One Flew

Short-term pain often leads to long-term gain. If we as a country are prepared to

experience some minor pain and inconvenience now, we can prepare the way for

long-term energy policies that will make us a stronger and more secure nation. A good

place to start changing our views on energy is in the debate over drilling in the Alaska

National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Although there are perceived benefits to developing

oil reserves in ANWR, it would not reduce our dependence on foreign oil and there would be very high detrimental effects on the environment and wildlife living in that region both of which would greatly suffer.

The impact of drilling in ANWR, one of the world’s few remaining untainted and

undeveloped areas would be devastating. The fish and wildlife service describe this area

as, “…among the most complete, pristine, and undisturbed ecosystems on earth. Here

coastal lagoons, barrier islands, artic tundra, foothills, mountains, and boreal forests

provide a combination of habitats, climate and geography unmatched by any other

northern conservation area,” (Messerli 5). By drilling in this region, the government would

put the entire area at risk. Drilling would advance the indisputable trend of permafrost

and melting ice, causing shorter winters and less snow. These changes will no doubt

affect the area’s entire ecosystem, (Congressional Digest 6). “Data from the Alaska

Department of Conservation show that the trans-Alaska and Prudhoe Bay oil fields have

had an annual average of 409 spills sine 1996 of everything from crude oil to acid.

Current oil operations in Alaska’s North Slope every year emit about 56,427 tons of

nitrous oxides, which cause smog and acid rain, and release up to 110,000 tons of

methane, a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming,” (Chance 3). The men and

machines producing oil in the region could destroy a fragile ecosystem like ANWR.

The oil would negatively impact the wildlife living in this region

exploration and production. Specifically, drilling on the coastal plain would disrupt the

life of the porcupine caribou living in the area. The coastal plain is the caribou’s main

area for calving and “…researchers have shown that caribou calf survival rates drop

significantly when the herd is unable to calf on the coastal plain.” The porcupine caribou

herd could be reduced by as much as fifty percent in a single generation, according to

some estimates, eventually leading to extinction (Rozell). Drilling would also hurt snow

geese in the ANWR area. The proposed drilling area is currently a landing point for

molting geese. A letter to President Bush signed by 506 scientists stated, “… snow geese

might be displaced from important feeding and staging habitats prior to autumn

migration, increasing energy expenditure and reducing their ability to accumulate the fat

needed for migration,” (DeVries 4). Even President Bush, a long time advocate for drilling

in this area stated that, “ This unique compression of habitats concentrates the occurrence

of a wide variety of wildlife and fish species… In fact according to the FWS, the Arctic

Refuge coastal plain contains the greatest wildlife diversity of any protected area above

the artic circle,” (Boucher 5). When even the proponents of drilling in ANWR question the impact on wildlife, the effect is clearly significant.

Many people believe that drilling in ANWR would reduce our dependency on

foreign sources of oil, when in fact; drilling would actually increase our dependence on

foreign oil. Americans use about twenty-six percent of the world’s oil, but only supply

about 3.5 percent of it. Oil from ANWR would only add about 0.4 percent to the world’s

oil reserve, (Messerli 3). Furthermore, the oil would not even reach the refinery for at least ten years, and it would take about five more years for the oil to make it to the open

market,