|
opinion
Arctic
drilling must be stopped
For over five decades, Republican politicians have pushed
the issue of drilling in the Arctic to minimize the import
of crude oil, regardless of the ecological consequences.
The issue of drilling
in the Arctic has ecologists, scientists, animal rights activists
and me up in arms over the ongoing battle to drill America's
largest and last wildlife refuge. According to the Defenders
of Wildlife Website, the refuge spans over 19.6 million acres,
protecting only 10 percent of Alaska's coastline, leaving
the other 90 percent open to drilling.
According to the Defenders Website, this arrangement came
about in 1957 during Eisenhower's presidency when Secretary
of the Interior Fred Seaton set aside the refuge for wildlife
and, in turn, awarded the oil companies 20 million acres for
drilling. The protection of wildlife in the Arctic has long
been seen as a necessity to preserve the delicate ecosystem.
Caribou have traveled over 300 miles from Canada for hundreds
of generations to make the Arctic coastal plain their birthing
grounds. Polar bears rear their young there and both tundra
swans common on the East Coast and Savannah sparrows common
in the South have used the Arctic coast as their home in the
warm seasons.
Defenders also state that the threat to the ecosystem, far
beyond the displacement of wildlife, is the threat to the
land itself. The oil operations currently underway in Alaska
spew out more than 56,000 tons of nitrogen oxide, which is
the source of acid rain, 24,000 tons of the greenhouse gas
methane and 45,000 gallons of crude oil, diesel fuel, propane
and ethylene glycol per year. (Numbers were provided from
1999 findings).
Regardless of the damage to the ecosystem, politicians still
press the issue of drilling in the Arctic stating that the
need for anonymity of the United States from our current oil
suppliers is imperative. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge News,
a supporter of Arctic drilling, states on its Web site that
drilling is important because:
• Only eight
percent of the northern coast would be opened up for drilling.
• Drilling
would enhance federal revenues by billions of dollars.
• Jobs would
be created in the region.
• It is a
good chance for America to discover oil on its own soil and
reach further independence from crude oil nations in the Middle
East, especially since current domestic oil production has
fallen 25 percent.
• Arctic technology
has greatly reduced the risk of harm to ecosystem in the process
of drilling.
My rebuttal to ANWR:
• While only
eight percent of the coast would be added to the drilling
territory, the sum amount of Arctic drilling remains above
90 percent of the region.
• The ecological
devastation cannot be remedied by any amount of money.
• The oil
drilling companies already provide the majority of jobs in
the region.
• Supporters
worry about oil imports from the Middle East but forget to
mention that Venezuela is on of the top three importers of
American oil, according to the ANWR Website.
• Technology
has not reduced the risk of arm to the ecosystem when 45,000
gallons of crude oil, diesel fuel, propane and ethylene glycol
were spilled in 1999 alone.
The facts remain that drilling in the Arctic is unnecessary
and extremely detrimental to the ecosystem and the wildlife.
According to a non-partisan poll by the Republican Terrance
Group and Democratic Greenburg Quinlan Research on voter's
views on many environmental issues, those who responded said
our nation should declare the Arctic refuge a national monument
and preserve oil drilling by a two-to-one margin.
Two-thirds of voters polled and I agree that the Arctic refuge
should remain untainted by oil companies, and the preservation
of America's last wildlife refuge is priceless to our nation.
Write to your local senator and support the preservation of
the Arctic refuge so that the splendor of nature will be available
to enjoy in all its beauty for years to come.
Holli Kolkey is a public relations major at Cal State Long
Beach.
|
