arctic Refuge is the only conservation system unit that protects, in an undisturbed condition, a complete spectrum of the arctic ecosystems in North America.”
The land is protected from oil and gas development by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), unless intervention is authorized by an act of Congress. Congress attempted to open the lands to drilling in 1996 but Clinton vetoed the measure, citing the ANILCA as one of his reasons.
It is true that in recent years less environmentally obtrusive methods of oil drilling have been developed, but for people who claim this is a pro of drilling in ANWR should read the fine print. An industrial site would obviously change the appearance and natural character of the refuge. There would be needs for gravel, irrigation, permanent roads, port facilities and airstrips.
The aesthetic effects and destruction of habitat wouldn’t be the only cons of oil drilling. Based on other experiences of oil drilling in wild animal habitats, it appears that animals, specifically caribou, seek out gravel roads as protection from insect attacks, which leads to the death of many animals. On the other hand, cows and caribou with young calves avoid roads and human disturbance. In ANWR the calving area is small and would be lost if oil drilling facilities were built over them, which would lead to ceased reproduction of the cows and caribou.
Oil field operators also note that oil spills may occur. And everyone at some point has seen a photo of a bird or sea animal soaked in oil from a spill. How could anyone be supportive of measures that yield those results?
If Bush is re-elected and this decision passes with approval, the American people can be confident in knowing that while we’ve just killed a shocking number of endangered species. It’s all peachy because we still have 700 million barrels of oil for that “rainy day” that’s looming somewhere in the future.
Erin Clyburn is a sophomore English major. She can be reached at [email protected].